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

[Docknell]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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."

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.

Should we not move on? (Snip)
It is Gerard and Jimbo whom the focus should be on now.

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

And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get.

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.

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

/no comment/

Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.

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 post 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

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

[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.

[Docknell]

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.

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

[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.

[wikiwhistle]

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

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.

[Bottled_Spider]

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.

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.

[tarantino]

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.

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.

[Milton Roe]

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

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.

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

[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.

[wikiwhistle]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sun 18th January 2009, 9:16pm

[Peter Damian]

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.

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.

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.

But if there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things happen which do happen. But if this be so, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted. In vain are laws enacted. In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked.

Augustine, City of God V . 14

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 18th January 2009, 10:27pm

[Giano]

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.

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.

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.

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

This post has been edited by Giano: Sun 18th January 2009, 10:31pm

[Moulton]

About 25 years ago, American Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, published Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. He takes a systems theoretic approach to the age-old philosophical question of Free Will, 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 choices that define our character.

Ethics is about crafting and employing reliable mental models that anticipate the benefit or harm that flows from a decision. Peter Senge develops that notion into The Fifth Discipline: The Theory and Practice of The Learning Organization.

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.

[wikiwhistle]

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 believe you are completely lacking in moral fibre.

Giano

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?

[EricBarbour]

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.

This is great! I gotta get some popcorn!

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

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

[Bottled_Spider]

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

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.

[Somey]

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.

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.

[everyking]

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.

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.

Bishonen, angrily responding to my statement, 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?

This post has been edited by everyking: Mon 19th January 2009, 6:19am

[Docknell]

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.

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.

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.

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

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