Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Anonymous editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Bishzilla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Indefinite_block.2Fban_of_FT2

Posted by: Somey

Good thing he already has a WR account! That should save him some time.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

unblocked 10 minutes later by another admin.

Posted by: trenton

....and unblocked by crony Scarian...

Incidentally anybody want to start a pool on the word count of FT2's "clarification"? My guess is 20,404 words which will probably amount to the Essjay defense of "I had to lie to protect myself and my family from the uber-evil WR stalkers"

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I guess the WikiDramaQuotient (WDQ) had dropped too low, what with the ArbCom elections being over and all.

Posted by: Peter Damian

F--- I was just going to bed how dare she do that.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

This is going to be fun.

Posted by: SirFozzie

.... WHAFUCK????

15 edit conflicts before I could post.

ANI Go Boom!

I hope Bishonen thought long and hard about the amount of heat she's about to take before she did this.

Posted by: everyking

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

Posted by: Dzonatas

I thought there was an ArbCom decision that admins shouldn't undo actions of other admins because it would be a wheel-war and lead to suspension of sysop bits and such. (Connely & George)

Posted by: Anonymous editor

reading the thread.

Spot on.

Posted by: cyofee

Bishonen just followed WP:BOLD.

Posted by: EricBarbour

It's good to see that more people are starting to talk about FT2's insane behaviour.
He still has his brown-nosers, but general opinion seems to be moving against him.

About time, after FIVE YEARS of his backstabbing and meaningless verbal diarrhea.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump/Arbitration_Committee_Feedback#FT2 13 votes of confidence, 63 votes of no confidence.....

Posted by: written by he who wrote it

Clearly she's fed up with FT2's inability (or deliberate refusal) to give a straightforward answer to an apparently simple question. My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

Posted by: SirFozzie

There's also been WP:REVERT, and now we're on WP:DISCUSSing how unnecessarily BOLD and ill-advised it was.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

Posted by: Dzonatas

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

Hypocrisy at a finest.

Posted by: SirFozzie

That is the first time I've seen ANI full protected due to excessive usage.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever been sanctioned for wheel-warring for undoing a single admin action (that hadn't already been undone). According to the letter of [[WP:WHEEL]], wheel-warring doesn't actually start until somebody redoes an admin action that has already been undone once, and I believe that's usually how it's enforced (when it's enforced).

Posted by: Anonymous editor

agree

Posted by: trenton

The block should have been labeled as "Arbitration Enforcement"

Posted by: SirFozzie

Correct. There's an additional caveat , however, that undoing an Arbitration Committee Action (or an ArbCom Enforcement action, which by default is an arbitration action) unilaterally without discussion is considered a "Real Bad Thing." (That came out recently)

Posted by: Anonymous editor

sarcasticidealist (who is here and I'm sure will comment) put AN/I back on semi-protection.

also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Protection_of_ANI

Posted by: EricBarbour

damn, this is one hot topic.

FT2 finally did it. He's become the OJ Simpson of Arbcom.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

I actually misunderstood Tznkai's protection summary ("temporary halting high traffic to subpage"). I thought he meant that he was halting high traffic *to* a subpage (that being ANI). It didn't occur to me that "subpage" could be used as a verb. If I'd understood his summary properly, I wouldn't have unprotected. Oh well.

Posted by: written by he who wrote it

To shine a big effin' spotlight on FT2's bad behavior? To force FT2, and the arbcom, to quit stalling and either admit to misuse of oversight or explain why it wasn't actually a misuse? It's http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DirectAction.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

It is bullying IMHO, what reason did she give? No-one can say he's disruptive, exceptionally, as an editor.

Posted by: Dzonatas

Found the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yeah, as in

Shame the flaming Godzilla version of Bish never made it to sysop, or the block could have been done by "it" as an even more drawwhmaitc move. Zoophilia fought with a radioactive Japanese monstermovie creature. Hmmm. Appropriate.

Posted by: Black Kite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Bishzilla

Posted by: Anonymous editor

the block was done by Bishzilla. Bishonen doesn't perform admin activities except through her sock.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

It was done by it - she had the bit transferred.

Posted by: JoseClutch

I never would have expect to see you in the "longstanding contributors should be unaccountable for their actions" crowd, who seem to be the ones advocating this hogwash.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yikes. Should have checked. Too many times when I parody or satirize WP for the lulz, I find the real thing has already equalled or outdone me.

Posted by: Dzonatas

*gasp*

Posted by: everyking

Accountable to the community. Not to Bishonen acting as an individual admin. Bishonen could propose action to the community, but it's unacceptable for her to make the judgment and carry out the sentence without any community deliberation.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Jimbo has already stated he's not going to act on this.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

Posted by: everyking

Durova's summary in the RfAr is excellent. She correctly observes that any action against FT2 should be taken after due deliberation and not on the say-so of a lone admin. She even points out Bishonen's inappropriate use of a joke account to carry out admin actions.

Posted by: Moulton

This scenario is exemplary of what I call a http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/on-the-theory-of-polionic-systems/3iyoslgwsp412/14#.

Posted by: Viridae

Its not a ban.

Posted by: Hipocrite

It doesn't take 2 months to answer a simple yes or no question about a knowing lie you told 6 months ago.

It takes 2 months to hope that the people who are gunning for you go away. FT2s answer can be assumed - "Yes, I did know." FT2s excuse can be assumed

"meaningless words x 10000"

Posted by: Viridae

Oh every time I go away for a day or two a huge dramafest occurs.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Well then, don't go anywhere anymore!

(bans Viridae)

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

No it isn't. It's shite. It reads like your interminable WikiDefender-style contributions to this thread. Which is disappointing, as you're usually quite un-dull.

Posted by: Dzonatas

Guess FT2 could be like that guard that shot Grant in L.A. BART station. When the guard was approached with the situation that he had to answer questions... he resigned to avoid it.

Posted by: Somey

Los Angeles has a BART station? Damn, that must be one long-ass subway system!

Still, not to miss the point or anything... I've always wondered why he doesn't just deny the whole "zoophile" thing. I mean, it's Wikipedia, not some high-tone country club for rich social climbers. Failure to deny is probably the same as an outright admission to most people there, and here too for that matter. And if it turns out the denial is false, so what? It's Wikipedia, not some high-tone court of law for people who have actual reputations to protect!

Posted by: Dzonatas

The RFArb seems to call this an attempt to desysop/block Bishonen, which would mean FT2 could avoid the question with this distraction call.

Posted by: Cla68

If no one has said so already, I'll point out that this is an attempt to put more pressure on FT2 by stirring the pot to try to get more community members involved with it and to try to force the issue to a head.

Bishonen/Bishzilla, Giano, and SlimVirgin, among a few others, don't appear to like FT2 very much and appear to want him off the Committee, perhaps even off of Wikipedia altogether. He has made some mistakes, but I personally don't understand the level of vitriol directed at him. In my three years of participation in Wikipedia, I think I've seen much worse behavior from other "established" editors.

Posted by: cyofee

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Politely asking FT2 to answer the infamous question only got people an eye strain.

Posted by: Dzonatas

Let's say a user has been blocked, and evidence was provided. An admin reviews the block as an appeal. The admin refuses to answer a certain question about the block, which then keeps that user indefinitely blocked since the answer would provide evidence.

That could be obstruction of justice in court law. In Wikipedia however, it would be simply disruptive to cause someone to remain blocked by refusal to answer a question.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this.

I'm sure B didn't think this block wold solve the problem, just bring it up front and center.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

that's friggin' stupid. There are much better means of achieving that end.

Posted by: Viridae

For those who need a refresher, this is why I said that the block of FT2 was not a ban (in a message to Moulton):

A ban is not a physical impediment (though it involves one) it is an agreement among the members of the community that comment that they no longer want X person to participate in any form. It therefore requires further agreement to be overturned. (it can also occur without discussion if no person with the ability to do so (ie an admin) feels inclined to overturn an indefinite block) - I think that might be your case. The latter type (a defacto ban) can technically be overturned by any admin. The former type cannot. This block fits neither of those cases because there is neither an agreement nor an unwillingness to unblock - in this case it was an indefinite (ie of undefined but not necessarily infinite length) block which was quickly overturned.

Posted by: written by he who wrote it

And those are. . .? He's been delaying the requested answer for months, despite numerous inquiries; Bishonen's frustration is quite understandable.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

There probably should be, but this is Wikipedia w'ere talking about. Generating drama is really the only way to get attention to an issue, provided that you're not already either rich or powerful (in which case you can get attention by calling/threatening Jimmy).

Posted by: Moulton

Ever since the advent of legal thinking about bans was first carved into stone tablets (some 3769 years ago), the party enacting the ban was obliged to prove just cause. Failing to present a valid proof of just cause not only invalidated the ban, it subjected the would-be banner to the death penalty. This was not just some random law. This was literally the very first law ever carved into stone tablets.

What we see at Wikipedia is a manipulation of the practice of blocking/banning/blacklisting that verges on corruption. A community ban would at least correspond to a Parliamentary Bill of Attainder (a practice forbidden by Article I of the US Constitution and also abandoned by the British legal system). Capricious blocks, predicated on the presumption that the community would then become hopelessly deadlocked, is not a very intelligent way to manage a 21st Century community that purports to be manifesting the sum of all human knowledge under the umbrella of a tax-exempt educational non-profit. Do the donors appreciate that Wikipedia is teaching 21st Century youth to engage in corrupt political practices that were already going out of style 3769 years ago?

Posted by: Cla68

Has anyone linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2#Necessary_Clarification statement by Thatcher yet? Here's the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFT2&diff=263932518&oldid=263914353 so that it can still be read if it's archived or deleted.

Posted by: trenton

Called it! Fourth post. WR make such good villains to excuse anything.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

Go see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22368

Posted by: Peter Damian

Given that the oversighted edits had nothing relating to privacy (they were simply edits to an article), and that the reason for the oversight was simply to obliterate the fact that FT2 was their author (and in consequence shifting the apparent authorship to a third party), and given, therefore, that the oversights were against policy and should therefore be reversed, why are people still saying things like this? There should be no problem about revealing their contents.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Aha -

SV has filed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FT2

which makes the whole thing very clear. Good.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Ah! So you've finally "got" what's being said. Well done.


Yes. So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Aha! I have it. FT2 is actually Alberto Gonzales.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Yeah! Thanks, mate. Much obliged. But why, in a message to Moulton, did you say that the block of FT2 was not a ban?

(Hey. I'm just yankin' your chain). But .......... I have to say that it really does all sound like a bunch of Wiki wankery. The explanation of the silly process, I mean. No offence intended to you, though yes offence to Wikipedia and its labyrinthine rules, or whatever they are.

Posted by: Sylar

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

Posted by: Friday

The issue of which account was used seems like a trivial thing to me- simply a distraction. Who cares about such unimportant details?

The block.. well, it's not what I'd have done, but it was certainly bold direct action. Misuse of tools? Perhaps, but she did _one_ bold thing and reported it at AN/I. This does not warrant any censure.

It certainly brought attention to the issue again. As for whether it was a good idea or not, I don't think we know yet. It's going to depend how it turns out.

Posted by: Dzonatas

You'd think by this time the forum would be taken off of Wikipedia and moved to another Wikimedia project.... just to keep Wikipedia's purpose pure.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

Though the case looks likely to be rejected, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&curid=438960&diff=264079904&oldid=264065452 in advocating acceptance may be of interest.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I like how he fashions sanctions before the decision to even hear the case is made. This is the very model of efficiency. Might as well dispose of "evidence" and opportunity to be heard if it is only going to mangled by a crappy "made up as you go along" process in any event.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yeah, but it used to be the other way around. People never would have passed Bishonen's Godzilla account at an RfA (though why not exactly, escapes me). Letting the account with the "respectable" persona ( ) go up for, and pass, an adminship "election", THEN trading bits for the two accounts on grounds that they are the same person anyway, seems like cheating to me. Again, the reason being that this could not have been done from the outset-- the community would not have allowed it directly-- so why should it be allowed to happen the sneaky way?

And god knows we wouldn't want to have cheating or lack of fair play at Wikipedia.

Milt

Posted by: Viridae

It didn't happen for a long time though.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I got immediately that the goal was a huge dramafest. I posted that at the beginning.

What's friggin' stupid are Bishonen's actions. It shouldn't be difficult to grasp why.

You don't seem to understand that.

I can't really be troubled to explain it to you.

Thanks for proving http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22036&st=20&p=148873&#, though. We can now add January to the list.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

No you didn't.


No you didn't.


So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid. Though I do understand that poor old FT2 needs all the arse-kissing that he can get just now. Yes.


Good. Very good. You'd only confuse yourself. Again.


"We"?! I think you should contact the police. Someone has sneaked into your head - probably while you were friggin' sleeping / editing Wikipedia - and brutally stolen your friggin' humour gene. And probably lots of other things as well. Eh?

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Are you mentally disabled? Where did I say anything about FT2 and my opinion of him?


Thanks for proving http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22036&st=20&p=148873&#, though. We can now add January to the list.

"probably while you were friggin' sleeping / editing Wikipedia "

Editing Wikipedia? Really? I'll go out on a limb and say you have more edits in the last year to Wikipedia than I do.

Posted by: Milton Roe

So? That just makes it sneakier. If Bishilla couldn't have passed an RfA, Bishilla should not be able to finesse "itself" into getting the bit by some other means.

(Other than the old traditional ones of donating to, programming for, or gettting into bed somehow with Jimbo Wales).

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Agree completely. Also agree about admins sneakily "vanishing" and getting the bit transferred to their new accounts. That's happened like ten different times.

Posted by: tarantino

lol at http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=sherilyn++drama+queen&btnG=Search&sitesearch= lecturing Peter -

Peter, "Better shun the bait than struggle in the snare. — John Dryden"

Posted by: SirFozzie

Heh. Funny Red Dwarf reference.

Although I understand the motive behind Bishonen's block.. I think just bringing a AN notice that she found the lack of response distressing instead of a fait accompli block would have done almost as much for the cause, and focused a lot less of the resulting heat on her. But that's just my two braincells bashing together (they get lonely), and what do I know?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The "B Ark" is a Hitchhiker's reference, not a Red Dwarf one as far as I know. It's ironic that Tony/Sherilyn would undoubtedly be on the B Ark if Wikipedia ever made one.

Posted by: Somey

This is actually a side issue, and obviously JzG (T-C-L-K-R-D) has always had some problems with personal honesty and the accuracy of his accusations... but I couldn't help but notice this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FFT2&diff=264134232&oldid=264133911

Was any deleted revision ever posted to Wikipedia Review prior to the inception of the Oversight feature, in any amount of time after the deletion? I think I would have remembered that, at least if it had happened while I was here.

Obviously people refer to the existence of deleted revisions and occasionally comment on their contents, most notably with some of the SlimVirgin stuff relating to Lockerbie and the whole Weiss vs. Bagley brouhaha... and I realize Mr. Chapman is engaging in his usual irrational hyperbole here, of course. But it seems to me like we're normally the ones who are trying to bring these things to their attention, and make sure they stay deleted, aren't we?

Posted by: SirFozzie

my bad. (blame my work schedule for it, I'll post more on teh fun times I'm going through in the Lounge in a minute)

Posted by: Cla68

FT2 has posted a letter of resignation on Jimbo's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Open_letter_from_FT2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=264215325&oldid=264147855

Posted by: Somey

Yikes - I have to say, I wasn't expecting that. (Though the line about the "fair hearing with appropriate gravitas" is priceless!)

And he managed to do it in only 2,600 words, too...

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I got bored, but I think his little rant showed his fundamental lack of self-awareness which has always been at the bottom of his disputes.

I found the PoetLister section a classic - how he solved it all himself alone (is he therefore admitting that he was the one who hacked the private emails?) how this vital issue of international importance required him interfering with PL's employers at the highest level.

More generally all the good things we can never understand he did so perfectly because it is all private, so we just have to take his word for it. We have lost Wikipedia's most valuable asset, obviously.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

hmmm, I guess Bishonen got what she desired, then. I have no opinion on FT2. I never cared to form one.

I do hope that Bishzilla loses the tools, though. You can't block people for not answering a question and thinking that you can do it and get away with it is disastrously bad judgment.

All in all, I think Wikipedia would be better off with FT2 off ArbCom and Bishzilla out of the admin corps.

Posted by: Viridae

Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=264230337&oldid=264157476

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

For those sensible people who can't be arsed reading through the mind-numbing screed, here's a quick rundown of what he's saying in a nutshell :

Dear Jimmy,

It wasn't my fault. I've done some great stuff on Wikipedia, and if I could have my own way with Arbcom, and stuff, things would be perfect. I'm leaving the committee (before I get kicked off) but I fully expect to be re-instated sooner rather than later. Note that I'm not resigning my adminship or leaving Wiki. That would be silly because I'm great, and a victim of dreadful injustice.

Either way it is an honor serving the community, and I bear none ill-will (I'm lying to myself, really).

Aaaaaanyway ........... how about a special mention for Bishonen / Bishzilla in the forthcoming 3rd Annual awards? She's a heroine. Both of her.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

Fact: I hadn't even heard of Wikipedia Review when I made the post. The post did not mention FT2 directly. The post was entirely about ethical issues. The deception about Giano's email has already been taken up separately by Giano, as you can well imagine.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

But in part of his statement DG admitted to telling FT2 after he'd done the oversight, whiihh as FT2 claimed he never knew and didn't cover it in the timeline, seems to me the most telling bit.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Actually that bit was dickish, from FT2's POV.

Posted by: Moulton

What we have here is a failure to excommunicate.

FT2 has placed himself in an interesting position on the Carrollian Chess Board.

Has he resigned outright? Evidently not.

Has he merely recused himself from handling ArbCom business while there is a cloud looming over his head? Evidently not.

Rather he is "standing down" (whatever that means). Perhaps it's the opposite of "sitting up" or "not taking it lying down" or something not unlike that.

As I see it, he's in that strange twilight zone otherwise known as Limbo.

There is a classic passage in subtle dramas where the protagonist stands mute, not dumbfounded, but intentionally unresponsive to the insistent inquiries of the Spammish Inquisition.

In Zen Koans, the response would be "Mu" — a word that literally means "No Thing" but carries far more subtle connotations. Technically, it means that a question cannot be answered in a simple Yes/No manner because the question embraces a counterfactual, predicated on a lamentable misconception. But the misconception cannot be rectified, for reasons too complicated (or too sensitive) to explain in mere words.

Posted by: Peter Damian

No he has resigned. Read his reply to the request for clarification on Jimbo's page.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Not really. The real target was David Gerard.

Posted by: Kato

FT2 writes:



So who hacked Poetguy's private email - read all the posts to discover the sockpuppetry - and did the nasty? That question has never been answered.

What was FT2's involvement in that? If any?

And besides, by the time Poetguy imploded all over this board last Spring, Somey was just about the last person left who was still convinced Poetguy wasn't a fraud of some sort. FT2 was somewhere behind Inspector Clouseau and Helen Keller in making the necessary connections.

Anyway, I'm glad FT2 has resigned. I've been calling for leading disgraced Wikipedians to do the honourable thing and resign when it gets too much for a long while. But they hardly ever do. At least FT2 had the good sense now. Last month, when FT2 was engaged in some sordid drama or other here, I requested that he get off the pot asap. He should have done it then, as his extra month has done him no favors.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

What do you mean It meanns DG told the truth/ let us know about that bit, I presume. Or do you just mean that FT would have seen that as dickish; has he said that? I expect he's not happy about it. Or do you mean at that point FT acted dickish? Sorry if I'm being thick.

Posted by: Moulton

Wow.

Who else around here is ancient enough to actually remember any songs from that era?

In the mid-50's, the Andrew Sisters appeared live at the Auto Show at the newly opened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Civic_Auditorium and sang that number.

Posted by: Kato

Hey - we can play my bingo derived Wikipedia Flashmob game on this rfc! Checking for which nosey gobsites have parked up to vent their tedious spleens at the latest drama venue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FT2

Posted by: Peter Damian

Well FT2 had a pretty good case that he had forgotten about Jimmy's email, he had thought the April IRC discussion was about an entirely different oversight issue. But then Gerard spoiled it all. If I was him I would be angry. Or have I misunderstood?



Moulton was that you?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Get someone to put up some prize money for the Bingo and I'm in.

(This would be so easy for us cabalists to game with a bit of IRC and a few sticks)

Posted by: Kato

As usual, the prize shall be http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15598&st=0&p=76719&#entry76719.

Posted by: InkBlot

I'm wondering about this one, and the IRC conversation. For the e-mail part, DG claims he told FT2 when it happened, but admits to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/FT2&diff=prev&oldid=264128710 for a record of it...so it's DG's memory versus FT2's memory, and at least FT2 claims to have scrutinized every bit of email, IRC log, etc. that he has.

Which brings us to IRC, and the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&oldid=264279434#And_a_response posted by FT2 and Thatcher. FT2's just shows choice quotes of his own (in line with his proclaimed standards of privacy, I don't expect he'd post anyone else's comments in the logs without permission), whereas Thatcher's shows a different bit of the conversation with FT2 and FloNight. Both, to me, destroy a lot of context...I'd rather just see an uninterupted chunk of log from when that whole chat started to when it ended, with nothing edited out.

Right now, my impression is FT2's story boils down to a lot of head-in-the-sand behavior any time Peter Damian gets mentioned around ArbCom, which led to him missing 99.994% of any mention of the oversights. I see some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/FT2#A_.22fair_hearing.3F.22 that some people feel it's foregone now: he lied! He lied! I don't think he lied, or purposely tried to deceive anyone. I think he just tried so hard to distance himself from it all, he missed some truly important goings on. Fingers in the ears, and 1,000+ verses of "La, La, La, I can't hear you!" that go on so long, it almost makes Moulton seem brief.

I'm just waiting now to see them go after his other bits. Like happened to Kelly, I'm sure certain people won't be satisfied until he's given up Oversight, Checkuser and access to the mailing lists. The Admin bit might be the only thing he's able to hold on to, in the long run.

InkBlot

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Damn, I hate those things.

Posted by: Peter Damian

A conversation with Thatcher that FT2 has now archived. FT2 was complaining that Thatcher had quoted him from the IRC logs out of context. So FT2 supplies 9 lines that preceded it, together with 3 lines that overlap with Thatcher's version.

------------ Thatcher


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2/Archive#Evidence_of_IRC_chat

FT2 argues as follows



FT2 is claiming that the discussion is about what philosophers call a 'counterfactual' - a hypothetical case that has no reference to reality. This makes little sense to me. If anything, FT2's version is more damning. Thatcher says " if his argument is you made naughty edits". Not the subjunctive " if his argument WERE you made naughty edits". But then he says "if you grant him oversight access and the edits aren't there, he'll just say a dev removed them". No subjunctive "if you WERE to grant him access". And he uses the definite article 'the edits'. This sounds entirely like they are discussing not a hypotethetical case, but an actual one. And the 'he'll just say a dev removed them'. No subjunctive, no hypothetical.


[edit] And here is FT2 further up discussing this IRC again.



This makes it absolutely clear that this was not a hypothetical example, but a reference to edits that Thatcher and Flo believe have been oversighted. (Note according to Thatcher's claim, he knew about the oversights at the time they happened, because he read my blog post). "Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief" that the edits were oversighted.

The subsequent conversation makes it clear they are discussing what to do about this.

Also, this whole episode now proves what I long suspected. I was unblocked in April without appeal (to my surprise). I surmised then that they had gone through the possibilities above (as I had) and come to the conclusion that the only safe way out was to unblock me unconditionally (on 2 May actually) in the hope that I would keep quiet.

[edit] What is astounding is (1) just how bad a liar FT2 is. Liars need a very good memory. (2) The gullibility of the many people who believed him for so long.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

But he admits to not reading a fair few mails he gets, and not remembering some stuff.

Posted by: InkBlot

That's a lot to hang on a simple word choice. I read Thatcher here, and it reads pretty hypothetical to me. Or, more accurately, I can see it both ways....perhaps Thatcher knew a specific example existed and FT2 didn't, they could have been talking past each other.



(1) is why I tend to believe him, because he does seem to have a very good memory and documents everything. So, I tend to believe he's being honest here, which doesn't necessarily excuse things, just explains them.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Why do you think this - just a gut feeling or can you expand a bit?

Posted by: Peter Damian

On reflection, this is impossible. FT2 himself mentions the same conversation earlier:



So FT2 has described himself as acknowledging the Damian claim that edits were oversighted. It's not that they were 'talking past each other' at all. He adds that 'no detail' was given of the edits. But that doesn't matter. He later denied any knowledge of this at all.



If he had said that he had heard mention of this (i.e. at IRC) or heard it ''claimed'' that there was an oversight, fair does. But he denies any mention at all.

On the claim that obsessively recording links is proof of a good memory, I suggest the reverse is true. Old people write lists of things. Why?

Posted by: InkBlot

I went back to read it again, and again I have to disagree. I think FT2 is saying, the conversation was about your 'campaign' at the time lacking any credibility, so when the topic of oversight came into the conversation, he took it as writ that that too was fabricated. Thatcher and FloNight didn't seem to think it significant, and he took it to imply they felt it was fabricated.

It goes back to my earlier suggestion...I don't think he's lying, I think he's got really big blinders on where it comes to you. He was so averse to actually discussing the merits of your arguments (trying, at that time it would appear, to stick to the topic of you receiving a private or public case), he completely missed the distinction between hypothetical and real questions being asked. He thought (and still insists) it was all hypothetical discussion because he adamantly refused to engage in real discussion in any sort of private channel.

It's semantic wriggling, I suppose, because I don't think it's any better behavior as such...I just don't think it's intentional lying. But while "steadfastly missing the point" may not be a reason to step down from ArbCom, I think it's good move on his part. Bishonen stirred up plenty of drama with her block, but he hasn't been able to defuse or deescalate it and I think it comes from having become deeply entrenched in his position.

Posted by: EricBarbour

You have GOT to be kidding. Read the rest of the threads in the FT2 section.
He's got a long history of this sort of manipulation.

Damian just gets special treatment, because he's an effective critic of FT2's
activities AND still has access to WP.

Posted by: Alison

Official statement from ArbCom is now in. Readallaboutit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=264331778&oldid=264283558.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Hooray!

One crap artist admin down, 20-30 to go.

Posted by: Cla68

The committee appears to be politely telling FT2 "Thanks for your service, but you haven't convinced us that you didn't do anything wrong. Thank you for resigning on your own so that we wouldn't have to ask."

Hopefully, Jimbo will appoint the next highest vote-getter in the recent election to fill FT2's seat. That would mean that SirFozzie would be the new arb.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Actually, they did ask; " ... continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this ... "

Posted by: Cla68

I meant, "ask publicly."

Posted by: Floydsvoid

I have a question.

Why is FT2 so verbose?

I've hardly ever been able to make it through one of his essays, including the resignation piece on Jimbo's talk page. I work on a lot of software projects, and if someone tried to turn in code with that bad of a signal to noise ratio their virtual ears would be ringing. In programming one tenet is to solve the problem in as few keystrokes as possible. (This somewhat conflicts with another tenet in that your code has to be understandable by your peers).

His lack of clarity is what I think is his most important fault as an arbcom guy.

ps. What kind of odds does SirFozzie have to be his replacement? I'm rooting for ya Foz!

Posted by: Moulton

Because he has so little to say.

Posted by: everyking

I could do without another arbitrator who wants to see me drawn and quartered. I'd rather that Jimbo just left the seat vacant. There are enough arbitrators now anyway, considering that he appointed three more arbitrators than anticipated in December.

Posted by: Dzonatas

Concur.

SirFozzie isn't man enough to offer me and others a cup of WP:TEA.

Posted by: EricBarbour

It must be that horrible dark beer the English are so fond of.
It causes damage to the verbal centers of the brain.
"'ere's sumpin wrong wit' me mouf, innit"

There are lots of WORSE people than Fozzie he could put in there....
don't complain too much.

Posted by: Obesity

Yeah, right. But if Sir Fozzie should step on a rusty nail and perish, perhaps JW will really scrape the bottom of the vote-barrel and appoint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Results.

What's far more likely is that he'll leave the seat vacant or call a special election.

Posted by: SirFozzie

*chuckles* A while back, I did, and you threw it in my face complaining it wasn't hot enough and needed lemon and cream

And EK, I don't want to see you drawn and quartered, I just thought the one remaining restriction wasn't that big a deal and you were making a mountain out of a molehill.

But to set minds at ease, I have not heard anything like that from Jimbo or anyone else really. If something happens and I do get offered it? Well, I think the odds are low enough that I won't speculate.

Posted by: everyking

Which editors have you had adversarial dealings with? I don't mean just right now, I mean at any time during your wiki-career. I propose that you be permanently barred from editing any pages previously touched by those editors. I mean, it's no big deal, and if you think it is, well, frankly I'm going to have to suspect that you're secretly plotting to harass those editors. Why else would you object?

Posted by: SirFozzie

Let's see. Filll, JB96, Mantanmoreland.. Ok, I can live with that, EK.

Posted by: everyking

Laughable--no one would tolerate it. Remember, the restriction is not mutual; if any of these users edit a page that is important to you, you can no longer edit it, but they are free to edit whatever they like.

Posted by: Dzonatas

I think I remember a proposal once by ArbCom to have less active members in order to get through cases faster. It would mean a little change in how cases are accepted, but I think they wanted basically two teams of 3. The topic came up on WR too, I think.

Posted by: Peter Damian

We aren't and never were talking about whether FT2 believed the claims of oversighted edits were fabricated. We are talking about whether the issue came up at all. Whether there 'was any mention of such'. There clearly was mention of oversighted edits, there clearly was mention of the fact Damian was making claims about these, and clear evidence that FT2 was conscious of that as the issue.

You see he is still raising the issue on Thatcher's talk page, and Thatcher has now released some more logs of a conversation in early May.



You have a point there. There is a strong element of denial in FT2's approach to matters, i.e. being unable to admit a fact to himself, and I think this is directly connected with his verbosity. People who are disposed to lie often talk most about the things they are lying about, but without directly addressing the epicentre of the lie.

You notice how many times FT2 mentions how 'fair' he wanted to be about the Damian case. His argument was in order to be neutral, he would ignore all Damian-related correspondence from Arbcom. The reality is he must have read all the correspondence. How could anyone who has read every single one of my edits, and every single post, fail to ignore that? To hide his own dissembling from himself, he constructed this elaborate fiction about appearing neutral.

Posted by: Somey

The impulse towards verbosity is often closely related to the impulse towards perfectionism - a depressive characteristic. You want to ensure that there are no "holes" in your argument, so you try to cover all the bases, which takes a lot of verbiage. In many cases, it's initially borne out of the fear of failure, harsh criticism, and exposure (usually of self-perceived, but not admitted, lack of competence or expertise).

And if being verbose (particularly in writing) helps to reduce the amount of negative attention you get, simply because people tend to give up in frustration over the amount of time it takes to read your stuff, then it becomes a self-reinforcing habit.

Unfortunately, some academic disciplines reward written verbosity to such an extent that some people become habitualized to it without having such psychological inclinations at all, which makes it difficult to generalize.

I'm often guilty of it myself, of course, as this post probably demonstrates.

Posted by: Giano

This thread seems to have deviated from FT2, so perhaps now is the time to say that he was not totally 100% in the wrong - the trouble at Wikipedia was - no one knew how to help him or P Damain out of their hole without being accused of partisanship. Because of this, the problem grew, it was also hugely assisted by a complete lack of communication (please no cracks about FT's verbosity) - I only recently understood how bad that communication was - what I thought was known by the Arbs appears not to have been known at all - and yet I can't quite believe that. I have tried to help both, but there was a mind-set, an implacable mind-set on both sides - and I only now realise, I was being stuffed in trying to sort this in other areas. Once Gerard moved in, oversighting and running rampant and seemingly only conversing with Jimbo the whole thing became confused, everyone protecting each other. I doubt anyone other than Jimbo himself, who was ignorant on the matter of who was on which side, and who was on neither, could have sorted it. Ultimately, FT2 had to resign, he had confused and prevaricated for too long - and justice has to be black and white, but sometimes the truth is rather more honest but very confused. In this instance there was no one with an ounce of nouse to sort the problem and so like Topsy it just grew.

Giano

Posted by: Moulton

The seemingly intractable problem that Giano alludes to above — bridging the chasm between two irreconcilable adversaries — is an age-old problem.

Just now, on National Public Radio, I was listening to a http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99480326 talking about how both Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi were slain for the crime of trying to heal the wounds of a divided nation.

Studying what divides antagonistic factions in the Wikisphere seems to me to be an important research issue for those of us who have long made a career of studying the perplexing dysfunctionality of cyberspace communities.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

FWIW, in FT2's brief sojourn here, he PM'd me to explain that every post he made took him a long time to craft - perhaps an hour. He was obsessive about being misunderstood or misrepresented - yet the result was that he was often incomprehensible or ambiguous - the very result he was seeking to avoid.

I'd always assumed that he was very into his NLP stuff, and deluded himself that he had exceptional mental powers - therefore any failure to communicate was other people's problem.

So, my theory of mind, if you like, is that analysing FT2's behaviour as a normal, balanced person might lead to some faulty conclusions. If someone has to work that hard to try and put together posts, then perhaps he is not as bright as people might assume, and assumptions about his comprehension of matters might be misled by this.

I am especially concerned that he often makes comments about the amount of time he spends on things - that makes him sound obsessive, but he might just not be very good at stuff. It might also fit with his comments that he has read lots of stuff but didn't realise what the issue was.

My guess is he has a degree on a suspect course from a suspect university like Media Studies at Lincoln University and he thinks it means he is educated.

Posted by: Giano

Oh he has his problems allright, and was totally unsuited to be an Arb, but his problems also extend to defending himself. Late in 2007 he received a threat that would have scared me shitless - the sender should have been banned for life by the Arbcom, but the sender was not. Even when I emailed Wales telling him to keep that sender banned he was allowed back- you see all is never as it seems.

Giano

Posted by: One

This is a good nuanced view. There's a lot of truth to it.

FT2 has been selfless in his efforts to help the ArbCom. He didn't try to cover it up. I don't doubt that for a second. The problem grew to the point where his status is not tenable.

Speaking personally, of course.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

FT2, if you're reading, the way to do that is with less words, not more. Besides the simplicity, it also means that you end up not saying some things.

NewYorkBrad is one of the few people at Wikipedia capable of the opposite.



This is where excessive secrecy can really screw things up, even though it is sometimes needed. Now I'm wondering if I took a stand in ignorance on this editors unblocking. Any chance you can PM me the name, Giano

Posted by: Giano

Oh - he did try to cover it up, but for reasons that were confused and which made sense to him. I don't think he is a person who can be guided, his own worst enemy I suspect. He should never have been an Arb and now he has paid the price for being in the wrong position. He actually needed protection and advice on dealing with the bear pit, that is Wikipedia. Keeping order on God know's how many 1000s of editors needs a certain tough type, with a rational ruthless streak - a tough cookie. I would not be surprised if he is not happier free of the responsibility - I hope he is. The Arbcom with Jimbo could have saved themselves all this bother if they had acted over a year ago with a quick iron fist, stopping FT2's candidacy and banning Peter Damian for life. They did not - they dither and chat and worry if I am being polite. Funny place Wikipedia, nothing is ever quite what it seems, and that is what the chattering peanuts never quite grasp.

Giano

Posted by: tarantino

He received the same advice from me and others but he decided not to follow it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

If they suddenly came over all "decisive",
you might be the next one they ban indef.

Posted by: FT2

A number of users here will be fairly bright. They say bright people can sometimes get in their own way in communication, and without great self-analysis, that's surely true. I've never figured out the line of what to assume others need telling or don't, and between saying too little (and people misunderstanding) or too much. In that, I get cautious - "one (many times) bitten, twice shy" - I figure if I am open about everything, and consider the matter completely, then some will go tl;dr, but those who really care will have the information they need to work it out. Better sensing of "what needs saying and what doesn't" is a skill I don't have and wish I did, despite advice like Tarantino's (which believe me I'd gladly take if I knew how). Consolation: I figure there's worse if you have to choose a weakness. That said, any offers of help -- yes please

I care nothing for politics, which is a good or bad thing depending how you see it. For me I see it as a plus. YMMV. I've mostly learned to avoid drama and its hounds quite well; in this case ultimately I haven't. Its a skill I learn mainly the odd times I don't succeed; I take it philosophically. I went into Arbcom "eyes open", knowing it shreds reputations. The job needed doing; the 2007 committee was failing the community badly, and nobody else seemed very likely to try changing that in any meaningful way. Personal cost of it? Meh. Important, but less of an issue.

Other wordiness stuff - 1/ People playing games tend to gloss over the detail (old saying - "the devil's in the detail"). Spelling it out might bore some, but it's advantage is being explicit as to exactly what's being said and what's not. Case in point, people were amused at the idea a 105 K statement of evidence might be needed, but when the microscope came round it meant not one thing raised hadn't been disclosed fully and such, which would have been a huge mistake. Also, 2/ arb writings tend to get very heavy weight|reliance|examination. I don't like my words being misrepresented, as Dogbiscuit says, and there's also a responsibility to think more carefully in a role like that. Not every post is difficult, but some are (eg, responsibility to people who will be judged by what's said, of being fair to them); and those talking about myself more than most. Not unusual.

Oddly, one of the main blockers on a public discussion of OM and the oversighted edits was that I simply don't know how to write the short statement necessary. Might seem trivial or laughable to some, but not to others. I asked more than once and set about doing so three times - June 29-30 (after OM), November, and again December. The notion of "Write anything but just write something" doesn't work well with sensitive and privacy-related issues, and the advice how one might do so was itself very uncertain. I'm not that sure even now what I'd do differently second time round. Probably told the more conservative voices on Arbcom after OM "you explain what happened or I will" a bit more strongly. I was offline most of July, consensus was firmly against, I was told it would be done "eventually" but it never was, and I didn't. Meh; lessons.

Apologies for the delay in replying; of course discussion was going on here but I only just got round to checking it out.

Posted by: Peter Damian

And of course the net result is Damian is now the evil bastard who got FT2 cast from the Arbcom, with his vile and reprehensible accusations. Amazing how quickly the tide turns.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

All you have to do is to answer straight questions with straight answers. You were asked whether you knew about the oversights in July. The very long answer you gave suggests the answer 'no'. Why not just say that?

As another example of this, you were asked on this forum whether User:TBP was a sockpuppet of yours or not. You simply didn't answer the question at all. Why not just say 'no'?



Use of the words 'yes' or 'no'.

Posted by: FT2

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_startup_process&oldid=120091514 on its start-up process? I don't think you really thought any of those things, did you?



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.

Posted by: Giano

Not at all, FT2 was totally unsuited to be an Arb and got himself cast from the Arbcom, with not a little help from David Gerard. Your mistake, in my book, was sending FT2 an unacceptable threat before the edits were oversighted. Had you not done so, you would have my respect. They either lied of were deliberately evasive concerning those oversights, and that was wrong, they attempted to cast you as a liar rather than explain the truth. However, people should remember that had you been instantaneously kicked off Wikipedia for making your threats much of what followed would have been avoided.

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.

You wanted the truth out, and now you have it; you surely don't think it should stay buried? that's the sort of thing that happens on Wikipedia - create a diversion and put the heat elsewhere, as is currently happening there - and Gerard's role has been largely forgotten as attention has been re-focused on me. Only on Wikipedia does Nemesis seem to turn a blind eye. The "FT2 affair" is over now, but it needs to be put to bed with explanation and conclusion, otherwise history repeats itself. You're a historian, you must know that. So please cut your self pity, you are far from the poor little man who was wronged - you played your part and that part needs to be clear.

Giano

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.



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.

Posted by: 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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.



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'.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

No, FT2, it doesn't play that way. Answer the question. Attacking the interrogator just demonstrates your own unwillingness to answer the question.

Posted by: Giano

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

This statement reinforces my belief that David Gerard was, and remains, a primary target of the Giano-Bishonen axis.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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:


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.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Which is, of course, how scholars and people of good will go about writing an encyclopedia.

Posted by: Somey

I'm a little curious about how you yourself feel about this, KM - you've known Dave Gerard online since before Wikipedia, going back to Usenet and all that anti-Scientology stuff, right? You probably know as well as anyone that Dave has few (if any) qualms about resorting to dirty tricks and clever deceits in the service of whatever cause he happens to be defending at the time. I myself wouldn't be here at all if it hadn't been for one of them, in fact.

Back in the Old West days, when the Rule of Law finally arrived on the former frontier, and previously lawless towns became cities with police and judges and so on, a lot of the old shoot-from-the-hip gunslingers had a difficult time adapting because their skills were no longer required. I suppose some of them may have managed to become authors and movie-script consultants, but only the literate ones. Dave is more of a bile-slinger (and sarcasm-slinger?) than a gunslinger, but IMO the same issues apply - where would he go? What would he do after Wikipedia?

It just seems to me that Dave has a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia as chaotic and drama-ridden as possible, so that he himself doesn't become obsolete.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

She's right, you know, Pete. You were once a white knight in a really good position on the board. Now you're being set-up to be sacrificed in a gambit to "get" the Black Queen. Probably. Heh!

Posted by: maggot3

Wow. I really don't know how to see this; for the past however many months you've been complaining about FT2 and this issue and kind of defending Peter Damian, and then suddenly when FT2 resigns Peter Damian should have been banned a long time ago and he was so cruel to poor FT2??? what. If you're really saying what I think you're saying, you're a manipulative dick and I no longer have any sympathy for you.

Posted by: Dzonatas

I worked on the Astrotheology (now deleted) article and got called, among other things, an Atheist, which further escalated into accusations to have a sole purpose to troll Wikipedia. Obviously, from your actions in ArbCom you believed it too along with the rest of the junk.

You seem to have understood, when you asked is it fair to believe that you have interest in zoophilia is because of a personal taste.

Posted by: FT2

So let's have this said formally. Am I hereby acquitted of being a criminal sexual abuser and cultist, in your most insightful and penetrative gaze? Can I go back to being "an editor who likes tough articles", who has awareness of that topic area via anti-abuse work, and who also positively salivates at the prospect of good quality information? As opposed to say, a cultist POV pusher who likes to get his leg over in weird ways? I mean, I've lived with you saying things for a long time now. But if that's what you're saying then let's hear it properly.



What seems to happen is, your "mind" doesn't seem to conceptualize "neutral" when your emotions get in the way. It tends to reason along the lines "I don't want it that way, it shouldn't be that way, so it can't be that way."



Virtually every last email to me, every post, everything you alleged on Wikipedia and wrote to "activists" off Wikipedia at that time, was about "the other matter". N'est-ce-pas?



Deleted, not oversighted. And no, it was about as incorrect as it gets, as many in the community told you at the time: 1/ The media didn't care, 2/ when you tried to make them care, they still didn't much care, 3/ the community still didn't care, 4/ your entire success has been to use David Gerard's mistake to get one article written by Cade Metz, and his interest was the use of Oversight - otherwise even he wouldn't have cared.



I'm sure you are, but this is still completely a "political" apology. It's worthless. You need to make good by actions, not words - and probably a lot of them over an extended period. You "apologized" every time the heat round you grew or when you wanted something, and it didn't change a thing. Crossref The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I doubt you mean a word of it now either - except the regret that you didn't do it differently and with more success, more subtlety, less backlash. Am I roughly right?

I would accept a genuine apology. My apology after Orangemarlin was to take the backlash for the committee without arguing, and spend 6 months trying hard to get Arbcom process modified so it couldn't happen again. Was that fair? No. But it was right. And not making a public deal of it to get "capital", just doing it anyway to try and ensure it could never go that way again, quietly and in private.

That's an apology to the community. That's what genuine regret looks like, Damian.



"Lets walk away from that umm.. unfortunate feedback - next slide and next hanging party!"



I blanked the evidence page I prepared. But any user who wishes to check your actual allegations (on wiki and to third parties) to confirm they were actual allegations/implications of criminal activity, contrary to everything you have tried to claim since, can do so.



/no comment/



Which, of course, they were. You took up editing them because you believed I cared about the topic, a mere 3 days after your unban -- and you made sure to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=prev&oldid=231203528 little "Dear FT2" love-notes to my talk page about it just in case I might miss the point or not realize you were trying to "get" at me

Posted by: Peter Damian

No, you are a cultist POV pusher. See my entire re-write of the Neurolinguistic programming article. And see pretty much any talk page of the Zoophilia article.

I have no view on the leg-over bit, apart from what I said above - there is no evidence that I have seen of anything other than bias and promotion.

In any case, if you see my talk page, I am taking an extended Wiki vacation. The politics has got a bit too much for me.

As a legacy I leave you this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat

I hope it helps.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Entirely incorrect you don't know what you are talking about. A third party asked Metz to phone me from San Francisco. I said I would talk to him on the understanding he focused on the oversighting and policy aspect and I emphasised that the issue was of 'promotion' not 'practice'

I also complained to him afterwards about the lurid tone of the article. He can confirm this.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

David has fingers in many pies. He is, as many of us know, quite active in Uncyclopedia, and we learned recently that he was in some way involved in several shock sites (lemonparty being probably the most notable of these). I think David has a very high personal drama demand, and keeps himself engaged in multiple dramaturgies in order to satisfy that need. The effective death of USENET must have hit him hard; that's a lot of lost opportunities for drama.

He should get a ham license and hang out on 75 meters; he'd fit in well there.

Posted by: Giano

Gosh Kelly, you are so perceptive, yes it's true! Bishonen and I sit up all night plotting against David Gerard setting traps for him to perform illegal oversights, perform illegal checkusers and so on and he falls into the traps each time - you've spotted that gullible soft eager to please streak he has. Oh hell, we had not counted on your Miss Marple like razor brain seeing through us. The truth is if Bishonen had not brought the whole sorry saga to a close, by blocking FT2, it would still be dragging on - she is a daft woman, she should have allowed it to fester on damaging more and more people think of the scores she and I could have settled if she had. However, there is a plus, the arbcom are looking at Gerard's role, I am told, and as you know I have huge influence over the Arbcom so I expect he will be hung drawn, quartered and flogged naked off the site. This has been my intention since I first evilly encouraged FT2 to write about bestiality.Now you've foiled the plot - Damm you.

Giano

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Careful, Kelly. This guy damns a fig tree and it withers.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I'll take my chances.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Since praise is too seldom offered here, let me say that I was taken back by the wisdom and perception of the above. I don't agree with it 100%, but nevertheless it has incite and perspective.

Thanks.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Yes Giano is often incite-ful.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

That's exactly what I think, and have told him so. He seems to think he deserves slagging off and will just sit there and take it. For instance, the comments by RHMED to his talk page mocking him, he left up for ages. I think it will make him prone to depression or something, if he just lets people walk all over him in their comments.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Not so- you said you might report him to the RSPCA or something. That implies you thought he did something to animals they should know about.

I for one think the edits were somewhat erm...disturbing and he seemed to exhibit a knowledge of what might well be the inner life/self-justifications of someone with this issue. I showed someone the edits and within a couple of sentences they'd made up their mind. Maybe it was just an unfortunate impression the edits created. There was the block over "chocolate labrador", for 3RR too, although I think he was actually reverting a vandal, it shows someone taking particular care of that article.




Who are they trying to get at now, do you think? Not disagreeing with you, just I can't see their target yet. I too am surprised G has turned on Peter. If they're after David G, why not go straight for him? Or is it just that FT was the easier target?



Oh come on, these were some of your first edits. People don't even know about the wiki rule of Neutral Point of View when they join the project. They write about something they're fired up about, usually with a point of view. For instance, they might post a link to their own site, or in my case my most serious IRL enemies had written vanity and POV articles about themselves and how wonderful they are, so I joined to contribute to the AfDs

Posted by: Peter Damian

No not so that is a complete fabrication and you should know that from the Dec 2007 email I copied you last week. For goodness sake.

I said I would be contacting the appropriate organisations, by which I meant some of the organisations that had expressed concern about the Zoophilia article (e.g. ASAIRS). I talked to a couple then W Scribe asked me to stop & I did. Then they blocked my anyway (partly o/a of a crossed wire with Scribe which I had explained before) and then they oversighted.

The Zoophilia article was and still is a disgrace.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

I hear your pain. What say we set up a small sanctuary for poor old FT2 on WR? A virtual soup-kitchen, as it were, where he can come in out of the cold and have a cup of tea? And a biscuit if he's good.


"Chocolate Labrador"? This just keeps getting weirder. I'm scared.

Posted by: Somey

Assuming you mean "eager to please" himself, I don't think it's so hard to spot...

Seriously, though, there are such things as "targets of opportunity." And if in the process of catching one fish you manage to get a hook into a bigger one, that's more a case of working events to your advantage. It doesn't necessarily mean you must have plotted to get the bigger fish all along...


Well, her having foiled the plot (such as it is) would only be damnable if there had been plans to take lurid photographs of the hanging, drawing, quartering, and flogging, which would now tragically have to be scrapped.

Like I mentioned earlier, Dave is a very clever deceiver, manipulator, and deal-maker - to get concrete evidence of wrongdoing on his part is actually something of an achievement, given the way he operates.

Posted by: Giano

Appropriate organisations, now that depends on interpretation of appropriate, your exact words, from that date, to FT2 were "I am posting at various activist sites, and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this." or am I mistaken, is that a lie are they not your exact words? (the higher case emphasis is yours)

Giano

Posted by: Peter Damian

That is consistent with my intention to contact ASAIRS - an organisation set up to combat Zoophiliac propaganda on the internet. As I said, I stopped this shortly afterwards. (and ASAIRS is moribund, anyway).

And why, if the edits were not bestialist propaganda, as I think they were, should FT2 have any difficulty with this? I wanted a second opinion of the edits, and I was particularly concerned that Wikipedia was prepared to appoint to a high position a person who was promoting this propaganda.

It seems Giano you do not view this as propaganda. In which case you could not view the message as a realistic threat.

[edit] I also discussed the issue at 'Veggie boards' but there was no great interest as it turns out that a number of these vegetarian eco-warrior types are themselves quite keen on these sorts of activities - FT2 will recall from his experience of the Zoophilia talk pages that this has happened once before.

[edit] Here indeed it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=45401710#Advocacy

A sad user called Seus Hawkins tried to contact a Vegan society in Queensland. FT2 (as sockpuppet User:TBP) has a good laugh at him when he found out that some of the vegans were quite approving of, er, the leg over part.

Posted by: Giano

activist sites

The words you used were "activist sites" that is a plural, what were the other sites? Activist, now there's nasty word, and as for Propganda - Oh just don't go there, you don't know the meaning of the word. Now sites with an "S" what other sites? You are fooling no one.

Giano

Posted by: Peter Damian

It is blatant propaganda. You are fooling no one either, O Giano. The oversighted edits were not the only edits I had a concern about. Shall we talk about some of those?

[edit] If you read the edit to my previous post, you will see there were two sites.



Veggie boards?

And here is someone else who feels it is all propaganda.

Posted by: Giano

Have a pleasant evening. Night!

Giano

Posted by: Bishonen

(snip)

Sorry—I was trying to refresh, not post.I'm hopeless with this mysterious site, I give up. Bishonen.

Posted by: tarantino

Just click the edit button of your post, Control-a in the edit window, and replace it with something appropriate like "oops'.

Posted by: tarantino

There is an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=264790897#Bishzilla at RFARB#Bishzilla regarding the exposure of his deceptiveness and subsequent humiliation. He has accused someone in a position of authority of leaking secrets to Greg -

Who's "we" Josh?

edit: I was reminded that Josh is referring to this leak that originated from the arbcom mailing list.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Why not ask Bishzilla what to do?
Bishzilla not post while try to refresh. Mysterious site Wikipedia Review not intimidate Bishzilla. Bishzilla not hopeless and give up intimidate Tokyo, etc.

Posted by: Docknell

FT2

It’s impossible not to see the huge discrepancies between your statements and your behaviour.

People are not calling you a dogshagger to your face. Nobody is taking you to court for abusing labradors.

What has happened is that folks have noticed you have been trying to take them for a ride. Your extreme and indirect verbosity and inclination towards the defence of the fringe psychocult of neuro linguistic programming are only indicators of your approach to your abuse of Wikipedia.

The research that people have placed in WR shows significant evidence of you promoting fringe beyond reason.

The many links in the FT2 section of WR show evidence of you trying to push fringe argument and you trying to stifle majority ethical reasoning. The evidence shows you trying to drive off editors who simply provide research to correct your obviously fringe pushing antics.

There are a lot of people who have seen what you do, and are simply sick of your abuse.

Doc

Posted by: Moulton

I have seen scant evidence of ethical reasoning in the Wikisphere.

And ethical reasoning has never been in the majority, on Wikipedia or anywhere else on this planet, since the dawn of civilization.

Posted by: Docknell

Hi Moulton

I am pessimistic about WP, but optimistic about the world. Legal systems the world over have their faults. However, there are intelligent and reasonable ethically based rationales that put the welfare of animals in terms of fiduciary duty (duty of care). WP should start to work towards making sure those views are presented correctly.

FT2 and others do seem to have worked hard to occlude those views, and other ethically based views against the spread of general misinformation by psychocults such as neuro linguistic programming.

People don't base their objections solely on the "yuk" scale when evaluating pro-bestiality arguments. There is a strong ethical base to many people's gag reflex.

Doc

Posted by: everyking

Since the ArbCom is obviously not going to desysop Bishonen/Bishzilla, it ought to at least put an end to this joke account adminship nonsense. I made the following request in my statement: "I call on the ArbCom to require that Bishonen use admin powers only on her main account. The Bishzilla account has a comedic nature that is not suited to the role of adminship, and furthermore it was the Bishonen account, behaving as a serious user, that passed RfA."

Personally, I think that anyone who believes it's appropriate to exercise adminship through a secondary joke account is unsuited to adminship on any account, without even considering Bishonen's conduct in the recent incident or past events.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

My bold. Yes that is exactly it- not only the yuk factor (although that is quite intense, as animals don't even usually wash, plus it would be quite brutal) but for most of us we see our pets having a relation to us that is more like kids. Not that they think it through that much perhaps, but they are not in a position to give full consent for many reasons, not least that they are almost entirely dependent on us for their food and shelter; also, they have the reasoning powers perhaps of a young child.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Jesus H. Christ. How a humourless sod like you managed to get yourself de-sysopped is a complete mystery. Sounds to me like you'd fit in well there.

Posted by: tarantino

Bishzilla slightly exaggerates reality to make a statement that demonstrates the true nature of governance of Wikipedia. I believe the account is a net positive.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Quite. With that limited mentality, it's amazing that God lets any of them breed at all.

Posted by: Moulton

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Disgust and ethical considerations are often one and the same. Think of one's reactions to hearing of rape, incest etc. Not saying they're necessarily the same in this case. When disgust is not aligned to ethics, it often is more akin to the feeling of something that's physically a turn-off or a feeling of being disturbed/ creeped out, perhaps.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Not quite. Children often do things that are quite disgusting. So do mentally disturbed people. So do old people, actually. A nurse told me that old men in a ward would often masturbate in front of her.

But you don't blame them for it, at least (in the case of children) you don't blame them in a deep-down sense.

On the other side, there are things that are not disgusting in any visceral sense that people deeply disapprove of regard as deeply wrong.

Cleary Giano felt it was deeply wrong of me to send that email to FT2 December 2007. But he didn't find it disgusting in a visceral or 'yukky' kind of way.

Our sense of right and wrong is closely tied to that of responsibility and freedom of choice.




Augustine, City of God V . 14

Posted by: Giano

How on earth do you know in what way I find things disgusting? However, let me tell you one of the things I do find disgusting: petty, prisy little Anglo-Catholics preaching second rate morality in order to hide their own failings. Your threats to FT2 were not just disgusting, they were nauseating and cowardly - like your subsequent self-justifing squeeling and shrieking here, on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you. I had some sympathy for you untill I found out just how deep you were prepared to wallow in shit - you have behaved in such a way as to make one beleive you are completely lacking in moral fibre.

Giano

Posted by: Moulton

About 25 years ago, American Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, published http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room. He takes a systems theoretic approach to the age-old philosophical question of http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html, pointing out that if we have enough insight to anticipate the likely long-term consequences of a course of action, we can make wise and intelligent choices that lead to a more desirable future outcome.

JK Rowling repeats that wisdom through the character of Dumbledore, who mentors Harry Potter on the matter of http://www.allgreatquotes.com/albus_dumbledore_quotes.shtml that define our character.

http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/foundations-of-ethics/3iyoslgwsp412/10# is about crafting and employing reliable mental models that anticipate the benefit or harm that flows from a decision. http://www.google.com/search?q=Peter+Senge develops that notion into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Discipline.

The art of devising Ethical Best Practices is an essential learnable trait of any successful organization.

It perplexes me why Wikipedia has ignored and eschewed that seminal contribution to the sum of all human knowledge, wisdom, and insight.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Yes that's the prob. If you are not with PD 100% you are against him. A lot of people are like that. However, the timing of you having a go at PD is interesting, in as much as you were trying to get something done over the FT issue so didn't feel able to criticize him till now.

What was in this email? I must've missed it. Was it more threats to report FT to someone?

Posted by: EricBarbour

This is great! I gotta get some popcorn!

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Disgust is moral reasoning played out on the time scale of evolution.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Come on, Giana. Quit shilly-shallying around. It's important to get these things off your chest. Tell us how you really feel about Pete, for God's sake. No holding back, mind.

Posted by: Somey

But exercising adminship through a primary joke account is OK?

I mean, this is the site that (until recently) had an admin named Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and don't forget current admins with names like Blood Red Sandman (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Butseriouslyfolks (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cantthinkofagoodname (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (T-C-L-K-R-D) , David Gerard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Evil saltine (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Faithlessthewonderboy (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Goodnightmush (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Hamster Sandwich (T-C-L-K-R-D) ... should I go on? I'm barely into the H's.

Posted by: everyking

Bishonen, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=264907981&oldid=264904883, now says that she is retiring the Bishzilla account. Shouldn't she also announce that on the Bishzilla userpage and request the removal of Bishzilla's admin rights?

Posted by: Docknell

Hi Giano

Looking at your essays on WP and comparing with the sort of statements you make here; it seems to me you are starting to sound quite "lower 6th".

The subject of this thread is interesting. Bishonen seems to have done something pretty useful about the problem of FT2. FT2 was always under self-imposed threat because FT2 made obvious promotions of fringe and harmful sexual practices, fringe pseudoscience, and obviously worked hard to find ways to wield power and continue the protection of said obvious fringe biases.

If that statement makes me a prissy anglo catholic type to you, that is just your view. In the UK we generally punish bestialists for abusing animals. It follows that people here have a serious disregard for those who promote the practice as if its some sort of erudite and fashionable lifestyle.

I make no particular claims to being popular, intelligent, or literary. But I know what scientific findings are, and I know who really needs a good clout for abusing privileges, spreading misinformation, and generally trying to lord it over the prols.

I've been following this situation pretty closely for a while. When I read FT2 had been generally discredited as an admin, and then blocked, I suddenly found myself in a very cheerful and positive state of mind. It was as if somebody somewhere had got something right for once.

Doc

Posted by: Somey

That's unfortunate...

What's more, she's absolutely right - I myself am in tears at this very moment, filled with sorrow at the immense degree of boredom I feel over this non-issue.




You said it, man! I haven't felt this good since they invented Viagra!

Posted by: everyking

It's actually somewhat important--responsible administration can't be executed through joke accounts based on cartoon dinosaur characters.

Posted by: Peter Damian

There I am puzzled. What exactly was it that changed your opinion 180 degrees? I have supported you consistently here and on-wiki and in private also. If you felt I was wrong at the time, why didn't you say so?

The threats you refer to occurred more than a year ago. Is it that you only recently found out about them? The email in question about 'activists' was sent to WJBScribe and Glen Berry in a moment of anger. Only one outside site was actually contacted, and within a day the entire thread had been removed at my request.

They were not cowardly. No one knows who FT2 is, even now, whereas my identity could be worked out from my (then) user name. The blocking admins left blocking messages so that it would be clear to the many people using Wikipedia at my institution what was happening. I was left unable to respond to these threats, o/a of the blocks.

So, Giano, you know I have always supported you, and I always will and I will continue to speak kindly of you. But this is a little distressing.

[edit]
I checked again, and this diff, and the stuff that precedes it, suggests you knew exactly what the issue was. Why the sudded change of tone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=176137862#Help

Posted by: Doc glasgow

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston once said ""we have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies, our interests are eternal and it is those interests it is our duty to follow"

But seriously, for the second time this week, I salute Giano.

I've no idea what Peter did or didn't post. However, wikipedia has all too much of people who have a common interest/enemy clubbing together than loyally defending their allies, even when their allies are engaging in reprehensible behaviour. It's a social psychologist's dream experiment.

Just because someone has "supported you consistently on-wiki" ought to be no reason why you should support them if their behaviour falls bellow standard. The gang mentality is extremely unhelpful and extremely childish. Loyalty should extend only to me first giving my friend candid private advice - but if he fails to take it, all bets are off.

A little less loyalty would create a better working environment for all.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I quite agree. I am just puzzled why this has happened just now. The event we are talking about happened more than a year ago, and he seems to have known all the details. Why this sudden u-turn?

Posted by: Moulton

I couldn't fail to disagree less.

And so I am offering to let Bishonen adopt one of my own alter egos, http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Gastrin_Bombesin.

Posted by: The Adversary

EK: I know you do tons of useful work on WP, and I´ll support you for admin anyday...BUT: Bishonen/Bishzilla is straight on target in that post, (both for you and for Durova), IMHO.

I really wish you took WP less seriously; two of my favorite WP-people this year have been the The Fat Man etc, and Bish. They have played WP as the MMORGP game it (partially) is. And they make me laugh!

Lighten up, EK, please? WP is only a web-site...

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Well, in one simple word, Pete : Wiki Status. You see, you were instrumental in removing the evil FT2 from ArbCon and turning him (and it) into a laughing stock, untrusted by anyone important. Also, you are well-known, here and the other place, as the most most moral and, er, ethical editor/man in the whole world, what with all the pro-censorship/dislike of rampant sex/anti-filth posts and all that.

But what has Giana done lately? Nothing. Zippo. He feels he's been ousted by a superior Wiki-warrior, and, let's face it, he has. No more Mr. Top-Dog Wiki Critic for him. He's become a caricature of himself. I fear some of the dry rot and mildew from those rusty old barns he (unfortunately) writes about is beginning to affect him too.

Same old game, Pete. They build you up then knock you down. I'd say more, but I don't want to be seen as someone who just wants to stir up shit and/or cause trouble, or anything. There's enough of that sort of thing going on already, damn them all to hell.

Posted by: Kato

Steady there, dogbiscuit.

I'd like to see you get your head around Metz's Grand Syntagmatique or http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745630724! Media Studies is as vital and complex as other humanities - and is as relevant as courses such as English Literature or History. In fact, few scholarly fields are more relevant to understanding Wikipedia, so anyone with a Media Studies background should be welcomed at that place. It seems that a bogus assumption of what Media Studies involves began to permeate the media itself, to fit a political notion of a society "dumbing down". Don't fall for it - it ain't true - media studies is perfectly legitimate. (I didn't get a degree in media studies by the way - It's just a bugbear of mine when I see it disparaged! Feel free to split this off)

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Specific experience rather than a generalisation

Posted by: wikiwhistle

I agree with the sentiment. But Giano already knew this about Peter.

Posted by: Giano

Actually, on my wiki-page (to me) Peter said :"relevant organisations" one assumes he meant the RSPCA etc; in his private email to FT2 his exact words were " I am posting at various activist sites,
and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this" So you can draw your own conclusion on how much I previously knew. However, following Peter's helpful link to my archived user page (above), I see I was awarded a "Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award" by no less a person than Merkinsmum, for my coments to Peter. I wonder what she thought Peter was referring to? Have you any idea Wiki-whistle?

Giano

Posted by: Kato

Peter, re-read this exchange from a couple of months ago between the two of us - and vow not to get fooled again.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21205&view=findpost&p=142621



You were just a pawn in the "Giano Wars", Peter. Just another expendable footsoldier to be jettisoned when tactical demands take a new turn.

Giano's role in this whole FT2 revenge drama has merely sapped time, taken up space on this message board, and diverted resources away from resolving genuine problems on Wikipedia. Equally, SlimVirgin's reinvention as anti-corruption crusader, and her role in the demise of FT2 was in reality just another power-play in this lunatic interpersonal soap-opera.

At this stage of the game, nobody should have fallen for it. But plenty of people both here and on WP did.

I http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21260&view=findpost&p=142800 that Charles Matthews and Jehochman would play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern last year during the Arbcom elections. With NewYorkBrad announcing their demise when all the dust had settled. In the end it was FT2 who was the ultimate fall guy.

This year, it can all start again, replayed with perhaps a different cast - or even much of the same cast?

Posted by: Peter Damian

I'm still completely confused by this.

1. Giano knew pretty much the whole story from over a year ago. He received a number of supportive emails from me when he cried that FT2 was beating him up too bad. I have always supported him 100% over here even at times when I didn't feel he was quite right (for example the recent thing with the email headers seemed obviously cooked up). He has also posted a number of emails expressing his disgust at the content of some of FT2's edits.

2. So why the extreme attack just now? Why call me 'cowardly' when I am the only one who has the guts to connect their real name with such a disgusting business. Check this Google

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=edward+buckner+FT2&start=10&sa=N

There you see my real name is inextricably bound up with FT2's false one, even unto an Encyclopedia Dramatica article with my real name (a rare honour, no?).

What's your real name, Giano?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I'm not going to judge between Peter and Giano.

But there's something important here. There are real issues with wikipedia. Issues particularly to do with BLP. Those are issues that the community really needs to focus on, and have also been of long and legitimate concern to this board. (Indeed that's why I cam here originally.)

The soap opera stuff, which is mainly about the power-politics of the Role-Playing wikipedia are just one massive distraction. I mean, who outside the bubble should care about FT2's attitude to animals, whether his edits were oversighted, or whether Lar did or didn't tell his wife about Slim's friend? It's all horseshit that concerns egos, personalties and pride of people who ultimately have the option of turning off their PCs.

It is understandable that wikipedians who feel wronged take it personally, it is not understandable why anyone else should care much.

My regret is that people with obvious tenacity and popularity like Giano, who have skills in making people listen to them, seldom or never turn their energies towards things that might matter to people outside the cult circle.

Posted by: Peter Damian

No, you really don't have the faintest idea about the real issues, do you. The issue is about the ownership of the Zoo page by a group of individuals led by FT2 who had an agenda to normalise the practice of bestiality. This group persistently bullied and tag-teamed against numerous editors who wanted an impartial view of the subject. Precisely the same issue applies to the Pederasty articles, and to [[Ayn Rand]] and Sociology, junk science and all the rest. I have been campaigning about this for a long time in case you hadn't noticed. See my articles here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FLAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TABOO

So while it also has plenty to do with power-politics, namely the fact that a person like FT2 with his advocacy for not one but two partisan fringe groups (the other being NLP), there is an issue of principle here. How does Wikipedia protect itself from fringe groups infiltrating its power structure and taking control? Any thoughts in your head, Doc. No, I thought not.

Posted by: FT2

Sorry Damian, don't believe you. Not one significant thing you have said about your actions of December from then till now has been truthful.

• You claimed you "never" alleged participation. Quick test, you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant!&diff=prev&oldid=175736913Radiant! "another" dog lover. If he was "another" practitioner, whom did you believe/claim was the first?
• You claimed you were blocked by admins who subjected you to a "hate" campaign", but the truth is all you were asked to do was to stop acting up. You were unblocked on giving your word you would do so. Even your final block of December 2007 was to be unblocked on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&diff=next&oldid=176163600. Would you categorize that as a "hate campaign"?
• Please reconcile http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=256795342&oldid=256794450 ("I don't recall any allegations about a cult (this was another editor)") with http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=14992&view=findpost&p=70171 ("He is an adherent of the NLP cult, and a large number of the people who supported him at the election are either NLP, or other cults, or members of, er, certain fringe sexuality groups"). Then scan the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/FT2 and indicate which are the "large number" of users who are "cultists" or "members of". How many do you think would be a "large number"? 40? 80?
• You claimed the edit was being used as evidence, and was deleted to prevent its use, but omitted to mention it was also being used in a blog post to "activist sites" and "organizations" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=176014007) where you were "spreading the word" as a means to identify a target. You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation. So... did you not think that other copies of your blog post might still be circulating...? Or is defamation and harassment just a game to you?
• Please reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=176014007 to have already contacted "organizations" plural. You were also asked where you had posted it to (by WJB, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&diff=next&oldid=176163600) and preferred to stay blocked than to answer and withdraw the matter. You broke your word repeatedly. Anyone reading your words is quite entitled to assume anything from SPCA to ALF, and certainly multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

And so on, and so on. You're mendacious, Peter. You fabricate and lie like some people fart - obnoxiously, habitually, loudly, and badly.

Name one reason your halo-polishing claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest.



You identified yourself as "Americanlinguist". A wide range of people (wiki and real-world) know who I am too, why wouldn't they? I'm not paranoid, just realistic that some people are not safe to give personal information to. A lot of others since I started editing have mine too.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Ha!

There's a simple answer to your question: it doesn't, and it structurally can't. Get over it.

Wikipedia is biased in 100 ways, and has various pages of minority interest (and not so minority interest) controlled by cliques of fringe and not-so-fringe POV pushers.

Without going into cultist pages, just try some neutral editing on Intelligent Design, or Messianic Judaism and see how far you get! Powerful users have been getting away with this for years (jayig anyone?) and always will.

Of course, you can fight a righteous fight against it, but you'll soon give up, as we all do.

However, there's a difference. If wikipedia contains biased, slanted, and controlled content, there's plenty of other things out there to ballance it, and so it's harm is minimal. (Probably no more "harmful to truth" than Fox News, and there's lots of fine content on uncontroversial issues to balance it). However, biographical articles on people otherwise unnotable on the internet can do real harm.

Posted by: Moulton

The details of any one episode of the recurring soap opera is probably of little interest to those who have never heard of the characters ensnared in that particular kerfuffle.

What's durable is the abstract structure and the recurring emotional features of the generic soap opera.

What makes sense is to factor out these invariant parameters, because that's the distilled fuel that perpetually drives the drama engine, from one block to the next.

We've mentioned this before, so it's not exactly a new pheromeme, but perhaps another random observer will awaken on this episode.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Narcissistic+Wounding and http://www.google.com/search?q=Narcissistic+Rage are staple elements of these banal soap operas. One can find copious examples of these bloody dramas going all the way back to Cain and Abel. And one can find http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080314/worrying-about-wheel-warring-in-our-wikiwoe/ of these shreklisch dramas ever since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoevsky wrote the first realistic novels to insightfully caricature these perennially dysfunctional communities.

Posted by: tarantino

The unspoken history behind the Lar/Slim affair illustrates the failures of WMF's governors much better than this FT2 episode. It should be told some day.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Why not?


At the end of the day, this is a minor issue at best. Wikipedia has far bigger problems to deal with than a pro-bestiality slant in a handful of infrequently-read articles. Your gripe with FT2 was and remains personal, and you are attempting to use the zoophilia issue as a lever to accomplish a goal which does not directly serve any interest save your own.

Posted by: Lar

While I might see your point, isn't that rather a slippery slope? Someone could (rather laboriously) construct a line of reasoning as to why not everyone is a king and therefore your userid is disparaging thus making you unfit for adminship just based on that. (I don't agree, I'm just sayin...)

Purely names based analysis may not be a good approach. I recognise that may not be the only issue with the Bishzilla persona. However, I happened to find it amusing though, rather than a major issue, it's important to not take ourselves TOO seriously... my own avatar here and elsewhere is a feeble attempt to remind myself of that.

No, until WP requires real names only as identifiers, I think this is a dangerous course.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I have said many times I bitterly regretted that remark, made in a moment of anger, and a number of other remarks made between Dec 5-6.



Poisonous messages were being left on a group IP containing my real name. As I've said many times, and as you should know. The final block conditions were not made public, but were in an email from Scribe.



I have explained the chronology many times, to you, to Arbcom and many others. The blog was quickly deleted (evening of the 6th Dec, from memory, I can verify exactly, later, and I notified Scribe who can confirm).



I said, if you read my post properly, that I had made contact with only one site. I.e. sent a message and received a reply. ASAIRS is defunct, as I am sure you know.



And you have not answered my question about User:TBP. What is your view on the ethics of confronting poor Seus Hawkins by a sockpuppet like that?

[edit] I have also said many times that the account given by WJBScribe, which is evidently neutral, should be made public. If that is not possible, FT2 wo uld you accept a request for it to be sent privately to you?

Time time and time again you refer to these public unblock conditions placed on-wiki at a time when negotiations were going on in private. Can you not get that through your head? Scribe was happy that most of the conditions were met, except for the apology, and except for providing diffs to the edits. All this had been done, including the blog being deleted and THEN the oversights happened. This must be the fourth time I have explained it to you, yet you still continue with this theme?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

HA!

Posted by: Lar

Factions come and go, alliances shift, players join and lose interest but the factionalism continues. That's politics. WP is no more immune to it than any other human endeavour. When you're on the winning side, it's easy to forget, and say "this is different, no factionalism here! Just good guys doing the right thing". When you're on the losing side, on the outs, it's easy to overlook everything else and focus on just the factionalism, and the "injustice" of it all.

And yet, despite being somewhat dispirited about that fact, which is inescapable, I remain optimistic about WP as a whole, as I do about so many other things we humans do. Great things are accomplished in many arenas not because of politics, but despite it.

Will WP come out all right in the end? I don't know. But if it doesn't at least what it created is freely licensed and can be used in a new effort.


Nice avatar. Are you supposed to be Indy, or the whip?

A side note, I built the http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7683 set last night. I found mistakes in the instructions. Another illusion shattered.

Posted by: everyking

I think it's easy to determine which accounts are joke accounts and which are not. My account is not intended for humorous purposes, it is not based on a character, and it is my only account. I don't really care about the name itself, I care about the fact that adminship is being exercised through a secondary account that uses a special idiolect for comedic purposes and pretends to be a dinosaur.

Posted by: Giano

A little satyrical humour does no harm, in fact I think it is good for WP. I see Bishonen has posted a reply to you there:

"Everyking, how you and Durova can bear to waste the community's time and your own time now the arbcom's time on the idiotic "problem" of Bishonen/Bishzilla is a mystery to me. You're even boring Wikipedia Review to tears on the subject, for god's sake! Nobody else cares! Unless it's time to add FaisalF to the club. Anyway, please stop worring, I've decided to stop using the sock altogether, I think she's had enough of a run. You'll have to get a new hobby. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC). "

C'mon Everyking, she's right, this is not like you, where's your sense of humour - mine is often sorely tested, but about the only thing that keeps me there.

Giano

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I can only see a problem if "idiolect" was being used to address aggrieved BLP subjects or "members of the public", other than that, I can't see it any more problematic than "Can't sleep clown will eat" etc

Posted by: dtobias

How is it "preventing defamation" to hide part of the true editing history of the person involved? "Defamation" implies that something is being said that is not true, which doesn't fit the situation when people were having attention called to particular true edits, which were then suppressed to stop this.

Posted by: FT2

I'm sure you do, but your personal regrets aren't what I'm asking.

Did you 1) make claims http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/FT2/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=prev&oldid=175674618 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/FT2/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=prev&oldid=175674631 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant!&diff=prev&oldid=175736913 of criminal sexual abuse, and then 2) spend most of 2008 explicitly lying by claiming you had never done so? Is it also not true that far from having any "regret", bitter or otherwise, you were busy continuing to imply this to other people as late as 16-17 September 2008 when you wrote Jimbo "I have not speculated about his private life" and Jimbo replied "You just did, in this very email thread".

(This referred to your email of Sept 16, "I don't care what he gets up to in his own time", I believe -- if you were not still implying, why would you need to "not care"?)



That's also not an answer. The "poisonous messages" can be seen in your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Renamed_user_35. They were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20071204193735&limit=1&type=block&page=User%3ARenamed_user_35 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20071206175007&limit=1&type=block&page=User%3ARenamed_user_35. Evidence of a "hate campaign"? Laughable. Not that you would ever know what a "very nasty hate campaign" was, right? Do you still want to claim this was accurate? You haven't shown a solitary word to that effect.

You'll need more than "someone at work might have seen my block log" to support this complete fabrication of a "very nasty hate campaign". There was - but you were the one doing it, weren't you?



Not an answer. Did you at least tell people that you were also using that same edit to identify your defamation target to multiple "activist sites" and "organizations", or at the least, that you had openly told multiple people you had done so? Like hell you did. Don't you think if you had made that clear instead of trying to avoid acknowledging it, some people might have had a rather different view of it? Of course they would.

But you didn't want that, did you? You continued claiming the edit was removed to hide evidence, or to bias the election. You spun conspiracy theories about how it was removed, all the time knowing it had in fact been used to create serious defamation and that (rather than anything else) was probably the reason.



"I have contacted the relevant organisations". You do recognize a plural when you write one, don't you? And past tense? Are you saying this post was a deliberate lie to the community, then? Was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=176137862 supposed to be a lie, too? Intended to cause others to take you more seriously, or to over-react? You succeeded, didn't you. You indirectly caused many people to take it "seriously", all right. Like a WMF oversighter, me, Giano, people who read your posts, most of the admins you spoke to, and Jimbo himself.

You know what they do here if you shout "Bomb!" in an airport? Even if you claim it wasn't that serious later or you didn't really have one? They rip your balls off, Damian, if you have any, and lock you up anyway. Either way you're guilty - you meant it, or you're a fool.



"Poor Suess". My heart is dripping pathos right now. Do you really think anyone here wears their heart on their sleeve? You probably knew the background on TBP and Suess (just looked up to check I have the right incidents) and knew she was an SPA canvasser all along, but still try to push a case here because it suits you to portray her that way; you also apparently find it easier to focus on accounts involved and ignore the content. This is Emotional Cliches #101, Peter, "Make A Martyr Of Them". You lied (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=222814921) about Phdarts too which was rather transparent ("Later, he admitted knowing").


Do you really want to be flagellated for sin, like your fanatic namesake? And a mistress to "punish" you for being naughty? Do you like making sordid libels like this? Have you got issues around sex like your namesake? He liked a touch of the whip and punishment too, didn't he? You're a crap liar Peter, and that's been your approach right up to date - do it, then deny it while still doing it.

You offer no real response, no compunction, and you sought to mislead others to back your campaign. A token crocodile tear of "bitter regret" that's as likely maudlin self-pity for doing it so badly, and zero regret for the deeds you did. You lied - badly and loudly. Isn't that true? Do you yet have even one reason why your claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest?

Posted by: Moulton

Uffda!

See: http://www.google.com/search?q=Narcissistic+Wounding and http://www.google.com/search?q=Narcissistic+Rage.

Posted by: Basil

You see, FT2, you can write with impressive lucidity when you want to.

Posted by: Giano

It's a funny thing, hysterical in fact, and only just struck me, that all the time FT2 was being wrongly promoted as that rather underdressed massochistic gentleman, in the leather thong and ornamentation, Peter Damian's alter ego was exactly that sort of person. That's rather a perceptive point FT2, and kinda scary that no one noticed it before. Shudder, suddenly feels cold in here.

Giano

Posted by: FT2

It's a pity you woke up so fucking late Giano. Apologies for the swear, but I've had a year of this bs and exactly like Poetlister suddenly people are going "ooohhhhhhh......"; I'm not exactly applauding. We have some slow learners, or what?

(Except KM who I'm sure knew it all along and likely thrived on watching. Popcorn any good, hun?)

And more a pity you tied yourself onto the fanatic's bandwagon - he leads, you gallop, right?

Posted by: Cla68

This is a good, short assessment of Wikipedia's current situation. Whenever any of you reading this gets too upset that certain articles are under complete lockdown by groups of editors, like the two Doc mentions above, just remind yourself that Wikipedia is an entertainment website. That's it. It's a hobby, or should be anyway.

Write some good articles that you can be proud of. Perhaps engage in a little admin drama to try to keep the project's admins honest. But otherwise please don't get too worked up about this stuff, except perhaps the BLP issues since that can have real-world ramifications as Doc points out.

Posted by: Giano

Damain was wrong to threaten you in the manner that he did, but the fact you are in this predicament is largely your own damn fault. Qui tacet consentire videtur. The fact you have belatedly decided to set the record straight is good, but don't blame others for not denying what you could not be bothered to.

Giano

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Could one of you proceed to http://wikipedia.org/ and remove the word "encyclopedia" in 10 languages, please? Because it's sure as heck holding itself out to be something other than "an entertainment website".

Posted by: EricBarbour

AAAGGGHHHH!!
POPCORN BAD! POPCORN BAD!!!
RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!!!

Posted by: Cla68

Oh yes, remember to copy and save your favorite Wikipedia articles and images to your PC's hard drive. That way, if Wikipedia goes belly up you can repost the articles to Citizendium or another wiki (or your own personal website) and you won't have lost all that hard work you've put into them.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

LOL! I'm not saying that is true -at all-, but it is sort of funny in an 'ooh err mrs' sort of way. And the choice of name of course proves it. However I truly think a lot of people have issues around sex. We've all either not got over our inhibitions, or didn't have many to start with but gathered them over the years after abuse or destructive relationships. But that's a different issue.

What I will say FT is that you make yourself an easy target. Do you want to be a martyr for 'zoo rights'? Not saying you necessarily are a zoophiliac, but if you don't want people to think you are, why do you link to your subpages on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/List_of_studies_into_zoosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Research
An article claiming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/asa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/media

on your talk page, which a lot of people might visit when they first encounter you on wiki? If they're on your talk page, they're not primarily there for you to use surely, at least on some level I think you want others to see them.

I suggest you remove these links, you can find all these from the list of your own subpages, its the same as I decided not to have a userbox with my religion on, on my userpage, in case people assumed I was a POV pushing and dangerous weirdo at a glance. I'd rather deceive them for a few weeks before they realise that.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I don't follow these dramas with anything other than a passing interest. But it I see repeatedly the statement "I'm not saying you are..." and on the other side "...are you saying I committed some crime?" Seems the door is well opened* so I wonder, has FT2 ever said whether he has engaged in sexual activity with animals (not the human kind that is)?

* Please no puns about closing the barn door after the horse...

Posted by: dtobias

Just say Neigh to horses!

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Well even if he was, he wouldn't, would he? Not even a full time zoophiliac would come on an unrelated site and say "say it loud, I'm a sheep sh*gger and proud" I think it's technically a crime, for a start.

Posted by: Docknell

Hi FT2

Talking about fanatics and what they do to push their point, can you clear this one up for me? I know some may paint me as a fanatic for rooting out your dodgy editing and weird fringe arguments, but this seems relevant to a lot of your patterns of behaviour on WP and WR.


Here is a snapshot of you (using a sockpuppet), to remove negative press (BBC news in this case) about zoophilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=next&oldid=25718121

You moved it to zoosadism, however the actual article states very clearly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/741856.stm

"Dr Vizard says bestiality and zoophilia can also be signposts in a child's progression to other sexual crimes. "

Now I know you did not get blocked by Bishonen for adding that information to WP. But since we are on the subject of fanaticism, could you please explain why so many of your activities, edits, and proclamations follow this sort of pattern?

Docknell

Posted by: FT2

Live and learn. Unless you're a sociopathic jerk who could care less.

A few drama-dealers cut the actual pharma products with cheap toxic household chemicals of salacious innuendo, then passed them out on the wiki-street as valuable and informative to people who took their word on it. And who cares who gets hurt because drugs.... are... such... fuuuun. Yeah.

This has shown all the ethics of the entrenched narcotics dealer: "who cares as long as I get my rake-off". The morality of the mob. And the back-pedaling is about as transparent as an Enron board-room meeting...... or a fetishist's saranwrap.

I'll admit I underestimated the need to defend myself. I thought it was all too inanely stupid and chose quiet dignity instead. "Let them go and they'll let you go", or "Don't react and they'll tire of it". It was quiet on-wiki and there's no reason to import dramas into the project. I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I? It wasn't dignity, but punch-bag, that I created. But nothing that I underestimated, nothing, holds a candle to the willing urge of some to have a party on tenuous grounds at others' expense -- or to wittingly or unwittingly endorse malicious hearsay for kicks. Mock my wordiness if you must, but I tell you this, I never considered hearsay and preconceptions, and I considered every arbitration case in full recognition that it would impact real people and each had the best I could give.

Posted by: that one guy

>_<

Drama extends over here.

Posted by: Docknell

OK nice bit of drama there FT2.

Could you please try to reconcile what you just said with your past actions in writing this (its mostly your piece of work) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

When you first came here, you accused me of being one of the people on that list you conflated. Anyone can access this information and check up on the diffs.

For the most part, the diffs seem to show editors working towards clarifying the NLP and the zoophilia articles with strong reference to peer reviewed studies and NOPV policies. They also seem to be avoiding defending themselves against your accusations.

They avoid defending themselves, just as you claim to have done, and at the same time they are getting blocked and banned left right and center. If you didn't "learn" from your own actions and accusations, then you would have to be utterly braindamaged. Basically, in light of your diffs, what you just wrote is utterly unbelievable.

There are also some really obvious outlandish accusations from yourself there, where you take totally unrelated personal attack accounts (different parts of the world according to the ip numbers) and try to associate them with critics of zoophilia and neurolinguistic programming.

So it seems quite odd that you now throw claims of people spreading malicious hearsay and of you being ignorant and naive of behaviour at WP. You are indeed your own worst enemy. Your little drama just backfired on itself and clearly shows how sociopathic you are as an editor and admin.

Docknell

Posted by: FT2

I know why I'm not the world's most popular admin, and that's fine, it's part of Arbcom. But I seem to need a bit of a hint, why you're one of the most despised POV warriors from 2005-2007 to be banned from Wikipedia. Remind me again, will you?

Not one user back then had a single good word to say for you, even the ones who usually like drama. Epithets like "the most dishonest editor" were used more than a few times to describe your many pov war socks and personal attack socks. You rarely if ever argued except to sew divisions and dissent, or to cause pain to the users who got in the way of your games. But despite 3 years of effort, you never did find how to push my buttons, did you?

Your sole interest here at WR hasn't changed from your interest at WP 2006, when I first removed you from the wiki, on guess what topics... NLP and zoophilia. And retaliation games. What a surprise. You pushed the same boring line to DPeterson (banned), Jean Mercer (rejected the invitation to edit war for you), some guy whose post is on-wiki a year or so ago, and Damian. Finally you found someone who needed a Master and off he went, "Yes Master... Must Trust Master".... Tolkein would have been proud.

You have never said anything except to stir problems for the project. You were already sanctioned at Arbcom before we met. I've kept you off your pet subjects for 3 years now, and doesn't it just gall you. If you like sadomasochism, flog Damian a bit. He likes it.

FT2

Posted by: tarantino

I won't comment on the substance of all the arguments presented, but FT2 I think your reaction is refreshing and is something that should have happened a long time ago.

As you say, live and learn.

Posted by: FT2

Quite. And don't I just know it...

Posted by: everyking

People who want to be administrators on one of the most important websites in the world need to behave like serious adults. They don't actually need to be serious adults, but they need to act like it on Wikipedia. Bishonen has always had an obnoxious predilection for this kind of junk--I still remember her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/European_toilet_paper_holder--but exercising admin powers through a joke account far exceeds the limits of what should be tolerated.

Posted by: Somey

Y'know, James, you're absolutely right - or at least, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. That is a disrespectful and arrogant thing to do. Unfortunately, on the list of things that are wrong with Wikipedia, that one's probably on Page 6 or so, along with "failing to remove AFD tags from kept articles in an expeditious manner" and "visually distracting sig templates."

I don't suppose we can all just concede the point, and maybe not worry about it quite so much for a while?


Indeed, I'm afraid so. Another example of applying real-world standards to the interwebs, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Lar

Damn straight!

Posted by: Docknell

Come now FT2. Its a simple question (that you snipped). Please clear this up for me:


You seem to have written the most disgraceful fringe POV protection article on the face of WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

Now you try to claim ignorance on what goes on at WP.

You run a fringe POV pushing sockpuppet and then ditch it when you get close to your first request for adminship

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=next&oldid=27742611

Now that seems to follow a similar pattern of corruption with your fully fledged go at trying to gain power.



I'm not a despised person at all: According to your neurolinguistic programming/zoophilia protection page you seem to want to include just about anyone critical of those subjects into your fire and brimstone rant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

According to your "formal documentation" above, anyone who criticizes your belief systems (coincidence?), regardless of how much useful editing they produce, can be damned to hell and despised.

The reason you get flack and get discredited, is because you have proven yourself to be utterly discreditable. Anyone can do it. They only have to look at the diffs.

Its nice to see non-promotional editors on said fringe subjects have stopped getting summarily dismissed from WP at last or dissuaded from editing the article. Again, I'm not optimistic about WP at all, but its refreshing to see at least something getting sorted out right. e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=264229477&oldid=264228694



Could you manage to actually deal with the sticky subject of your sockpuppet's fringe pushing diffs now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=next&oldid=25825503

Docknell

Posted by: Giano

I always thought European Toilet Paper Holder was quite funny, very funny in fact. Oh well no accounting for taste! Don't forget Bishonen was the one,who by blocking FT2, brought this matter to a head and sorted. Everyone, including FT2, should be thanking her. I'm glad FT2 is taking this opportunity (albeit slowly) to finaly give some answers. I don't see much "dignity" in remaining silent while one is pilloried as the worst kind of pervert. I've a feeling he doesn't either now.

No one will ever be happy with all his answers, or beleive them, but at least by giving them people have a choice about what to beleive - before they had no choice but to assume his silence meant it must be true. Personally, I don't think he is as bad as he's been painted, any more than a doctor interested in VD must be a syphlitic habititual user of tarts.

Giano

Posted by: Kato

Yes.

But a year on from Jimbo vs Rachel Marsden - and two years on from Essjay - and three years on from etc... etc... - one would have imagined that a long term editor who has reached the lofty heights of the Arbitration Committee would have figured that out by now.

When the Co-founder of the Project and the Visual Talisman is himself constantly embroiled in personal drama - you should get an idea what you have let yourself in for when you supported his hive. Wikipedia is a drama engine - a defamation machine etc etc. Most of the Drones, the Worker Bees and even the Queens that support it discover that in the end.

Posted by: Moulton

One of the ironies of dramaturgy is that a characteristic reckoned as the greatest weakness is also the greatest strength.

Wikipedia excels as a drama engine. The obvious thing to do is to repurpose the site to be what it already does best.

Just advertise the site as the Internet's premier drama engine, hosting the most enthralling post-modern dramaturgy the Internet has to offer.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=264215325&oldid=264147855

Mwahaahaahaahaa!

Posted by: FT2

That, Giano, is the biggest steaming pile I've ever heard you say. "They had no choice". There's always a choice. Many decided not to assume, and not to spread hearsay for kicks. Where were you in that choice? I fucked up on trusting a bit too much, and brought some of the inevitable consequences on myself, I'm not denying it. But what you actually mean is "They found it easier to defer to the crowd's mood and join in the antics". Pack instinct. Lucky there weren't any alleged witches to burn as well, right? Because they "had no choice but to believe"? Not so heroic that way, is it? A bit slimy, though undeniably all too common.

A number here, to their credit, didn't do that. But what they did was stay silent and let others do so, even knowing it was irresponsible. Makes them as responsible as the first lot.



I did that because nobody else was trying to sort it out. Idealistic yes. Also prepared to back that with sleeves rolled up and hard work. My choice. What wasn't my choice was a crackpot theory that owed more to a cheap well-thumbed stroke-book and gullibility than anything else -- and an entire site willing to collectively lap it up and spread it on. That's what I figured wrong, isn't it? Ignoring would have worked with Damian alone, or Damian and a couple of others. It was the mass buy-in to his wet dream that I didn't allow for, right Kato? Not Damian himself.

Posted by: Moulton

This is precisely where I came into this horror show. But when I came in (back in August 2007), the subject wasn't FT2. Nope, nope, nope. When I came in, the subject was a hundred sincere scientists about whom IDCab had concocted and published a notorious crackpot theory, unsupported by a shred of evidence.

The practice of concocting and propagandizing crackpot theories about living persons (be they subjects of BLPs or Wikipedia's own remarkable cast of characters) is a ubiquitous practice in the Wikisphere.

It's a practice I railed against (as Kato can attest) and it's a practice that Jimbo personally reified when he intervened to site-ban me with extreme prejudice for having the temerity to http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=English+Wiki+RfC against the blood-thirsty witch-hunting cabal.

So, as they say, what goes around comes around.

I'm sorry to see it happen to anyone, friend or foe.

And now I hope FT2 will join the movement to put an end to these damnable scapegoat dramas.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

What is most disturbing about your advocacy for at least tolerance of the view that sex with animals is under certain circumstances non-exploitative and perhaps in some sense a normal state of affairs is that it almost exactly parallels Erick Mueller's documented views that sex with children under certain circumstances is also non-exploitative and a normal state of affairs. The "Yuck" factor alone is deserving of closer scrutiny of the nature of people in positions of high authority on Wikipedia. Add to this Wikipedia's refusal to take any reasonable steps to apply child protective features or policies to the site, which has a huge level of participation and use by children and you have a very serious criticism of the site.

Maybe you think your views about sex with animals deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia in which adults of any sexual proclivities work side by side with children but I think not.

I'm also completely at a loss to understand whatever rage you have against Peter and why you are expressing this in vague sexual terms. It certainly makes me less willing to treat you with kid gloves concerning your views about sex with animals.

Posted by: FT2

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller? And of course "OMG THE CHILDREN"! And that's your concern? I nearly wrote a book on this and other forms of abuse, to identify for those who care, what's accurate and what's not. It doesn't make me an expert, it doesn't mean sympathy for abusers, it does mean that inaccurate hearsay does untold harm. Here's some examples:

Suppose in your self-righteousness, you go and write an article on a form of abuse, just the way you think it should be. Damn them all, cut their nuts off, full steam ahead on all preconceptions and hide anything that's known, that challenges that view. Trouble is... people who need to know the current state of research get misled. People dealing with it for real will lack access to current knowledge. "Everyone knows" is pernicious and evil compared to actual careful checking of knowledge. In your own way, you're abusing as much as any. Imagine if we allowed the article on rape to read that all men are evil and will rape women as soon as look at them. Or the article on drug abuse read that everyone who has just one toke will graduate to heroin. What about the article on homosexuality - "everyone knows" homosexuals groom children, right? 50 years ago that was exactly the state of common belief. And you'd have been right there railing for it. Not perfect arguments, but you get the point. "If we make dope even slightly less than evil then people might try it!" "If we tell kids about homosexuality maybe they'll grow up gay!" Would that genuinely help people who might look to an encyclopedia for current knowledge?

I'm sorry that research doesn't tally with your personal preconceptions. It didn't tally with mine. You think I expected to find that? But I checked - apparently a damn sight more carefully than you choose to. Go off and complain to the researchers and authorities in the field if their view doesn't work for you. Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?). There are papers that emphasize well the connection of animal and human abuse, to a shocking standard. But the view of the field is that their research for various reasons is not authoritative, nor well informed, about the topic of zoophilia generally, as opposed to abuse. If for you those are the same, then rest assured for most of the authoritative voices on the topic within science, they usually aren't. The voices of the field are not "fringe", nor minimal, but as best I can tell, the voice of every serious research in the topic since proper research started in the mid 90's. It surprised me, and I checked that out for myself. But if that's how it stands, then that's how it stands. I dealt with it. You might have to.

Go look at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&oldid=4555850. A bit of definitions, a bit of porn, a bit of law, a bit of myth. Information for a parent, or a person distressed at their own fantasies? For researchers? Anything at all about the human beings or (in sad cases) the victims? Any useful data at all? Not a shred. I looked at Wikipedia for information when I heard of the site, there wasn't any, so I ended up adding a bit. So shoot me. What I added was well within common knowledge on the topic (for those who have done the research), and was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=4774974&oldid=4769653 when asked ("ref" tags didn't exist back then but the obligation to write factually only was evident). Do many newcomers meet that standard on their first edits? I then pretty much dropped the topic unless it came up on my watchlist.

My next edit was 4 months later, as a result of issues identified during an edit war. You know how that goes: "damn, this does have issues, lets fix it". I haven't touched the article in any significant way for close to 2 years or more. Other early editors included Herschelkrustofsky, Zordrac, Mindspillage, Tony Sidaway, ... some seriously, some only in passing; all obviously suspect too, I guess. You don't like the topic? Nobody asked you to. I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

Posted by: Peter Damian

So let's start:

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

The world does not need your amateur "scholarship" on the matter of sex with animals nor certainly not "Zordrac's" for that matter. I don't ask you to "improve" it. I don't wish to dialog with you about the content. You are not the giver of enlightenment on this matter. I am most concerned about the article, noted by Peter, that you linked from your user space. It is a direct parallel to "Muellerism" in respect to his views on sex with children. It ignores any notion of "position of trust" and says "no pain no foul." At least provide, and advocate for the use of parental controls to put your nonsense beyond the reach of at least some children.

Better still get off the internet until you can learn some editorial restraint.


Note: I refer above to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/asa, which was provided by wikiwhistle not Peter.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Not quite, IMHO. A professional interest doesn't look like this. How many people would have this 'zoophilia is romantic or harmless' POV?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: FT2

Well there goes Wikipedia...


Then don't raise the topic.


You love personalizing it. That's your current tack. "Your" views, "your" nonsense". You're entitled to your view on what's valid content. My view (as a 2004 newcomer) was if we have an encyclopedia, and it has an article, and the public are invited to add missing knowledge, let that article be useful to researchers seeking information. My 2009 view is that "not censored" is right, for many reasons.

Presumably you'll edit conservapedia then, or encarta, and we'll put all the dangerous knowledge on a separate website with age verification only. Sex education to start at 16, and no mention of anything except missionary position and heterosexuality, to upset them. Are you living in the real world here?

Posted by: Moulton

How about some education on due process, civil rights, scholarly ethics, and the scientific method?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I am not surprised you cannot imagine positions outside libertarian Wikipedia and right wing Conservapedia. You are narrow and arrogant in your world view. You are not capable of doing a suitable job of providing information to children. You have no sense of limits or boundaries. You are usurping parental, even medical roles with wanton disregard and irresponsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/asais on one of your own user pages. That seems like an endorsement of the content to me. Go back and hide in the drivel of atomized and annon content creation if you want.

Posted by: FT2

You read rather selectively didn't you. This was the guy who tried to exaggerate statistics, his dialog repeatedly needing to be corrected due to "shock" wording and original research, whose editing was influenced by personal views enough to have invented facts without checking them, and who was so far removed from practical concerns to write that "The fact that animals do not carry human STDs is not worthy of mention". Tell that to some poor fool who tries, and can't ask anyone else about their fears. Still, we got a good informational article from it, that I haven't edited since, and which seems to be fairly balanced, so it worked out okay. The user you're citing stated of our combined work (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia_and_health&diff=92740821&oldid=92735095 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia_and_health&diff=93317079&oldid=93266463):

"If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic... exclusively and in such depth. I believe it may be unique. That is surely an achievement. Article now submitted for peer review, and comments received" - Skoppensboer

He finally http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia_and_health&diff=92629676&oldid=92629019:

"I see you've been busy, and I like the solution... In the light of our co-operation on this page, it may be best to drop the dispute...."

Complaints? Or job well done?

Posted by: Cedric

Keep digging. There's got to be a pony in there somewhere!

Posted by: Moulton

That beast looks more like a goat to me...

Posted by: Peter Damian

Not 'finally'. Do you really believe all this crap you write? The edit you link to is dated Dec 2006. But in June 2007 you edit war with him again. Perhaps you 'forgot' about that?



On your claim that he tried to exaggerate statistics, I have read his work and I know whose version I prefer.

Posted by: FT2

It's always good to be told what I can imagine, by someone who's themself unable to imagine much beyond what the pulp media feeds them. Restores one's faith in human nature. It's easier to criticize than do anything about it, right?

That narrowness has written articles on everything from technology to history, movie plots to politics, human rights to law. It's been the one arbitrator to share and take so seriously the concerns many here had on BLP and spidering of "bad content on living people" when the chance arose. It's been a punchbag in order to avoid importing drama to the wiki, a decision I now see was well intentioned but completely mistaken. Bad mistake, eh?

As to the draft you mention, untouched since mid-2006, it's still in userspace - I got bored of it, moved on to other topics, or wasn't satisfied with it. Your "seems like" carries little weight; you've not been capable of distinguishing "writing about" from advocacy. Two short posts above; you couldn't avoid completely gratuitous personal assumption and OMG CHILDREN in either. "OH NOES!" I may go back to it some day, but I don't seem to like lingering in any given topic area too long. While you're waiting, consider the article on absorbent cotton (UK:"cotton wool"), which you can use either to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- or to smother provide protection for your children. While you watch "nice" tv, play games on the internets where children never go to sites other than disney, and share KM's popcorn. Your bleating "OMG KIDS!" and arguing for pulp belief, and explicitly objecting to having "scholarly encyclopedic coverage" http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22368&st=240&p=152018&#entry152018 is a bad idea that rarely works.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Flavius (NLP but illustrates my point that FT2 fails to understand the concept of reliable sources).

And this one is perfect:



It took a while.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Self pity and orthodox Wikipedian non-sense. The world doesn't owe you an "encyclopedia."

Posted by: FT2

That's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Flavius_vanillus, right?

(Note: Woohoo and Katefan were appointed mentors on Feb 6; neither had any prior involvement. I had taken a break from NLP long before: Dec 1, 2005 - June 5, 2006 with 1 edit in that time.)

It's telling that the only cites you have are Headley and (possibly) editors banned with Headley.



I'm trying to think how you could make more of a fool of yourself, but it's hard, Damian. The background to this was Skopp's own OR and pov warring - specifically his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=139588649 to being http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=139575640 to pack in his alarmist exaggerated-style editing, to which he stated "this conversation is about whether or not readers need to know that the expert opinions frequently referenced on the zoophilia page (and related pages) are not published in peer-reviewed journals..." Unfortunately this was a borderline pov warrior with a penchant for exaggeration and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_Miletski&diff=91008264&oldid=72866083 which often had to be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_Miletski&diff=175718744&oldid=144133119.

Really, "poor old Skopp" was roughly the same as "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22368&view=findpost&p=151896". Borderline pov warrior with a penchant for exaggeration, fabrication or non-checking for the first; SPA canvasser and open pov warrior for the second. And your third cite, a (banned) crony of Docknell's with a block log as long as your arm by two uninvolved mentors. At least Skopp's strong views contributed to one article and with effort he could collaborate; that's something the other two never did.


Your comment on me at arb election was "Very well-mannered, never rude, always civil. I avoid types like this in real life..." I trust you have an improved view now

Posted by: Peter Damian

I don't look first at whether someone was banned by you or by a cadre of yours. I look for clear and lucid argument, care with sourcing, a sound and robust understanding of WP:DUE, and (finally) whether they are qualified or not. You look for evidence of rudeness or previous blocks.

Flavius was a fine editor. I have been through practically all his edits, including the ones prompting the blocks that you reference.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I believe tl;dr is the appropriate modern riposte is it not?

It seems though that FT2 has admitted what we all knew all along - that he wasn't being honest in his time on ArbCom, he was playing a character. All his public pronouncements were examples of exceptionally well-honed linguistic skills of someone trying to act a role of a careful thinker - when all along he's just some bloke with the same foibles (let's assume ) as everyone else.

The trouble is that it always showed - it was an unconvincing act that nobody believed - perhaps not even FT2 himself, as he could never trust himself to talk freely about - well - anything. It doesn't seem the right way to build an encyclopaedia to me.

Posted by: FT2

"Mussttt... please.... Masterrr!" goes Damian

The idea of WooHoo and Katefan (whom you probably never knew) being a "cadre" of any kind, much less of an unknown non-admin, is ludicrous. That, and Flavius being http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Flavius_vanillus.... that refrain of yours is sounding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hinnibilis&diff=223359629&oldid=223359211

"I have made a careful study of all "Headley's" edits and I have made my own independent conclusions"

Yes, and they usually seem to involve allegations of fetishism and scanty clad males with whips and string vests, don't they? I to have serious doubts whenever you try and say you have "thoroughly studied" someone's edits. I doubt your "independent conclusions" took into account that every other editor who "looked" at Headley in depth -- even those strongly into "science" -- decided he was dishonest in the extreme. As indeed you yourself are. Dishonest apologies, dishonest self-defense, dishonest hiding that you knew Headley was your co-editor, dishonest representation of the extent of your defamation, dishonest description how many sites and bodies you contacted, dishonest denial of your allegations, and dishonesty in claiming you'd stopped making them and now regretted it. Your "evidence" when challenged is a post or two by a banned proxy of Docknells and two POV warriors.

Go back to Docknell. This thread's become mental masturbation, and at least in Master's hands you'll be safe - he knows how to spank a monkey properly.


And biscuit - calm is my norm. I'm calm now, and I'll be calm after this thread's done. I just don't usually feel obligated to respond to off-site drama. I prefer a quiet backwater life. I'm annoyed about having to do so now. A year of salacious idiocy and watching it being lapped up by others for kicks, will try any man's patience though. Just "ignoring" had turned out to be a really bad mistake, and it's had more than a fair chance (as has Damian); forget it.

Posted by: Moulton

Wikipedia is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/double_bind, FT2. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

And I don't just mean you, personally, FT2.

Wikipedia generally puts everyone in an outrageous, crazy-making http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/double_bind.

The outcome, unsurprisingly, is http://www.google.com/search?q=lunatic+social+drama.

Posted by: tarantino

There is a great deal non-scholastic coverage of sexuality, poorly written bios of porn stars, and material that is seemingly there only to pander. For example is it really necessary for an encyclopedia any child can read have an illustrated article on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gokkun&diff=263900112&oldid=262755568, "a genre of Japanese adult video in which a woman consumes copious amounts of semen"? (The illustration was removed just today after being in place for nearly 5 months, but the related article Bukkake (T-H-L-K-D) is still adorned.)

Do you think there should be no age limit on viewing any article or image currently available on Wikipedia? How about editing or administering (and I've seen editors as young as 8 and twelve year old administers) those articles?

The having a no age limit opinion must be the popular one, but I find it untenable. If WP and WMF doesn't change itself, I predict it will be forced to change.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Oh. Bloody hell. He said ............ he said ..............

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

What FT2 is incapable of understanding in the concept of editorial restraint. I have never looked up "sex with animal" articles on Britannica, but I am certain if I did I would find either nothing or short definitional pieces without advocacy of any position whatsoever. This is because Britannica is capable of decorum and editorial restraint. Wikipedia would open the floodgates to fringe editors and admins incapable of evaluating the sources that underlie the articles. It then invites children into the discussion. FT2 is comfortable that young people with issues relating to these matters can now turn to his sound scholarship for answers. That is the most outrageous claim of all.

FT2 disengenously, and completely inaccurately lumps me into the ilk of "Conservapedia" and repressive right wing attitudes toward sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he, and many "libertarians" of Wikipedia fail to understand is that there exists a wide social consensus in which they are simply have no part. Right-wingers might at election time mis-characterize liberals as wanting to usurp parents in their relationships with their children. But it is simply not true. Respect for the parental role in providing guidance to children in matters of education, sexuality, individual relationships and community participation cut across such a wide spectrum it cannot be characterized "right" nor "left" but belong what can be better described as the sane and caring adult community. Liberals might be more willing to provide assistance from qualified educators under the guidance of community oversight of school boards but this is meant to help not usurp. A nut job encyclopedia is not better positioned to provide this guidance.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

The thing is that wikipedia is supposed to represent consensus reality, as you say. The medium of an encyclopedia should be intrinsically conservative in the sense of not a polemic trying to encourage people to believe things they currently don't. Describe the reality that there are fringe views, but not overemphasize their validity/ prevalence. It's not about right or left wing, but consensus reality vs people who chat too much solely within their own subculture, or read things that confirms their view so much that they think those views are the standard ones. And people are being intimidated into not NPOVing those articles due to others having been blocked.

If both Headley Down and Peter Damian have seen a problem with the zoophilia and NLP articles, and so are most of us here, could it be that instead of us or even PD following the lead of Headley Down for reasons of stupidity, desire to pick on FT, or psychological need for a Master, there actually is a problem? Seems the likeliest thing to me, PD is not thick after all.

Posted by: Kato

Clearly not.

You worked your way into a leading political position on one of the biggest sites on the internet - and self styled "sum of all human knowledge".

Wikipedios that prefer a quiet backwater life tend to poke around on articles creating content - without incident for the most part.

That doesn't mean you deserve to be accused of things you didn't do or didn't intend to do, but it means you bit off way more than you could chew.

The best course of action is to come to terms with the unsavory beast that is Wikipedia, and stay well away in future. Go away and lead a genuinely quiet backwater life, one that doesn't find you facing accusations published in the Tech Media for starters.

Posted by: FT2

I don't think it's Wikipedia so much as human nature. It mirrors society, and we can easily imagine if you brought representatives of all society into one confined area with requirements to co-exist. Racists and idealists, capitalists and communists, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, Muslim extremists and Neocon extremists, ... and a lot of people who belong to no extreme and just have their own stuff, ideals, altruism, or fantasies.

It's society, Moulton. No mystery about it at all.



I can see in future, some kind of "age tagging" of articles, possibly linked to parental advisory or net limitation services. That might be sensible, people could have the choice. I'd hate to see that extend to the point where just because a child could read Wikipedia, topics must be deleted or dumbed down. I can think of a few good reasons, and some I find compelling.

The easy reason is the argument from some principle, such as "People should have access to knowledge" or "It's being presented in an adult factual way". It's valid but I'd go for a more pragmatic reason.

20 years ago, people grew up and either didn't hear of adult topics, or their hearing was limited to hearsay from other children or instruction from parents, for the most part anyhow. A topic like sexual fetishes would be a bedroom fantasy, a rumor, a few magazines, or whatever. Not so today. Now the geni's well out of the bottle. I don't believe we'll see censorship on the scale to put it in. That kid who gets told something will go home (or a friends) and look it up, find others, and talk about it. In that environment a different response is needed -- genuine information. Take that away and all they'll find is porn sites, misinformation, others who do it, and polemic "for/against" sites of varying weight and credibility. These days honest openness on knowledge is better.

In the opposite context, a kid who does have some sexual fantasy or private-life crisis and looks it up online may be desperate for actual knowledge. What they will do with it nobody knows (there's probably been people who went on gun rampages after seeing "Bambi"!) but I'm guessing the good done by having valid information is more often than not better than festering self-hate caused through misinformation or censored information. Most teenagers and adults won't go to Bukkake for their anxieties. But they might go to bondage, transvestitism, and any number of other "philias".

For those reasons, Tarantino, I'd say the times have changed. The geni's out of the bottle. If it's not on Wikipedia they won't go back to MTV. They'll click the next Google hit instead... whatever that might be.


Last, Wikipedia's admin standard is simple and egalitarian. I'm broadly happy. If an age limit was introduced and the whole thing tightened up, thats a possibility too. Perennial debate; the acid test is can they do the task responsibly. Obviously some can, most can't. Embarrassed about being told to behave by a competent 12 year old? If they're competent then fine. RFA is a hell of a barrier to pass these days.

Posted by: Moulton

It's a dysfunctional society, to be sure.

But it's not inevitable in an organization with visionary leadership.

I had proposed that WMF-sponsored projects operate under the umbrella of a 21st Century http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/foundations-of-ethics/3iyoslgwsp412/10#Social_Contracts, adopting http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/foundations-of-ethics/3iyoslgwsp412/10# as outlined, for example, by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Senge in http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm.

Other large Open Systems Projects have operated under the Social Contract Model with remarkable success.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Hi FT2, I'd decided not to comment on your resignation here, because you deserve to be allowed to get on with your life, but I'm concerned that you're describing the situation as though none of it was your fault.

First, it's worth stressing that you weren't asked to resign because people believe you have sex with animals, but because you lied twice onwiki about when you first learned about the oversighting, then obfuscated for weeks when people asked you to clarify. The backdrop to it was the OM case, your desire to be finance director of Wikimedia UK without telling the membership anything about yourself, including that you were FT2, and some of the other issues you've been criticized for.

That aside, as you're raising the zoophilia issue yourself, look at the edit of yours that Peter Damian first highlighted, replacing "zoophile" with "pedophile," "animal" with "child," and "human" with "adult." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=4570685&oldid=4555850

"Lifestyle pedophiles often share some or all of the following common traits: ... Belief that children and adults are not so different in many ways ...</li><li>A sense that adults can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect children and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.</li><li>A "romantic" nature, the desire to have a bond for life, and a partner to devote oneself to fully. (Relationships of this quality are hard to depend upon with adults, as adult partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)</li><li>Above average awareness of feelings ([[empathy]]). This may be cause or effect, it isn't clear which. In other words, they may be close to children because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with children. Either way, pedophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.</li><li>Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find. ..."

And so on.

This is close to the way a pedophile might describe his attraction to children. It's not how a researcher would describe it. There's a degree of empathy or sympathy there, it seems. There's no mention of the human-animal relationship being almost necessarily abusive; no mention of mental illness, personality disturbness, or problems in childhood, issues that (so far as I know) researchers into bestiality would agree (rightly or wrongly) are traits that zoophiles might be expected to exhibit.

I'm not saying this means you're engaged in anything yourself, and maybe you did make those points in other edits. All I'm saying that you can surely understand why someone might be concerned, especially given that these were your very first edits to WP, and that you went on to make 753 edits to the article, and 574 to the talk page. This is more than a passing interest, and it's therefore a legitimate issue to raise when the writer stands for ArbCom. It's unlikely that someone who made that kind of edit to [[Pedophilia]] would be elected. To respond with comments like "OMG, THE CHILDREN!", as you did above, suggests you don't realize just how far outside the norm bestiality is, and why. That's not Peter Damian's fault.

Posted by: Kato

"OMG, THE CHILDREN" is the stock response when a Wikipedio gets called on any matter of social responsibility.

FT2 says that "Wikipedia mirrors society" - show me the society where leading elected figures - when questioned about the publication of gross illegal sexual acts - sarcastically reply "OMG, THE CHILDREN"?

Posted by: Cedric

" . . . and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am today."

Yeah, right. Whatever, dude.

Posted by: Docknell

Excuse me FT2!

I presented you with some diffs showing your use of sockpuppetry to POV push zoophilia and the psychocult of neuro linguistic programming.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22368&view=findpost&p=151955

You have evaded the question again.

I know it must make you very upset and angry that you have been found out, especially in the light of you being identified as incompetent, discredited, and untrustworthy, in the eyes of so many wikipedians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump/ACFeedback#FT2

But spanking the monkey? I'm not the one writing promotional things about the "lifestyle" of bestiality.

I am just asking you to clarify some of your diffs. The reason you are so discredited is likely due to people seeing through the sort of self-serving manipulations you presented before you were on arbcom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

And I repeat, I could be any one of the people on that list you conflated, or I could be none of them. You wrote the above list as globally encompassing and vague as possible so that you could protect your own POV interests. I am certainly a skeptic; a skeptic of anything you say or do.

One reason some editors (including sockchecker related editors) seem to have distanced themselves from you is probably because they feel you have tried to con them and they see through your nonsense. They know they can expect more of the same from you because it seems to be a very stable trait you cannot seem to shift. A more pseudoscientific view would say you jinx or have bad spirits that make this your fate.

I find it incredible that some people still involve themselves with you in your current sockpuppetry whitewash effort here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations&diff=prev&oldid=265151566

In light of your own obvious sockpuppetry, your self-serving abuse of the sockpuppetry recommendations, and your repeated use of “virulent sockpuppet” in arguing against people you don’t like, it would seem that you will likely bring discredit to any genuine long term anti-sockpuppetry work.

Some would say you bring general discredit to Wikipedia. If some say you curse it, I'd be inclined to agree.

Docknell

Posted by: Somey

This strikes me as being the crux of the issue:

The question is, are you, and indeed are any of us, really qualified to determine if reputable scientific research on the subject is genuinely sympathetic towards the view that zoophilia can be (in some cases) a reasonably healthy practice, or is it just possible that you're mistaking the fundamentally non-moralizing and "aloof" nature of most scientific writing as a form of sympathy?

Bear in mind that "sexology" isn't something that people would put on a par with, say, chemistry and biology, either.

Posted by: FT2

That's exactly the problem. Your "so far as I know" is about 180 degrees from the consistent mainstream of research. Which wasn't what I had expected either. Mainstream researchers into zoophilia itself (as opposed to studies on pre-selected criminal, delinquent or known abuser populations) do not seem to generally conclude it is necessarily or even mostly abusive; they do not tend to conclude it shows illness or mental health issues (though it often does). Go do some research, if you care to. Here's a quote for you:

"It's important to make the distinction [between animal sexual abusers and zoophiles]... There is no evidence yet that zoophilia leads to sexual deviation, but that's not to say that's not the case... I would go on to say that someone who is sexually violent [emphasis added] with an animal ... is a predator and might very well do that toward people."

Who was it, who said that zoophilia doesn't necessarily imply sexual abuse, and emphasized the importance of distinguishing the two? It was the ASPCA's Director of Counseling. Also involved with the NY correctional system. And for what it's worth, female. Can you think of anyone less likely to be a gooshy apologist? That quote's still on the internet, for what it's worth. Your credentials, Hell? Apart from assumption and ignorance?

Here's another:

"Zoophiles appear to be extremely caring and concerned for their animal(s) and people who know them would be hard put to claim abuse. Implicit in [the bill] is that sex with an animal in itself constitutes abuse."

That's a http://www.indiana.edu/~soc/pdf/WeinbergVita.pdf professor of 30 years standing at the Kinsey Institute, presenting to the Missouri House. Think these are cherry-picked exceptions? Think again. This is the mainstream view of serious research in the field, best I can tell. There's many more of the same, from people of high authority and standing in the field of sexology (human sexuality), ethology (animal behavior), and similar. I dropped this topic ages ago, in wiki-terms, but the research on it is still as it was.

Both quotes I noted as seeming to be authoritative voices, and cited as a result. I wish you would for once, get off your ass, do the legwork, and speak to professionals on a complex and controversial topic before telling the world how you, John Q. Pulpreader, are "sure" it has to be. I'm not sure at all, so I asked, and what came up is what came up.



Understandable yes. Legitimate to raise yes. But it was raised in full, the community took a hard look -- and decided not an issue. Want to see the communal view? They rejected it almost completely, and continued to do so while Damian's blog was up (including the oversighted edits), before it was up, and after Damian himself removed it. Even Damian (according to Thatcher) now concedes this was unlikely to have affected the election. Communal responses: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=175744837&oldid=175735967 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=175747711&oldid=175744837 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=175790293&oldid=175777108 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=175873026&oldid=175870729 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=175874774&oldid=175874068 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=175939840&oldid=175938512 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=176313466&oldid=176310846 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=176381206&oldid=176379526. Some childish, some perceptive. Either way Damian couldn't handle lack of traction, and began offsite defamation instead. That's what was not legitimate. You agree?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

If you feel discussion on this forum is somehow beneath the dignity of Wikipedians I assume you can find the door.

...and the horse you rode in on for that matter.

Posted by: Somey

Well, let's not be so hasty...

Is it fair to your fellow Wikipedians to suggest that their support for you in the 2007 ArbCom election was tantamount to "community" acceptance of the content you added to the NLP and Zoophilia articles? (I'm not saying it wasn't, but well, let's face it...)

The specific Oppose-vote statement by Dbuckner (T-C-L-K-R-D) , aka Mr. Damian, as referenced in many of the numbered links above, was this:

That statement doesn't include a word about those two subjects...

Posted by: FT2

When anyone on a few hours research and phone conversations (much less a few months and the intent of a book) can identify all major researchers in the field and their works within a couple of days, and read their writings and others' views on them, and yet on a hugely controversial subject historically linked closely to abuse, they all say very similar, then I'd say so.


It wasn't a vote on edits but on editors. The question was raised "does this person edit war on a topic? Weirdly? Obsessively? In a way that someone on Arbcom shouldn't?" Damian posted a long coat-rack (one film from many, one clinical article from many etc) to try and make his case, cited the number of edits, one person agreed with him, the rest - nobody really cared.

Was it seen? Very much so. It was linked, it was discussed, it was on the talk page where all voters check if there is a question, it was in my questions page (in full), I had listed it on my "articles worked on" and linked to that... and nobody is scrutinized as much as the leading candidates (of which Newyorkbrad was #1 and I was #2 with everyone else some way behind).

Was it checked out by the community in light of arbcom suitability/candidacy? Hell yes it was. Could anyone have voted against? Hell yes. Did they find it a problem. Go check (=no, only a tiniest minority).

NLP is Docknell's hobby-horse; Damian never mentioned it outside a couple of questions on the Q&A page, so the election couldn't have been a comment on it.

Posted by: dtobias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_children_(politics)

Posted by: FT2

Thinking of children, or any vulnerable group, is extremely important. But using it as an excuse to hide "scholastic encyclopedic material" as Glass Bead was urging is very serious and I answered http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22368&view=findpost&p=152075, why I feel it would be a very bad idea in this instance.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

I think you misunderstood me. I wrote that it was almost "necessarily" abusive, which simply means "by definition." I wasn't referring to the use of violence, but to the fact that an animal's not able to give consent, and that the human being might not be able to tell to what extent the animal is enjoying it, if at all.

To give an example, when this issue of your edits to Zoophilia first came up, I took a look at the article and at some of the sources. A couple of them were written by people who'd engaged in it, and they talked about ways of persuading a dog to engage in oral sex. One of them suggested smearing the genitals with food, and this was part of a long tract about the subject written by someone who was clearly very familiar with it. Now, that doesn't sound to me as though the dog wants oral sex. It wants to eat, and it is being tricked.

The point here is not that the dog is being hurt -- it probably doesn't care -- but that it's an unequal and bizarre relationship, which for a variety of very good reasons is regarded as an absolute taboo. WP is not there to present things that people find abhorrent as though they're just a little unusual.

Do you have a professional source, preferably online, that writes about zoophilia without mentioning the preponderance of mental illness and personality issues?



I didn't see Peter's blog, or if I did I don't recall what it said, so I can't comment on whether it was defamation. I do agree that it wasn't legitimate to threaten to contact animal advocacy groups, though you would know, given that you've done research into zoophilia, that animal rights groups (e.g. ALF) would have little interest, because they don't necessarily object to it, and animal welfare groups (e.g. RSPCA) would be unlikely to try to cause you a problem, because they operate entirely within the law. And no one has your name anyway. So while I agree that Peter was wrong to threaten it, it was a threat that was never going to deliver much.