What are you doing, SV?, A brief review of Slim & "Animal Rights" Options

[Cla68]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Milton Roe]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

LOL. Didn't I opine somewhere that women in particular get nutty about the gender of things? In this case, we don't know the monkey's gender, but SV doesn't want it to be called "it" but "she". But SV would have no problem with "it" if it was a castrated monkey. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

And if SV should ever have occasion to be castrated itself, I have no doubt that it will have no problem with people refering to it, from then-on, as "it." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Personally, I've thought of SV as "it" for some time, now. But that's just me.

[Daniel]

lol @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=279840350

[Milton Roe]

lol @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=279840350

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) And you never know who else on WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I wonder if SV has enough social capital left on WP to even get a checkuser done? Bother. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Somey]

I wonder if SV has enough social capital left on WP to even get a checkuser done?

Possibly, but if it turns out that this is someone like FT2 or one of the members of the Bishonen/Giano/Geogre club, that could backfire on her. Then again, it's impossible to say how these things will play out these days.

Still, there's no legitimate reason to think this person isn't legitimate, just because he/she happens to have shown up on Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D), Atheism (T-H-L-K-D), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (T-H-L-K-D) all within the same month.

Oddly enough, when this same sort of thing happens to Don Murphy, nobody seems to mind so much! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Proabivouac]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

[emesee]

A human holds a rope around the monkey's neck

[Cla68]

I wonder if SV has enough social capital left on WP to even get a checkuser done?

Possibly, but if it turns out that this is someone like FT2 or one of the members of the Bishonen/Giano/Geogre club, that could backfire on her. Then again, it's impossible to say how these things will play out these days.

Still, there's no legitimate reason to think this person isn't legitimate, just because he/she happens to have shown up on Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D), Atheism (T-H-L-K-D), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (T-H-L-K-D) all within the same month.

Oddly enough, when this same sort of thing happens to Don Murphy, nobody seems to mind so much! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Well, Tryptofish did seem to know how to push her buttons. Unfortunately, SV responded by reverting back to old form with edit warring, moving comments around on the talk page, personalizing the argument, then attacking the editor on his/her userpage.

Some editors don't seem to understand what a wiki is. One of the ramifications of a wiki is that you can spend 20-hours a day for two or three years constructing a select list of articles exactly the way you want them to read, and then someone can come along and change the entire tone of each article within 30-minutes to an hour with some strategic editing. If, as an editor, you can't accept that, then Wikipedia is not the venue for you.

[gomi]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one. It is widespread, though SlimVirgin is a leading participant. You can bet that if one of the Kabal asks this question, you are not long for Wikipedia. Some other links:

• Slim asks Applensauce (T-C-L-K-R-D) the question, and he/she/it is soon after blocked. Same with Axxaer (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
  
• Slim and Jayjg tag-team Katie_Jemson (T-C-L-K-R-D) in the same way.
  
• The triple-threat of Slim, Jayjg, and IronDuke conspire to do the same here, here, and here.
  
• IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jayjg's meatpuppet and Special Helper In Training follows suit on his own here and here, but he's only a little S.H.I.T, so he only does it to IPs who edit in ways that displease him.

The message here is: if you stay away from articles Slim, Jayjg, or their cabal WP:OWN, then do your will, but edit in a way a powerful admin doesn't like, and you're immediately accused of being the dreaded "sockpuppet", if only on the basis of one or two edits!

[emesee]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one. It is widespread, though SlimVirgin is a leading participant. You can bet that if one of the Kabal asks this question, you are not long for Wikipedia. Some other links:

• Slim asks Applensauce (T-C-L-K-R-D) the question, and he/she/it is soon after blocked. Same with Axxaer (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
  
• Slim and Jayjg tag-team Katie_Jemson (T-C-L-K-R-D) in the same way.
  
• The triple-threat of Slim, Jayjg, and IronDuke conspire to do the same here, here, and here.
  
• IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jayjg's meatpuppet and Special Helper In Training follows suit on his own here and here, but he's only a little S.H.I.T, so he only does it to IPs who edit in ways that displease him.

The message here is: if you stay away from articles Slim, Jayjg, or their cabal WP:OWN, then do your will, but edit in a way a powerful admin doesn't like, and you're immediately accused of being the dreaded "sockpuppet", if only on the basis of one or two edits!

But the power at the top is apparently all fine with this. Its gone on for a while it seems. So certainly, if they think that it is probably fine that all this goes on. They must be right. Nothing's amiss, nothing to see here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Proabivouac]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...438&#entry50438

[Alison]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...438&#entry50438

Oops!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[gomi]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.

Aww, Proab, I understand you feel the all-consuming urge to defend SlimVirgin, but you left out the context:

She stopped editing in August, started again briefly, and now has stopped for a couple of weeks. .... If I had to bet, I would say that she'll be back.

Really! To paraphrase that old C&W song, How Can We Miss Her if She Won't Go Away?

[Proabivouac]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.

Aww, Proab, I understand you feel the all-consuming urge to defend SlimVirgin, but you left out the context:

She stopped editing in August, started again briefly, and now has stopped for a couple of weeks. .... If I had to bet, I would say that she'll be back.

Okay. So what happened in the few weeks following that post? Did any such baiting occur, to your knowledge?

[gomi]

Okay. So what happened in the few weeks following that post? Did any such baiting occur, to your knowledge?

Judge for yourself: here is the relevant history for PETA (T-H-L-K-D), and here for Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D). In the first case, a little garden-variety vandalism by IPs, but nothing qualifying as "gentle messing", and in the latter, nothing to speak of.

[Proabivouac]

Okay. So what happened in the few weeks following that post? Did any such baiting occur, to your knowledge?

Judge for yourself: here is the relevant history for PETA (T-H-L-K-D), and here for Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D). In the first case, a little garden-variety vandalism by IPs, but nothing qualifying as "gentle messing", and in the latter, nothing to speak of.

Okay. So, to be perfectly clear, Gomi, you're not personally aware of any instances in the weeks following your post where anyone used a sockpuppet to bait SlimVirgin on animal right topics, correct?

[Somey]

Apparently the thing that aggravated Slimmy on the Animal Rights article was an attempt to change the photo caption at the top, so as to refer to the organ grinder's monkey as "it" rather than "she"?

And then, in yet another "unwelcome compromise" case, Hq3473 (T-H-L-K-D) - an unreadable moniker if there ever was one - came along and changed the wording completely, so that it now reads, "A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership"... thereby removing the monkey's-gender issue completely.

Anyway, I guess it's always possible that Gomi is Tryptofish, but it's not like it's hard to figure out how to push SlimVirgin's buttons. Getting the ear-splitting alarm buzzers to stop blasting afterwards is a different story, though.

[Bottled_Spider]

It's amazing how much drama can be generated on Wikipedia over wurdz, innit? It's even funnier when Slimmy gets involved and ends up looking like a prannie. Again. My advice to all concerned is to simply replace all instances of "her", "it", and "its" with "Monkey! Monkey!".

As for the picture, the pair of them are obviously preparing to indulge in a bit of fake-UFO photography. A few good out-of-focus shots and the monkey will make an excellent downed Venusian pilot, parachute cord wrapped round the neck. Yes; a space-parachute.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO?

Based on this resource, the only documented ones are Sweet Blue Water and Sunsplash.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

I don't know whether Proab is impugning myself here, or Gomi. I can affirm that my only involvement with the Animal Rights article was entirely above board, and concluded with this edit almost exactly 3 years ago.

[Son of a Yeti]

The message here is: if you stay away from articles Slim, Jayjg, or their cabal WP:OWN, then do your will, but edit in a way a powerful admin doesn't like, and you're immediately accused of being the dreaded "sockpuppet", if only on the basis of one or two edits!

Hell hath no fury like a slim virgin reverted!


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Kato]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

I don't know whether Proab is impugning myself here, or Gomi. I can affirm that my only involvement with the Animal Rights article was entirely above board, and concluded with this edit almost exactly 3 years ago.

Here's you, Hersch:

The quoted section makes clear that there is a very specific philosophical commonality between the animal rights movement and the Nazis.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

I guess if LaRouche is an anti-semite, then animal rights supporters are Nazis. Welcome to Wikipedia.

----------

For what it's worth, ditch that photograph of the man with a monkey. Or at least move if down the article.

[Somey]

I'm pretty sure Probey here doesn't mean to implicate Herschel, at least not in this case. Not that it matters...

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45," I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia - in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

[Jon Awbrey]

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45", I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia — in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

In order to expedite the Equal Slime Provisions of the Wikipediot Code Of Conduct (WP:COC), someone should create a template that would permit the corresponding citation to be added to all applicable Wikipedia articles:

«{{X}}'s anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45.»

Get On It, You Slime Slackers !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Tarc]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO?

Based on this resource, the only documented ones are Sweet Blue Water and Sunsplash.

I love that story; much of her general fucked-upness traces back to Agent 99-like antics and a glorified friends-with-benefits who got himself blowed up.

Explains a lot of the anti-Muslim crusade that she's been on with jay, too.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[gomi]

Okay. So, to be perfectly clear, Gomi, you're not personally aware of any instances in the weeks following your post where anyone used a sockpuppet to bait SlimVirgin on animal right topics, correct?

Proab, I should point out (again) how tiresome and annoying your crypto-moralistic Inquisitions are. There is absolutely no reason I should stoop to answering that, or any, question from you. That having been said, the easiest way to shut you up in this particular case is to say no, I'm not personally aware of any "baiting" of Slimvirgin in the weeks following that September 2007 post. Indeed, I'm not aware of any baiting of SlimVirgin at all. As pernicious elements on Wikipedia go, SlimVirgin's crimes run more toward support of Jayjg and the cabal than her own silly POV on Animal Rights.

Anyway, I guess it's always possible that Gomi is Tryptofish, but it's not like it's hard to figure out how to push SlimVirgin's buttons. Getting the ear-splitting alarm buzzers to stop blasting afterwards is a different story, though.

I briefly considered "outing" myself as Tryptofish just to see what would happen, then I considered that the poor SOB running that account would probably not appreciate it.

For the record, I think there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sockpuppetry on Wikipedia, but I have had better things to do for quite some time, and don't edit WP -- with or without footwear-based mouthpieces.

[Somey]

I briefly considered "outing" myself as Tryptofish just to see what would happen, then I considered that the poor SOB running that account would probably not appreciate it.

Probably not!

But there you have the essential problem society has with the abuse of anonymity. If used for purposes of naughtiness, it gets other people into double-bind, triple-bind, even n-level-bind thinking. In other words, sure, Tryptofish could be a WR member, but he could also be a loyal WP'er pretending to be a WR member to stir things up or discredit us all. Or, he could be a WR member pretending to be a loyal WP'er who's pretending to be a WR member to discredit loyal WP'ers. And on and on and on, to infinity... You just don't know, do you?

The only practical solution, then, is also the least palatable to established editors - treat every editor, and indeed every edit, on its own individual merits. Hence, you get burnout, disaffection, and attrition. The choice is almost impossible to accept over a long period, and if anything, SlimVirgin and many other admins have never really been able to accept it, at least when it comes to subjects they're particularly interested in. Indeed, this might even help explain their longevity on WP: If one refuses to accept the thing that causes most other WP'ers to burn out, maybe it reduces your own burnout rate.

So... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I was thinking we could all claim to be Tryptofish, i.e., have one of those "I AM SPARTACUS!" pile-ons, but that gag seems a little overdone to me these days.

[Doc glasgow]

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45", I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia — in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

In order to expedite the Equal Slime Provisions of the Wikipediot Code Of Conduct (WP:COC), someone should create a template that would permit the corresponding citation to be added to all applicable Wikipedia articles:

«{{X}}'s anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45.»

Get On It, You Slime Slackers !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I've often wondered why the lead in the Darwin article never mentions the Nazis using his ideology. He was used far more than Luther.

But then, the baby Dawkins would cry.

[Jon Awbrey]

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45", I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia — in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

In order to expedite the Equal Slime Provisions of the Wikipediot Code Of Conduct (WP:COC), someone should create a template that would permit the corresponding citation to be added to all applicable Wikipedia articles:

«{{X}}'s anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45.»

Get On It, You Slime Slackers !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I've often wondered why the lead in the Darwin article never mentions the Nazis using his ideology. He was used far more than Luther.

Feel free to fix it.

Here's another Bit Of Slime Automation (WP:BOSA), not to mention a way to up your edit count by leaps and bounds:

«This passage of {{Your Favorite Holy Book}} was frequently used to justify {{Your Favorite Historical Atrocity}}.»

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The only practical solution, then, is also the least palatable to established editors - treat every editor, and indeed every edit, on its own individual merits.

Holy guacamole, Batman -- that would be the moment of transition from MMORPG to encyclopedia.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

Who was that man? I'd like to shake his hand! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[gomi]

And that's the reason, I believe, that SV has that article structured the way she does (SV can correct me if I'm wrong since I assume she is reading this thread). The Animal Rights article in Wikipedia tries to build the case that western philosophy has, at least in part, accepted the premise that animals have rights, whether inherent or bestowed. That's why it's important for that picture of the human holding the rope tied to a monkey's neck be at the top of the article, to present the base moral/ethical rationale for animal rights (that humans do not have the right to ownership over animals) which the article then attempts to justify.

To put it more simply, SlimVirgin wants to firmly put forward her point of view on the subject. Thus is virtually every area of controversy (and many that are not) owned by entrenched Wikipidiots.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And that's the reason, I believe, that SV has that article structured the way she does (SV can correct me if I'm wrong since I assume she is reading this thread).

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

[Proabivouac]

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

O RLY?

]I will add one component you left out -- I think SlimVirgin's presence here has been unhelpful. She somehow manages to personalize every thread she comments on.

…
I guess we could threaten to fish-tank or even suspend her if she keeps it up, and actually do it if necessary, but I'd rather it didn't come to that.

[Noroton]

And that's the reason, I believe, that SV has that article structured the way she does (SV can correct me if I'm wrong since I assume she is reading this thread). The Animal Rights article in Wikipedia tries to build the case that western philosophy has, at least in part, accepted the premise that animals have rights, whether inherent or bestowed. That's why it's important for that picture of the human holding the rope tied to a monkey's neck be at the top of the article, to present the base moral/ethical rationale for animal rights (that humans do not have the right to ownership over animals) which the article then attempts to justify.

I think the photo is a good, dramatic illustration of the subject, and I don't have a problem with it, or with its prominent placement. It's not necessarily an illustration of abuse, but the fact that a rope is being used does make you wonder. The fact that it's some Chinese guy not dressed very well reminds the viewer that there are competing interests here, and subjects competing for our sympathy.

I don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not the article is subtlely biased -- doesn't that really depend on whether or not it reflects the best sources? Various philosophers are quoted, and it seems to me they're relevant to the history of the idea. I don't see obvious bias in the article as it stands. That said, some things seem odd: It takes a long read to get to the point where the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movements are clearly separate. The article is 98K (although the many pictures must be a big part of that), and it seems to me some parts could use a separate article. Peter Singer gets an enormous amount of space in this article, but I don't know whether or not that reflects his real importance in the history of the idea of animal rights (he's clearly important). Actually, the subject seems to be "the history of the idea of animal rights in the west". Isn't it really odd that Hindu religious ideas aren't covered here and the only religious tradition represented is Christianity? Where are the sacred cows? Is that anything more than a cultural bias? I doubt it. And just what the hell is Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" doing as the second picture down? It's screwing up the layout, illustrates nothing and distracts from the subject.

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Milton Roe]

That said, some things seem odd: It takes a long read to get to the point where the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movements are clearly separate. The article is 98K (although the many pictures must be a big part of that), and it seems to me some parts could use a separate article. Peter Singer gets an enormous amount of space in this article, but I don't know whether or not that reflects his real importance in the history of the idea of animal rights (he's clearly important). Actually, the subject seems to be "the history of the idea of animal rights in the west". Isn't it really odd that Hindu religious ideas aren't covered here and the only religious tradition represented is Christianity? Where are the sacred cows? Is that anything more than a cultural bias? I doubt it. And just what the hell is Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" doing as the second picture down? It's screwing up the layout, illustrates nothing and distracts from the subject.

I think it's put in there because somebody says something about Adam. So somebody with a brain fog used this picture to represent that.

Which is actually ironically appropriate, because God here is surrounded by the ORIGINAL brain-fog. It's a brain-shaped fog. For a sort of foggy story, from the misty past. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Somey]

[b]O RLY?[/b

Let's just say I'm on good terms with the girl who works the hat-check counter... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I've pointed this out before, Mr. Probey, but we're not in the business of self-criticism. You folks have Wikipedia for that - they love to criticize us over there, and what's more, they get better Google rankings than we do.

SlimVirgin isn't going to lost any privileges here just for discussing the situation re WP's Animal Rights articles, but that's not to say it wouldn't be better if she could discuss how Wikipedia deals with Animal Rights issues, as opposed to focusing solely on the "okay-now-which-one-of-you-is-it" question.

[EricBarbour]

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

O RLY?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Your head seems to have a few oddly hammer-shaped dents.....

Which is why I've seen a zillion buffalo and elk and even some wolves in Yellowstone, but the only bears I've seen were a mother grizz and two cubs out in the middle of nowhere, and they were WAAAAY across a river and going ... thataway. Which is the way it should be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Yep, those damn hoo-mans really suck. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

SlimVirgin isn't going to lost any privileges here just for discussing the situation re WP's Animal Rights articles, but that's not to say it wouldn't be better if she could discuss how Wikipedia deals with Animal Rights issues, as opposed to focusing solely on the "okay-now-which-one-of-you-is-it" question.

When she gets into a controversy here, she instinctively tries to turn the topic of the discussion to the personalities who are discussing, which at WP is always a prelude to banning, like the skunk doing its little handstand. However, that doesn't work here, and I think it would be useful to engage SV/Ms. Hell in this discussion so we could see how she does when she must actually discuss the subject.

[gomi]

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

O RLY?

Yes, RLY. Slim can say what she wants here regarding her position on "Animal Rights". Or "Mineral Rights", or "Vegetable Rights", for that matter. No one will stop her. Which is more than she allows us to say on Wikipedia, whether it on Talk pages, User pages, or elsewhere. Wikipedia Review doesn't ban people for expressing their opinions, unless they do it in a persistently tiresome way, and even in that case (cf Moulton), we generally don't ban them, just admonish them.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

[EricBarbour]

As I was saying elsewhere (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ..........

SV is amazingly good at subverting WR.
Almost as if she was trained in psy-ops and verbal deception.

She does remind me of my mother. Same method--slime into a conversation, start
quiet little ad-hominem attacks. When called on it, deny and claim mental cruelty by the
other party. Then attempt to change the subject.

(Jesus, she's still beating up Tryptofish on his/her talk page. Looks as if she's convinced of
her continued great power on WP. And yet, when she comes over HERE, she resorts
to manipulation. Looney Toon.)

[Proabivouac]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Hell Freezes Over]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

I think the thread should not have been split. I was asked to comment -- basically to explain my position on animal rights and why I edit the articles the way I do -- and now that I've started explaining, it's moved to an off-topic area, and the claim that I'm POV pushing and somehow misusing Wikipedia is allowed to stand, unaddressed.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Cla68]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

I think the thread should not have been split. I was asked to comment -- basically to explain my position on animal rights and why I edit the articles the way I do -- and now that I've started explaining, it's moved to an off-topic area, and the claim that I'm POV pushing and somehow misusing Wikipedia is allowed to stand, unaddressed.

I can understand the reasoning to split the dicussion, but I don't think it was necessary.

[TungstenCarbide]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

The one and only exchange with HFO ended with her derailing the conversation with accusations of sexism - this from a woman with the screen name "Slim Virgin" and high-heeled avatar. She did this instead of addressing the points at hand, probably because she new she was losing the argument.

How can you take someone like this seriously?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=162371

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

I think the thread should not have been split. I was asked to comment -- basically to explain my position on animal rights and why I edit the articles the way I do -- and now that I've started explaining, it's moved to an off-topic area, and the claim that I'm POV pushing and somehow misusing Wikipedia is allowed to stand, unaddressed.

Animal rights is a clearly distinct topic from turning all threatening on WP in pursuit of your ownership of an article. I believe the threatening bit is the topic of interest in this thread. Your contribution on the other topic remains in the other thread.

So, please, feel free to address - what are you doing, SV? What are the circumstances which make it OK to ignore WP's "processes" and try to bully another "editor" away from a page?

[Hell Freezes Over]

Animal rights is a clearly distinct topic from turning all threatening on WP in pursuit of your ownership of an article. I believe the threatening bit is the topic of interest in this thread. Your contribution on the other topic remains in the other thread.

So, please, feel free to address - what are you doing, SV? What are the circumstances which make it OK to ignore WP's "processes" and try to bully another "editor" away from a page?

When did I stop beating my wife?

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here. If you'd allowed that thread to continue, I'm guessing all or most of your questions would have been answered. What a few of you seem to insist on is that the infrastructure of any such discussion be 100 percent against me. If it's not, I'm being manipulative and derailing the thread.

[Kato]

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here.

No they are not.

Quite simply, they are not. Very few threads get moved here. Whereas, on Wikback, the few posts and threads that existed regularly disappeared on a daily basis. And the board lasted about 3 months as a result. So no. Don't try that one. It won''t wash.

For what it's worth though, I don't think this thread should have been split.

[Moulton]

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here.

Welcome to Seven-Card Monte.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game, and you can't even sing a fricken' dithyramb about it.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here.

No they are not.

Quite simply, they are not. Very few threads get moved here. Whereas, on Wikiback, the few posts and threads that existed regularly disappeared on a daily basis. And the board lasted about 3 months as a result. So no. Don't try that one. It won''t wash.

For what it's worth though, I don't think the thread should have been split.

I know only what I've seen this I've been here, and a lot of the threads in which I've started to answer whatever questions people had, and would have continued to answer them, have been moved. At least one of them I can't find at all. As I said, it feels as though some of you are only happy with a thread if I'm being pummelled in it. If I'm making a genuine effort to answer questions, it's "Help! Help! She's up to her old tricks!" You take ABF to hitherto undreamt of heights.

[GlassBeadGame]

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here.

No they are not.

Quite simply, they are not. Very few threads get moved here. Whereas, on Wikback, the few posts and threads that existed regularly disappeared on a daily basis. And the board lasted about 3 months as a result. So no. Don't try that one. It won''t wash.

That was a play to the cheap seats that was just not up Slim's usual standards.

[Kato]

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here.

Welcome to Seven-Card Monte.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game, and you can't even sing a fricken' dithyramb about it.

Correction: Many of Moulton's posts are moved. But that is for the greater good of both The Human Race, and the Animal Kingdom. Neither man nor beast should be subjected to that kind of abuse on a daily basis.

[Cla68]

I know only what I've seen this I've been here, and a lot of the threads in which I've started to answer whatever questions people had, and would have continued to answer them, have been moved. At least one of them I can't find at all. As I said, it feels as though some of you are only happy with a thread if I'm being pummelled in it. If I'm making a genuine effort to answer questions, it's "Help! Help! She's up to her old tricks!" You take ABF to hitherto undreamt of heights.

I guess we could return to the original topic, which I started...why did you ask Tryptofish what his/her alternate accounts were? His/her editing history shows that the account started in September 2008.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Noroton]

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home here…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and latest attempted bullying.]

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

I think the thread should not have been split. I was asked to comment -- basically to explain my position on animal rights and why I edit the articles the way I do -- and now that I've started explaining, it's moved to an off-topic area, and the claim that I'm POV pushing and somehow misusing Wikipedia is allowed to stand, unaddressed.

I was one person suggesting splitting the discussion, and I still think it makes sense. What may or may not make sense (or be fair) is expecting you to address, at once, both criticisms of animal rights as a political issue and your own actions in editing Wikipedia. That's a lot to put on anyone's plate at once.

I made this point at the other thread in response to a comment by Gomi: The issue of whether someone with a point of view, even a strong point of view, is separate from whether or not that person is making a WP article biased. (It's also separate from whether that person is violating behavioral norms.) Whatever your positions are on animal rights, they're irrelevant to this thread. Anyone who wants to charge that a Wikipedia article is biased needs to provide evidence of that. I haven't seen that evidence presented. Given what I've seen in the "Animal rights" article, I'd say someone would have to show where the article ignores or wrongly emphasizes or de-emphasizes some essential part of the subject. No one has done so.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here. If you'd allowed that thread to continue, I'm guessing all or most of your questions would have been answered.

I'd encourage you to go ahead and answer questions on both threads. My forecast is that they will both be popular items. I don't know whether it was necessary to split them, but it's not the end of the world.

I made this point at the other thread in response to a comment by Gomi: The issue of whether someone with a point of view, even a strong point of view, is separate from whether or not that person is making a WP article biased. (It's also separate from whether that person is violating behavioral norms.)

This is, once again, the issue of encyclopedia-building versus MMORPGism and POV pushing. If the rule at WP were to evaluate each edit or comment on its own merits, it would no longer be possible to intimidate other editors with threats of deletion or banning based on accumulated MMORPG points. But the intimidation process is presently enshrined as policy.

[Noroton]

So, please, feel free to address - what are you doing, SV? What are the circumstances which make it OK to ignore WP's "processes" and try to bully another "editor" away from a page?

Great way to derail the discussion, UseOnce. You've got someone who, whether you think it's right or wrong, has taken a lot of heat from this web forum, and nevertheless comes here to respond. It seems to me you can make your points the way Clas68 has -- civilly.

I'm assuming it's more useful for everyone involved to have a civil discussion. You may disagree about that, but please let us have it.

If you keep treating her without civility, what do you think that will look like to readers (like me) who don't know the situation and may not look into it for themselves. I'll tell you: It means you look like the bully. It's also distracting. Please don't do that.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I was one person suggesting splitting the discussion, and I still think it makes sense. What may or may not make sense (or be fair) is expecting you to address, at once, both criticisms of animal rights as a political issue and your own actions in editing Wikipedia. That's a lot to put on anyone's plate at once.

I made this point at the other thread in response to a comment by Gomi: The issue of whether someone with a point of view, even a strong point of view, is separate from whether or not that person is making a WP article biased. (It's also separate from whether that person is violating behavioral norms.) Whatever your positions are on animal rights, they're irrelevant to this thread. Anyone who wants to charge that a Wikipedia article is biased needs to provide evidence of that. I haven't seen that evidence presented. Given what I've seen in the "Animal rights" article, I'd say someone would have to show where the article ignores or wrongly emphasizes or de-emphasizes some essential part of the subject. No one has done so.

A couple of people here were saying that, in representing animal rights as an ownership issue (I forget what they said exactly, but it was something like that), I was misrepresenting animal rights and pushing my own POV, and structuring the articles in such a way as to make that POV prominent.

But I'm doing none of those things, and I was hoping if I explained some of the basic issues, people would see that.

If someone thinks the AR articles that I've worked on are POV, please give details of what's there and shouldn't be, or what's missing. The main [[animal rights]] article, for example -- I've worked hard on that to try to make it comprehensive. There's still stuff that needs to be added, but anyone reading it will get a fairly good idea of where the ideas came from, how they evolved, who the key players are, what they say, what the criticisms have been etc.

So what is actually wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

[Noroton]

I guess we could return to the original topic, which I started...why did you ask Tryptofish what his/her alternate accounts were? His/her editing history shows that the account started in September 2008.

SV, I'd also be interested in your answer.

[Cla68]

So what is actually wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

I think that particular article is ok as currently written, although like I said before it gives a predominently western view of animal rights. After I first mentioned this I did a google search and found that it appears that most Asian animal rights organizations pattern their philosophy and activities on the western animal rights organizations. What I suspect, therefore, is that traditional Asian philosophy may not have clearly stated opinions on animal rights, instead encompassing it in the Buddhist philosophy of "harmony with nature" that humans are supposed to achieve (and I know I'm way oversimplifying Buddhist philosophy with that statement).

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

[Hell Freezes Over]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

[Somey]

So what is actually wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

I actually rather like the article myself, though I'm more history-oriented than most people.

If I were seriously anti-Animal Rights, though, I might take exception to the way that the second paragraph of the intro, which describes the extent of modern-day support for Animal Rights, mentions six different people, whereas the third paragraph - about the critics - only mentions one. Thus perhaps giving readers the impression that Animal Rights is somewhat more of a popular/mainstream movement than it actually is.

I mean, to me, this is the sort of thing that can backfire on, well, animals. People see that sort of thing and think, "ah, well, most people are in favor of animal rights, and only one or two obscure malcontents are against the idea, so we've got no reason to feel bad about the way society is set up today - hey, pass the chicken wings!" ...and so on.

After that, the history of the movement is described in such lengthy detail that the average reader is likely to have to go to the bathroom at least twice before they get to the "Philosophy" section. Ideally, the philosophy stuff should go above the history stuff - is that typical of WP articles?

In the first part of the History of... section, "Moral status of animals in the ancient world," I personally think it should be made more clear (i.e., not just in the heading) that these really are ancient thinkers who supposedly limited their moral rationale to just two things ("dominion" and the notion of animal inferiority). And by going chronologically, you're giving them more emphasis than they deserve, IMO. There may be no way around that, though, assuming you're trying to maintain some sort of logical flow through that section.

All in all, though, it's very well-written and, of course, well-researched. I'm not sure you should be expected to include more rationales in favor of the other side, really - the article isn't about the other side, after all. Nevertheless, nowhere does the article state that the consumption of animals by humans for food, clothing, etc., is something that has been going on since prehistoric times, which is to say that this was part of the "natural" development of all inter-related species, and that the concept of animal rights is actually a product of enlightened thinking - i.e., an evolutionary step forward that (strictly speaking) goes against the natural order.

Maybe that's for the best, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[gomi]

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

Just as annoying when you do it to others, except that they can't ban you, and you (were) and you minions (are still) quite ban-happy.

The problem with the whole collection of "Animal Rights" articles is that they are persistently spun in way that suits your point of view. Distinctions between primate, non-primates, rodents, insects, and other experimental critters have been erased (by you, and others), the violent tactics of the Animal Rights wackos are downplayed, as are the PR mistakes of the AR crowd. And there's much, much more. The whole thing would make a serious and unbiased writer cringe.

[Emperor]

So what is actually wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

Seriously? It starts with a plug for Peter Singer's book, then the first line offers a nonsensical definition for animal rights. This definition is supported by Note #1 - the Encyclopedia Britannica, which offers a completely different definition. It then goes on with a goofy "legal persons" quip before toeing the PETA line 100% with the "food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment" mantra.

The References section has a book list starting with feminist animal rights books then going into a list from animal-rights-library.com

It's like you're asking the guy in the $5000 suit to make his own copies. Come on!

Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum, 1996.
The Pornography of Meat. New York: Continuum, 2004.
& Donovan, Josephine. (eds). Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. London: Duke University Press, 1995.
The Social Construction of Edible Bodies and Humans as Predators
Adams, Douglas. Meeting a Gorilla.
Anstötz, Christopher. Profoundly Intellectually Disabled Humans
Auxter, Thomas. The Right Not to Be Eaten
Barnes, Donald J. A Matter of Change
Barry, Brian. Why Not Noah's Ark?
Bekoff, Marc. Common Sense, Cognitive Ethology and Evolution.
Best, Steven. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, Lantern Books, 2004. ISBN 159056054x
Cantor, David. Items of Property.
Cate, Dexter L. The Island of the Dragon
Cavalieri, Paola. The Great Ape Project — and Beyond

[Jon Awbrey]

It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) G'night everbuddy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Drive safely … (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Cla68]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

(Sorry, lecture mode)...Assuming Good Faith doesn't mean that you can never doubt the intentions of another editor, but I personally don't see any reason why you couldn't have AGF in that instance with Tryptofish. Although he was pushing your buttons, his idea about changing the article wasn't completely ridiculous or foolish, so it needed to be handled courteously and honestly.

[Kato]

It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) G'night everbuddy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Drive safely … (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113656293

This thread is descending into farce.

[Noroton]

It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) G'night everbuddy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Drive safely … (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113656293

This thread is descending into farce.

I'm not so sure, given this and this. Compare the list of socks listed at the top of that first link with the participants in the earlier discussion shown in the second link. Or compare that list with the editors in the article's edit history in the months before SV made the edit you refer to. At the very least, it doesn't seem like a clear-cut case of SV simply trying to annoy JA. He was socking.

[Random832]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is

Then say it. Who is he? Games like "What are your other accounts?" don't help anyone. Say who you think he is and provide the evidence.

[EricBarbour]

This thread is descending into farce.

Too late.......

I'm not so sure, given this and this.

Damn, that's funny.

So, they thought Jon had his socks arguing with each other?

Almost every editor who has edited this page since October 2006 has been a Jon Awbrey sock; I count at least a dozen. Jayjg (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Stick a fork in this thread. Done.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Hell Freezes Over]

Seriously? It starts with a plug for Peter Singer's book, then the first line offers a nonsensical definition for animal rights.

It's not a plug for Singer's book. The Spanish parliament decided to accord apes rights in the way suggested by Peter Singer's Great Ape Project (GAP). GAP was explicitly mentioned by them as their aim. I'm just describing what their decision was, and it was a revolutionary one, so it would be odd not to mention it in the lead.

As for the definition, that is what animal rights is. It's not an unusual definition, or one that any academic studying AR would disagree with. In fact, the first version of the first lead paragraph was written by an academic who specializes in AR.

This definition is supported by Note #1 - the Encyclopedia Britannica, which offers a completely different definition. It then goes on with a goofy "legal persons" quip before toeing the PETA line 100% with the "food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment" mantra.

It is not toeing the PETA line. PETA *is* an animal rights organization, so obviously they're going to use the same definition as everyone else.

And what's goofy about the legal persons issue? That is the aim of AR -- to recognize non-humans as legal persons.

The Wikipedia article is entirely descriptive of the scholarly debate about AR. The idea that it's only my POV is just wrong.

[Hell Freezes Over]

If I were seriously anti-Animal Rights, though, I might take exception to the way that the second paragraph of the intro, which describes the extent of modern-day support for Animal Rights, mentions six different people, whereas the third paragraph - about the critics - only mentions one. Thus perhaps giving readers the impression that Animal Rights is somewhat more of a popular/mainstream movement than it actually is.

Yes, that's a fair point; it's a little breathless. I've edited it to remove two of the proponents. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=280558221

After that, the history of the movement is described in such lengthy detail that the average reader is likely to have to go to the bathroom at least twice before they get to the "Philosophy" section. Ideally, the philosophy stuff should go above the history stuff - is that typical of WP articles?

I've wondered about that myself. We could start with the philosophy of the modern movement, but I wanted to show how the ideas had evolved. Maybe I'll try turning it on its head and see if it works. Ideally, I'd like to get it to FA status. The only reason I've not tried it is in case people turn up to oppose it only to cause trouble, or that people will think it's an inherently POV and fringe topic. But it really isn't anymore.

These are good points, though, thank you, as was your point about it perhaps not emphasizing enough that this was always part of the natural order of things. I think we did emphasize that more before, but the page got too long, so I split some of the ancient world stuff off into a different article.

[Newyorkbrad]

This is, once again, the issue of encyclopedia-building versus MMORPGism and POV pushing. If the rule at WP were to evaluate each edit or comment on its own merits, it would no longer be possible to intimidate other editors with threats of deletion or banning based on accumulated MMORPG points. But the intimidation process is presently enshrined as policy.

I'm not quite sure how judging editors by their cumulative records is a sign of MMORPG-ing rather than encyclopedia-building. I think that in any organization or activity, if someone does something that's against the rules or the group norms once, one might respond "sorry, but just so you know, it's not considered appropriate here to do X; from now on, please do Y instead." But if he or she does X a dozen more times, after repeated requests to do Y instead, then one might respond very differently, perhaps even with an invitation to kindly take the X'ing somewhere else.

Of course, in a given situation, it may be legitimate to ask whether X should really be against the rules, or whether doing Y is actually better than X, or whether the anti-X policy is being applied equitably, or even whether the person giving the admonition is himself or herself guiltier of X than anyone else. But if your suggestion is that every day or every edit a user should start fresh with no one recalling what he or she has done before, I can't agree with that. (And I suspect you don't really either; if there were a thread here about whether SomeWPAdmin is an "abusive administrator" or not, wouldn't you be likely to make a comment along the lines of "I don't like that he did Z, but on balance his work is positive, so this looks like an isolated incident," or alternatively "he's always doing things like Z, he shouldn't be an admin"?)

[Jon Awbrey]

This is, once again, the issue of encyclopedia-building versus MMORPGism and POV pushing. If the rule at WP were to evaluate each edit or comment on its own merits, it would no longer be possible to intimidate other editors with threats of deletion or banning based on accumulated MMORPG points. But the intimidation process is presently enshrined as policy.

I'm not quite sure how judging editors by their cumulative records is a sign of MMORPG-ing rather than encyclopedia-building. I think that in any organization or activity, if someone does something that's against the rules or the group norms once, one might respond "sorry, but just so you know, it's not considered appropriate here to do X; from now on, please do Y instead." But if he or she does X a dozen more times, after repeated requests to do Y instead, then one might respond very differently, perhaps even with an invitation to kindly take the X'ing somewhere else.

Of course, in a given situation, it may be legitimate to ask whether X should really be against the rules, or whether doing Y is actually better than X, or whether the anti-X policy is being applied equitably, or even whether the person giving the admonition is himself or herself guiltier of X than anyone else. But if your suggestion is that every day or every edit a user should start fresh with no one recalling what he or she has done before, I can't agree with that. (And I suspect you don't really either; if there were a thread here about whether SomeWPAdmin is an "abusive administrator" or not, wouldn't you be likely to make a comment along the lines of "I don't like that he did Z, but on balance his work is positive, so this looks like an isolated incident," or alternatively "he's always doing things like Z, he shouldn't be an admin"?)

Dontcha just hate it when lawyers try to do logic?

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Lar]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is

Then say it. Who is he? Games like "What are your other accounts?" don't help anyone. Say who you think he is and provide the evidence.

And do so on SSP, not here. Doing it here is just another example of using the "court of public opinion" instead of the accepted dispute resolution methods. Which you (SV/HFO) have already been warned about.

I think the animal rights philosophical discussion is interesting but it's not what this thread started out about. So perhaps it is another example of diversion?

[Moulton]

Creative Rule-Making 101 — The Bill of Attainder Exercise

Prove or give a self-referential counter-example...

For any Adversary, A, there exists an Idiosyncratic Practice, Z, such that if a rule could be crafted to make Z a bannable offense, then Adversary A (and only Adversary A) would be banned under the novel rule making Z a bannable offense.

[The Adversary]

Creative Rule-Making 101 — The Bill of Attainder Exercise

Prove or give a self-referential counter-example...

For any Adversary, A, there exists an Idiosyncratic Practice, Z, such that if a rule could be crafted to make Z a bannable offense, then Adversary A (and only Adversary A) would be banned under the novel rule making Z a bannable offense.

Mods! Thats it. Enough. Can I have my old name (="Surfer") back, pleeeeeeease?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This is, once again, the issue of encyclopedia-building versus MMORPGism and POV pushing. If the rule at WP were to evaluate each edit or comment on its own merits, it would no longer be possible to intimidate other editors with threats of deletion or banning based on accumulated MMORPG points. But the intimidation process is presently enshrined as policy.

I'm not quite sure how judging editors by their cumulative records is a sign of MMORPG-ing rather than encyclopedia-building. I think that in any organization or activity, if someone does something that's against the rules or the group norms once, one might respond "sorry, but just so you know, it's not considered appropriate here to do X; from now on, please do Y instead." But if he or she does X a dozen more times, after repeated requests to do Y instead, then one might respond very differently, perhaps even with an invitation to kindly take the X'ing somewhere else.

Of course, in a given situation, it may be legitimate to ask whether X should really be against the rules, or whether doing Y is actually better than X, or whether the anti-X policy is being applied equitably, or even whether the person giving the admonition is himself or herself guiltier of X than anyone else.

Your argument has merit. It's a bit of conundrum, how to save the baby of the encyclopedia while dispensing with the bathwater of MMORPGism. Perhaps the right corrective measure would be to first attack the problem of cabalism; maybe admins should have to run for re-election periodically.

[Son of a Yeti]

It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

Ever heard of WP:OWN, did you?

[Noroton]

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

(Sorry, lecture mode)...Assuming Good Faith doesn't mean that you can never doubt the intentions of another editor, but I personally don't see any reason why you couldn't have AGF in that instance with Tryptofish. Although he was pushing your buttons, his idea about changing the article wasn't completely ridiculous or foolish, so it needed to be handled courteously and honestly.

SV, this sounds like a reasonable point. It also doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on? Congratulations on passing through the Wikipedia Review Good Article gantlet.

[Emperor]

Seriously? It starts with a plug for Peter Singer's book, then the first line offers a nonsensical definition for animal rights.

It's not a plug for Singer's book. The Spanish parliament decided to accord apes rights in the way suggested by Peter Singer's Great Ape Project (GAP). GAP was explicitly mentioned by them as their aim. I'm just describing what their decision was, and it was a revolutionary one, so it would be odd not to mention it in the lead.

Look higher. The redirect notice, the first thing people read, is about Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation.

As for the definition, that is what animal rights is. It's not an unusual definition, or one that any academic studying AR would disagree with. In fact, the first version of the first lead paragraph was written by an academic who specializes in AR.

"Rights" are about drawing a line in the sand. It's something that utilitarians like Singer don't do. Balancing interests is not about rights. If Peter Singer knew for sure that he could save Aunt Millie by killing twenty rats, he'd probably do it. True animal rights believers think that we have no business killing rats to save Aunt Millie. The rats have a right not to be killed for our purposes.

Of course if your definition of ''animal rights'' is that whole unreferenced "interests" and "consideration" mishmash, then carry on. Britannica doesn't say that, though, so you'd probably be better off removing Note #1.

It is not toeing the PETA line. PETA *is* an animal rights organization, so obviously they're going to use the same definition as everyone else.

The whole bit about animals are not here for food, entertainment etc. is classic PETA all the way. I might as well go write "Beef, it's what's for dinner" in the beef article.

And what's goofy about the legal persons issue? That is the aim of AR -- to recognize non-humans as legal persons.

The Wikipedia article is entirely descriptive of the scholarly debate about AR. The idea that it's only my POV is just wrong.

Well for one thing, your whole Legal Person article doesn't have the word animal anywhere on the page. For another, it's legal jargon that's essentially meaningless to most people.

But hey, if you're already happy with the article, if you already believe that it's "entirely descriptive", then why did you ask for my opinion?

[Hell Freezes Over]

Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on?

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

[Kato]

Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on?

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

What you should do, short of quitting Wikipedia altogether, is limit yourself to writing new material, rather than trying desperately to protect the old for the rest of your life. Because if you opt for the latter, you will fail. Badly. And spend the rest of your life trapped in a Task of Sisyphus that is exponentially antagonistic at every turn.

[Hell Freezes Over]

But hey, if you're already happy with the article, if you already believe that it's "entirely descriptive", then why did you ask for my opinion?

I welcome the feedback. Part of the problem here stems from calling the article "animal rights" and not "animal liberation." I tried a few times to have our categories and templates changed to Alib, and I was hoping to have the article changed too -- and I forget all the arguments, but people felt Alib sounded more POV -- even though it was explained that they're not identical ideas. Alib is much more inclusive -- all AR advocates are alibbers, but not all alibbers (e.g. Singer) are AR advocates. But it made no difference; I was overruled on that more than once. And to be fair, animal rights *is* a much more widely used term, even if it's not always used properly.

What's happening now within the movement is that the "purist" animal rights people (e.g. [[Gary Francione]]) are arguing as you are -- that people like Singer and groups like PETA shouldn't be called animal rights advocates, because they're really only radical animal welfare advocates. The reasons given are as you said, namely that both would be willing to consider sacrificing animals depending on the cost-benefit, whereas an AR advocate would not consider it at all. If the purist position takes hold, so that the movement as a whole splits, or stops considering groups like PETA as animal rights, we may have to consider renaming the article, but I personally don't think it will take hold. Too divisive.

I removed the dab plug for Singer's book, by the way.

[Bottled_Spider]

Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on?

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

Super! I get the impression, though, that you're the kinda gal who could still type even if your fingers were between your keyboard and your arse. No offence - I'm just saying.

[dogbiscuit]

Mr Kohs reminds me of my home town heritage.

Animal rights? They deserve nothing more than the French.

[Cla68]

Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on?

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

What you should do, short of quitting Wikipedia altogether, is limit yourself to writing new material, rather than trying desperately to protect the old for the rest of your life. Because if you opt for the latter, you will fail. Badly. And spend the rest of your life trapped in a Task of Sisyphus that is exponentially antagonistic at every turn.

SV, referring to your statement earlier that, "It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart...", I think you're going to have to get used to it. It's a wiki. Articles deteriorate, or change, over time, especially controversial ones. It's one of the weaknesses of the wiki model, or strengths, depending on your point of view.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Hell Freezes Over]

SV, referring to your statement earlier that, "It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart...", I think you're going to have to get used to it. It's a wiki. Articles deteriorate, or change, over time, especially controversial ones. It's one of the weaknesses of the wiki model, or strengths, depending on your point of view.

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

[Obesity]

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

Now, Slim. Weren't you paying attention to what Apostle Jimbo taught us in Sunday school?

You're very naughty to infer such malice. I believe I've lectured you in these matters before.

This post has been edited by Obesity:

[Noroton]

Now, Slim. Weren't you paying attention to what Apostle Jimbo taught us in Sunday school?

You're very naughty to infer such malice. I believe I've lectured you in these matters before.

If only we could find a better outlet for your creativity. Oh, wait -- April 1 is just hours away. I'm counting on you, big guy.

(Please keep in mind that you'll be representing all of us superheros, tomorrow. Don't go out with dirty tights.)

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Bottled_Spider]

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

Admins have buttons too, don't they? For instance, Crummy (amongst others) seems to have a big, red button labeled "Push For Help" when things get tough. Don't shoot me; these things have to be said.

[Obesity]

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

Admins have buttons too, don't they? For instance, Crummy (amongst others) seems to have a big, red button labeled "Push For Help" when things get tough. Don't shoot me; these things have to be said.

Crum375 was a character from the 2006-07 season and hasn't controversially tagteamed in ages.

Ever since Poetguy's memorably humiliating prank (and perhaps even before than), he has been remarkably well behaved, as has Slim herself (for the most part) since she was ritually defrocked last year.

Where on earth have you been? You need to get with the times.

[Bottled_Spider]

Where on earth have you been? You need to get with the times.

The oldies & the goldies. Slimmies greatest hits.

[Jon Awbrey]

Crum375 was a character from the 2006–07 season and hasn't controversially tagteamed in ages.

Ever since Poetguy's memorably humiliating prank (and perhaps even before than), he has been remarkably well behaved, as has Slim herself (for the most part) since she was ritually defrocked last year.

Where on earth have you been? You need to get with the times.

Less Socking !!!

More Defrocking !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Milton Roe]

SV, referring to your statement earlier that, "It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart...", I think you're going to have to get used to it. It's a wiki. Articles deteriorate, or change, over time, especially controversial ones. It's one of the weaknesses of the wiki model, or strengths, depending on your point of view.

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Guess what, SV: other people's edits to your WP:OWNed articles, are not all-about YOU.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mod's note: Proab vs. Gomi combat moved to here.

[gomi]

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here.

No they are not. ... Quite simply, they are not. Very few threads get moved here. Whereas, on Wikiback, the few posts and threads that existed regularly disappeared on a daily basis. And the board lasted about 3 months as a result. So no. Don't try that one. It won''t wash.

I know only what I've seen this I've been here, and a lot of the threads in which I've started to answer whatever questions people had, and would have continued to answer them, have been moved. At least one of them I can't find at all. ...

You can see the actual evidence here.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It's amazing how much drama can be generated on Wikipedia over wurdz, innit? It's even funnier when Slimmy gets involved and ends up looking like a prannie. Again. My advice to all concerned is to simply replace all instances of "her", "it", and "its" with "Monkey! Monkey!".

One thing that strikes me about the whole "monkey gender" controversy is that it ignores the rather glaring Original Research, where the tableau is said to "epitomize the idea of animal ownership." It seems to me that the idea of animal ownership could just as easily be epitomized by the lady on TV, presenting Fancy Feast to her cat on a satin cushion, or some guy with his beloved seeing-eye dog.

[Cla68]

SV, Tryptofish is obviously trolling you. The problem is, you're reacting just like he expected that you would. I would advise letting him make some small changes to the article if other editors support it, which some appear to do.

[Milton Roe]

It's amazing how much drama can be generated on Wikipedia over wurdz, innit? It's even funnier when Slimmy gets involved and ends up looking like a prannie. Again. My advice to all concerned is to simply replace all instances of "her", "it", and "its" with "Monkey! Monkey!".

One thing that strikes me about the whole "monkey gender" controversy is that it ignores the rather glaring Original Research, where the tableau is said to "epitomize the idea of animal ownership." It seems to me that the idea of animal ownership could just as easily be epitomized by the lady on TV, presenting Fancy Feast to her cat on a satin cushion, or some guy with his beloved seeing-eye dog.

Where's the pathos in THOSE? The whole point is to emotionally polarize the article.

Sheesh.