| |
|
  |
 Hi (from FT2), meet FT2, currently active ArbCom member |
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
Just a quick note. I first asked for a WR account to be set up in April, but it wasn't, and again a week or so ago (admin mail wasn't being checked). Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front. Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job (and probably a number of disputes I get asked to help with) gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important.
Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at wikipedia may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like wikipedia editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible.
What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to argue people out of entire world views such as conspiracy-based thinking; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I woulnd't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me.
That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go unless relevant to enwiki work, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay. I don't have much to say, and if theres a deluge of comments I might be some time getting to them (wiki editing and Arbcom's a full time job and I still have to balance it with the usual family, friends and work). I plan to read around the board and see what's what, before I comment on any specific matter. Last I'm aware that WP and WR may have quite different site ethics and customary approaches. If someone can advise me what are the social norms and standards expected on this site, I'll aim to write in a way that meets them. FT2 This post has been edited by FT2: |
|
|
|
|
|
| KStreetSlave |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 352
Joined:
Member No.: 4,123
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 5:51am)  Just a quick note. I first asked for a WR account to be set up in April, but it wasn't, and again a week or so ago (admin mail wasn't being checked). Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front. Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important.
Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at WP may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like WP editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible.
What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I woulnd't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me.
That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay. I don't have much to say, and if theres a deluge of comments I might be some time getting to them (wiki editing and Arbcom's a full time job and I still have to balance it with the usual family, friends and work). I plan to read around the board and see what's what, before I comment on any specific matter. Last I'm aware that WP and WR may have quite different site ethics and customary approaches. If someone can advise me what are the social norms and standards expected on this site, I'll aim to write in a way that meets them. FT2 Half of the people who claim to hate you (or any other editor for that matter) on this site are Bandwagon, Jumping on The. The rest probably have legitimate reasons. It's happened time and time again though, one user here has a legitimate gripe against an admin, or even an illegitimate and misguided one, and others pick up and echo it without having any real knowledge of what they're bitching about, what's allegedly "wrong" with the user, etc. Usually they can't distill it down past "X is power hungry" or "Y is an abusive kid who shouldn't be an admin". Again, that doesn't diminish the points of the legitimate critics. If you get anything from this site, don't fail in the distinction between the two groups, because the legitimate group's criticisms are at least worth giving a good listen, while the other's howls are not worth the toilet paper they ought to be printed on. |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Sun 31st August 2008, 5:08am) Half of the people who claim to hate you (or any other editor for that matter) on this site are Bandwagon, Jumping on The. The rest probably have legitimate reasons.
(Snip)
Again, that doesn't diminish the points of the legitimate critics. If you get anything from this site, don't fail in the distinction between the two groups, because the legitimate group's criticisms are at least worth giving a good listen, while the other's howls are not worth the toilet paper they ought to be printed on.
In the first category, people I know who will be hostile are -- the user you know as Peter Damian (I gather thats his name on WR), a banned user who I have spent 2006 to date removing from the wiki (and who surely has an account here for the same purpose), and probably though I'm guessing based on rumor, proabivouac, though we have had barely any interaction and I'm not sure why. Perhaps generic "don't like arbcom". If there are others, I can't think of them right now. Damian has offered/accepted mediation but there is still immense hostility at present. The banned user will continue to try and stir as always and get his wikipedia accounts blocked when it's time to. And if I'm wrong about proabivouac, then pro' - let me know, and contact me to clear it up. (On public forum preferred, if it's genuine). Your second point - indeed. People show by their actions where they're at. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Carruthers |
|
the Omnipotent Autocrat of La La land
Group: Contributors
Posts: 249
Joined:
Member No.: 7,378
|
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Sun 31st August 2008, 10:52am)
well G'day :-)
(I'm not around too much.. being busy being fitted for my 'dark side' mask ;-) - and I think the best advice I'd offer for this forum is to cut to the chase.. less is more, and in my opinion plain speaking works better here! (you won't get blocked or templated! honest! :-) )
it's a sunday evening for me, and I've just spent 20mins or so looking into the UK chapter debacle... so here's a 'welcome to the frying pan' sort of question.... what the hell went on there?
cheers,
PM.
Welcome to Wikipedia Review. One thing that you probably should be aware of is that since more and more WP regulars post here, the people who made up the "Old guard" of WR seem to feel a bit "pushed off to the side" sometimes, so you might find tension coming out of that. Please be sensitive to these sorts of issues, as although this changing environment is unavoidable, that doesn't mean that everybody necessarily likes the idea. It's good to see another Arbcom member here, especially someone who's dealing with "off site" issues, which have become an important issue. I'm sure that you'll do just fine if you deal in a cool and professional manner with everyone, including those who have bones to pick with you. (Peter Damian seems like a sane, intelligent and highly articulate individual to me. Have you ever considered the possibility that he's the reasonable one? I mean, he's been doing quite a bit of rather nasty cleanup work (the category "pederasty" comes to mind...) that nobody else dared touch before. I would think that you people should be giving him barnstars left and right...) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 9:51am) Just a quick note. I first asked for a WR account to be set up in April, but it wasn't, and again a week or so ago (admin mail wasn't being checked). Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front. Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job (and probably a number of disputes I get asked to help with) gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important.
Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at wikipedia may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like wikipedia editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible.
What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to argue people out of entire world views such as conspiracy-based thinking; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I woulnd't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me.
That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go unless relevant to enwiki work, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay. I don't have much to say, and if theres a deluge of comments I might be some time getting to them (wiki editing and Arbcom's a full time job and I still have to balance it with the usual family, friends and work). I plan to read around the board and see what's what, before I comment on any specific matter. Last I'm aware that WP and WR may have quite different site ethics and customary approaches. If someone can advise me what are the social norms and standards expected on this site, I'll aim to write in a way that meets them. FT2 So what do you really think about bestiality as a lifestyle? Doc This post has been edited by Docknell: |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
QUOTE(Carruthers @ Sun 31st August 2008, 6:24am) One thing that you probably should be aware of is that since more and more WP regulars post here, the people who made up the "Old guard" of WR seem to feel a bit "pushed off to the side" sometimes, so you might find tension coming out of that. Please be sensitive to these sorts of issues, as although this changing environment is unavoidable, that doesn't mean that everybody necessarily likes the idea.
(Snip)
(Peter Damian seems like a sane, intelligent and highly articulate individual to me. Have you ever considered the possibility that he's the reasonable one? I mean, he's been doing quite a bit of rather nasty cleanup work (the category "pederasty" comes to mind...) that nobody else dared touch before. I would think that you people should be giving him barnstars left and right...)
Quick answers - thanks for the heads up. I'll try to take each person's comments as they present them, and talk to each in view of their own posts, rather than assume. That might be best. As for Peter Damian, I'm hesitant to comment as he has reacted badly to comments before, has now offered/accepted mediation, and the ideal solution is to resolve any problem, not provoke it. Equally, allowing misinformation that stands due to silence doesn't help anyone either. I've stayed silent at times because some topics just don't need elaboration on wikipedia - our main job there is to develop an encyclopedia not to engage in politics and side issues, and my main job there is to edit content, and help others do so when it gets messy. So it's a difficult one. Within his own sphere, he seems to be a reasonable and a good editor. In this area, he is not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements. If Peter Damian wishes to discuss the issue in a separate thread, I would be fine with it. Until then I am not going to open the topic, since I think his latest decision is a very wise one - it is best solved by mediation not confrontation, and I think engaging it on WR would be emotionally satisfying to him, but would not actually resolve it as well. There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 1:29pm)
Within his [Damian's] own sphere, he seems to be a reasonable and a good editor. In this area, he is not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements. If Peter Damian wishes to discuss the issue in a separate thread, I would be fine with it. Until then I am not going to open the topic, since I think his latest decision is a very wise one - it is best solved by mediation not confrontation, and I think engaging it on WR would be emotionally satisfying to him, but would not actually resolve it as well.
There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately.
A very warm welcome to Wikipedia Review, FT2, though I must say you were the very last person I expected to see here. For the record, I also have an account on WP with exactly the same name (as you surely must know). It is not blocked currently. Could you be a little more specific here. You say I was 'pushing' a certain non-encyclopedic point of view. What was that? All the best. Glad again you are here, and a warm welcome again. [edit] Please don't let Docknell put you off. He is a good contributor, and I respect his work here greatly, but he can be a little blunt. Do excuse us all. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| KamrynMatika |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 626
Joined:
Member No.: 1,776
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 1:29pm)
Quick answers - thanks for the heads up. I'll try to take each person's comments as they present them, and talk to each in view of their own posts, rather than assume. That might be best.
As for Peter Damian, I'm hesitant to comment as he has reacted badly to comments before, has now offered/accepted mediation, and the ideal solution is to resolve any problem, not provoke it. Equally, allowing misinformation that stands due to silence doesn't help anyone either. I've stayed silent at times because some topics just don't need elaboration on wikipedia - our main job there is to develop an encyclopedia not to engage in politics and side issues, and my main job there is to edit content, and help others do so when it gets messy. So it's a difficult one.
Within his own sphere, he seems to be a reasonable and a good editor. In this area, he is not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements. If Peter Damian wishes to discuss the issue in a separate thread, I would be fine with it. Until then I am not going to open the topic, since I think his latest decision is a very wise one - it is best solved by mediation not confrontation, and I think engaging it on WR would be emotionally satisfying to him, but would not actually resolve it as well.
There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately.
I'll allow the bolded parts to speak for themselves. You should be a politician. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 12:29pm) QUOTE(Carruthers @ Sun 31st August 2008, 6:24am) One thing that you probably should be aware of is that since more and more WP regulars post here, the people who made up the "Old guard" of WR seem to feel a bit "pushed off to the side" sometimes, so you might find tension coming out of that. Please be sensitive to these sorts of issues, as although this changing environment is unavoidable, that doesn't mean that everybody necessarily likes the idea.
(Snip)
(Peter Damian seems like a sane, intelligent and highly articulate individual to me. Have you ever considered the possibility that he's the reasonable one? I mean, he's been doing quite a bit of rather nasty cleanup work (the category "pederasty" comes to mind...) that nobody else dared touch before. I would think that you people should be giving him barnstars left and right...)
Quick answers - thanks for the heads up. I'll try to take each person's comments as they present them, and talk to each in view of their own posts, rather than assume. That might be best. As for Peter Damian, I'm hesitant to comment as he has reacted badly to comments before, has now offered/accepted mediation, and the ideal solution is to resolve any problem, not provoke it. Equally, allowing misinformation that stands due to silence doesn't help anyone either. I've stayed silent at times because some topics just don't need elaboration on wikipedia - our main job there is to develop an encyclopedia not to engage in politics and side issues, and my main job there is to edit content, and help others do so when it gets messy. So it's a difficult one. Within his own sphere, he seems to be a reasonable and a good editor. In this area, he is not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements. If Peter Damian wishes to discuss the issue in a separate thread, I would be fine with it. Until then I am not going to open the topic, since I think his latest decision is a very wise one - it is best solved by mediation not confrontation, and I think engaging it on WR would be emotionally satisfying to him, but would not actually resolve it as well. There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately. Do you believe it is noble to push misinformation about the brain (pseudoscience) and human-animal sex on Wikipedia? Do you feel it is right to set up mechanisms to persue and abolish those who oppose those who push such fringe practices? Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
QUOTE(Docknell @ Sun 31st August 2008, 7:05am) So what do you really think about bestiality as a lifestyle?
Doc
Hi Headley. You're getting predictable. It took about 3 minutes of reading up on the WR backlog to ID you. I've been spotting you on-wiki for a long time before I was an admin, when I needed to collate evidence enough to show other admins why you were HeadleyDown, and that you were indeed just another edit warrior. It makes a change to talk to you, though I doubt we have much unsaid since 2005. The ground rules are simple. Dialog's here fine, here I gather you're a respected user. On Wikipedia, the rules are as ever - if I see your accounts, I track them until I see confirmation they are you, or until I see what else you're up to, and then either at the time, or when it seems right, by myself or in consultation with others, they get blocked. You saw what happens when I get asked to prove it. The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted " there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned." And Thatcher confirmed that with the evidence he hadn't had before, he could verify the matter too. For the record, you don't deny you're HeadleyDown, do you? Giveaways here were: turning up to WR almost the same time as Damian, being the only other pusher of the above idea even on WR, Damian getting the "NLP cult" idea from you (as well as a number of your well-known memes, and your favorite "low quality but say what I want them to say" citations at Skeptics Dictionary), and having a history of contacting every user I remove for POV warring to try and coax them to "FT2 iz evilz"? It was obvious you were round, and being around, that you'd dive in. The only one..... Unfortunately there is one born every minute, who is a little more gullible than average and really believes you. You tend to find them, use them, watch them get banned. If you have something useful to say, say it. Otherwise don't bother. FT2 This post has been edited by FT2: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 1:51pm) Hi Headley. You're getting predictable. It took about 3 minutes of reading up on the WR backlog to ID you. I've been spotting you on-wiki for a long time before I was an admin, when I needed to collate evidence enough to show other admins why you were HeadleyDown, and that you were indeed just another edit warrior. It makes a change to talk to you, though I doubt we have much unsaid since 2005. The ground rules are simple. Dialog's here fine, here I gather you're a respected user. On Wikipedia, the rules are as ever - if I see your accounts, I track them until I see confirmation they are you, or until I see what else you're up to, and then either at the time, or when it seems right, by myself or in consultation with others, they get blocked. You saw what happens when I get asked to prove it. The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted " there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned." And Thatcher confirmed that with the evidence he hadn't had before, he could verify the matter too. For the record, you don't deny you're HeadleyDown, do you? Giveaways here were: turning up to WR almost the same time as Damian, being the only other pusher of the above idea even on WR, Damian getting the "NLP cult" idea from you (as well as a number of your well-known memes, and your favorite "low quality but say what I want them to say" citations at Skeptics Dictionary), and having a history of contacting every user I remove for POV warring to try and coax them to "FT2 iz evilz"? It was obvious you were round, and being around, that you'd dive in. The only one..... Unfortunately there is one born every minute, who is a little more gullible than average and really believes you. You tend to find them, use them, watch them get banned. If you have something useful to say, say it. Otherwise don't bother. FT2 With all respect, could you engage issues here, please. It doesn't matter who anyone is on WR, we simply discuss issues. One issue being: why is Headley Down a virulent (or 'subtle') edit warrior or whatever. Facts please. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 12:51pm) QUOTE(Docknell @ Sun 31st August 2008, 7:05am) So what do you really think about bestiality as a lifestyle?
Doc
Hi Headley. You're getting predictable. It took about 3 minutes of reading up on the WR backlog to ID you. I've been spotting you on-wiki for a long time before I was an admin, when I needed to collate evidence enough to show other admins why you were headleyDown, and that you were indeed just another edit warrior. It makes a change to talk to you, though I doubt we have much unsaid. The ground rules are simple. Dialog's here fine, here I gather you're a respected user. On Wikipedia, the rules are as ever - if I see your accounts, I track them until I see confirmation they are you, or until I see what else you're up to, and then either at the time, or when it seems right, by myself or in consultation with others, they get blocked. You saw what happens when I get asked to prove it. The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted "there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned." And Thatcher confirmed that with the evidence he hadn't had before, he could verify the matter too. For the record, you don't deny you're HeadleyDown, do you? Giveaways here were: turning up to WR almost the same time as Damian, being the only other pusher of the above idea even on WR, Damian getting the "NLP cult" idea from you (as well as a number of your well-known memes, and your favorite "low quality but say what I want them to say" citations at Skeptics Dictionary), and having a history of contacting every user I remove for POV warring to try and coax them to "FT2 iz evilz"? It was obvious you were round, and being around, that you'd dive in. The only one..... Unfortunately there is one born every minute, who is a little more gullible than average and really believes you. You tend to find them, use them, watch them get banned. If you have something useful to say, say it. Otherwise don't bother. FT2 Just a head's up. I'm not headley. This is a newsgroup that anyone can attend. Your diffs alone betray what you are up to. I don't think we need to even go into details over any Paul Sinclairs, or NLP/finance workers of any kind. I am a researcher though. I'm one of the many people who can smell bullshit whenever it comes calling. If someone claims that NLP is a cult, I will look up the sources. If the sources state that NLP is a cult or similar then I will pass that fact to others. Especially if it is supported by reason and other evidence. If someone states that NLP is like scientology, likewise I will doublecheck. No surprises there. People are indeed getting banned for doing simple research and reporting as such. You seem to be a committed adherant firmly rooted into the banning end. Fortunately, WP rules do not extend to WP review. Its funny that you seem to behave as if they do. Concerning WP review. I came here after many months of feeling as if it was all nonsense. But I checked the diffs. Critical mass came and there was nothing more to do but to try to find some sort of redeeming set of diffs. So far it hasn't come. In fact, you have even turned up here, with nothing but sociopathic wrangling. The web is full of pushers of all sorts. Like many normal people in the world, I think that is a cause for concern. Again, what's all this about the views of bestialists being generally supported by scientists? Maybe my 8 yr old son should know! Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Docknell @ Sun 31st August 2008, 2:10pm)
Just a head's up. I'm not headley.
This is a newsgroup that anyone can attend. Your diffs alone betray what you are up to. I don't think we need to even go into details over any Paul Sinclairs, or NLP/finance workers of any kind.
I am a researcher though. I'm one of the many people who can smell bullshit whenever it comes calling. If someone claims that NLP is a cult, I will look up the sources. If the sources state that NLP is a cult or similar then I will pass that fact to others. Especially if it is supported by reason and other evidence.
If someone states that NLP is like scientology, likewise I will doublecheck. No surprises there.
People are indeed getting banned for doing simple research and reporting as such. You seem to be a committed adherant firmly rooted into the banning end. Fortunately, WP rules do not extend to WP review. Its funny that you seem to behave as if they do.
Concerning WP review. I came here after many months of feeling as if it was all nonsense. But I checked the diffs. Critical mass came and there was nothing more to do but to try to find some sort of redeeming set of diffs. So far it hasn't come. In fact, you have even turned up here, with nothing but sociopathic wrangling.
The web is full of pushers of all sorts. Like many normal people in the world, I think that is a cause for concern.
Again, what's all this about the views of bestialists being generally supported by scientists? Maybe my 8 yr old son should know!
Doc
Doc please calm down. Otherwise he will go back and confirm his view that WR is populated by trolls and evil banned sockpuppets. Gently does it, please. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 31st August 2008, 1:17pm) QUOTE(Docknell @ Sun 31st August 2008, 2:10pm)
Just a head's up. I'm not headley.
This is a newsgroup that anyone can attend. Your diffs alone betray what you are up to. I don't think we need to even go into details over any Paul Sinclairs, or NLP/finance workers of any kind.
I am a researcher though. I'm one of the many people who can smell bullshit whenever it comes calling. If someone claims that NLP is a cult, I will look up the sources. If the sources state that NLP is a cult or similar then I will pass that fact to others. Especially if it is supported by reason and other evidence.
If someone states that NLP is like scientology, likewise I will doublecheck. No surprises there.
People are indeed getting banned for doing simple research and reporting as such. You seem to be a committed adherant firmly rooted into the banning end. Fortunately, WP rules do not extend to WP review. Its funny that you seem to behave as if they do.
Concerning WP review. I came here after many months of feeling as if it was all nonsense. But I checked the diffs. Critical mass came and there was nothing more to do but to try to find some sort of redeeming set of diffs. So far it hasn't come. In fact, you have even turned up here, with nothing but sociopathic wrangling.
The web is full of pushers of all sorts. Like many normal people in the world, I think that is a cause for concern.
Again, what's all this about the views of bestialists being generally supported by scientists? Maybe my 8 yr old son should know!
Doc
Doc please calm down. Otherwise he will go back and confirm his view that WR is populated by trolls and evil banned sockpuppets. Gently does it, please. Well it was a bit direct. I'll try to be WPishly indirect for a while then. Eeeeww! Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 31st August 2008, 1:29pm)
Guys, how about giving him at least, oh, a couple hours before leaping down his throat? Sheesh.
Nowhere near the throat! Haven't even got close to fully examining the socially extended aura of reality dismissal yet. Happy to take my time. Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Sun 31st August 2008, 7:42am)
I'll allow the bolded parts to speak for themselves. You should be a politician.
I can't do politics. I can see other people's views even if they aren't the same as mine. For example - * If someone has had a comment made, reacted badly, then you would expect a thoughtful person to be hesitant to comment so firmly again. Thats not politics, thats human consideration. Besides if I make a person upset to no end, does that help us when we come to mediation in a few weeks?
* I cannot imagine a single wiki problem where the aim is not to resolve rather than escalate disputes. It's a good rule for life, generaly, too. That focus is so important, I've said it many times.
* Likewise, some people's only reaction to criticism is "Must.. rebut/defend!" But often that just comes across as attacking, and provokes the dispute which otherwise if you didn't over react, it wouldn't. I could sit here and rebut comments, if I cared to. The aim isn't that. The aim is to resolve the underlying disagreement if necessary. Those who care, will figure the rest out themselves, it doesn't need me to open the topic up to a problematic level, because of a misguided need to prove something or other. if Damian wants to, he will. I'm not going to take his offer/acceptance of mediation, and respond by throwing out everything I don't agree with so he can feel he has to respond and so on. What's the use of that? He wants to edit undisturbed, I'm all for solving the problem too. Let us get on with it, if he's okay with that route.
* Proving oneself is often satisfying ("See, I was RI|GHT!")... but often doesn't resolve the problem. Everyday commonsense. This is the kind of thing expected - to be able to separate what benefits the project and helps the editors for real ("resolve the problem") from the immediate "what feels good" (must.. argue.. and.. win!)
* The last one's a view based on information held. You can agree, or disagree, but it's a view. So no, none of the bolded parts were politics, more ordinary commonsense and thoughts. (and Peter - saw your comment, will reply when I get back if that's okay) This post has been edited by FT2: |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 31st August 2008, 8:09am)
With all respect, could you engage issues here, please. It doesn't matter who anyone is on WR, we simply discuss issues.
One issue being: why is Headley Down a virulent (or 'subtle') edit warrior or whatever. Facts please.
I've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards. Others have too, I know. You don't see it although everyone else who's looked into it seems to - right up to the admin who asked for evidence to support the block you were concerned over. So I'm not repeating. Others can, if they wish to. You need to bear in mind for the first 18 months of Headley's career I wasn't an admin, so I coulnd't have blocked him. So everything I spotted, had to be sent to an admin or checkuser, to look into and agreed by another user. A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me. In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't. So you'll have to find out for yourself, I can't convince or show you. That'll happen by seeing what he's up to through others you trust, or by following his line until it gets you where it got him. But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list. It's better that you ask someone you trust, another well reputed Wikipedia admin, to check and explain for you, as Alex Bakharev has tried. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 2:51pm)
I've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards. Others have too, I know. You don't see it although everyone else who's looked into it seems to - right up to the admin who asked for evidence to support the block you were concerned over. So I'm not repeating. Others can, if they wish to.
You need to bear in mind for the first 18 months of Headley's career I wasn't an admin, so I coulnd't have blocked him. So everything I spotted, had to be sent to an admin or checkuser, to look into and agreed by another user. A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me. In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't. So you'll have to find out for yourself, I can't convince or show you. That'll happen by seeing what he's up to through others you trust, or by following his line until it gets you where it got him. But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list. It's better that you ask someone you trust, another well reputed Wikipedia admin, to check and explain for you, as Alex Bakharev has tried.
I don't have any of these. All I can remember is you constantly repeating that he was a virulent sockpuppet and so on. Far from a 'wide range of cites' you did give three diffs of someone (might have been Headley) using appalling language, but so do I, from time to time, we all do. The main Headley accounts were all very well-behaved, contributed a lot of scientific content to the project, and were a net benefit. Flavius Vanillus' contributions were even better. The other cites you gave were simply pages mostly written by you, containing the same apparently unsubstantiated claims. Bear in mind I have now checked through nearly every one of Headley's edits. I find nothing there of reproach. On being 'about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't', I had a conversation with Thatcher quite recently who said he didn't even know who Headley was. So, er... [edit] And I'm forgetting myself again. Can you please confirm in whatever way you like, that you are actually FT2, the guy on Wikipedia, and not some practical joker (sorry to ask again). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history[edit again] To be clear, we are not talking about any RL identity question here. Simply that you are the guy who edits as User:FT2 on wiki. Sorry if there is any confusion. Otherwise, is there a mod here who can confirm identity? Thanks. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 8:51am) The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted " there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned." Good old Alex B. Isn't he the guy who publicly endorsed (and recommended "significant increase" of) Jimbo's all-expense-paid trips to Moscow massage parlors? Yep, that's the one. Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome. Greg |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 31st August 2008, 4:05pm) Yep, that's the one. Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome. Greg It's true, I hardly believed it, but Alex does say that. As a further note, no moderator has yet been able to confirm that this account is genuine, and my question on FT2's talk page is still unanswered, so be careful! And as for Thatcher, I've already mentioned that Thatcher had no prior knowledge of Headley. He confirmed to me that he had simply taken FT2's word that Headley was a virulent whatsit. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| maiawatatos |
|
Blathererer
Group: Contributors
Posts: 172
Joined:
Member No.: 7,297
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 31st August 2008, 4:20pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 31st August 2008, 4:05pm) Yep, that's the one. Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome. Greg It's true, I hardly believed it, but Alex does say that. As a further note, no moderator has yet been able to confirm that this account is genuine, and my question on FT2's talk page is still unanswered, so be careful! And as for Thatcher, I've already mentioned that Thatcher had no prior knowledge of Headley. He confirmed to me that he had simply taken FT2's word that Headley was a virulent whatsit. As far as I can remember, headley admitted to deliberately trolling, but that was years and years ago. I believe he is in or connected to the british army, by the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 31st August 2008, 3:20pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 31st August 2008, 4:05pm) Yep, that's the one. Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome. Greg It's true, I hardly believed it, but Alex does say that. As a further note, no moderator has yet been able to confirm that this account is genuine, and my question on FT2's talk page is still unanswered, so be careful! And as for Thatcher, I've already mentioned that Thatcher had no prior knowledge of Headley. He confirmed to me that he had simply taken FT2's word that Headley was a virulent whatsit. Must be true then. Look, the whole world is virulent thingumy according to FT2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDownWhy? Probably something to do with NLP and bestiality. Who other than a virulent horrid person could be against such noble subjects? Only a single virulent entity, meatpuppet's or any other gullible horrid spiteful stalker person who believes sex with animals is wrong. And as for picking on pederasts and pedophiles! My gawd, how narrowminded. Ban them completely and recommend daily dosage of bomis babes before even considering reinstatement. WP rules!!! Doc QUOTE(maiawatatos @ Sun 31st August 2008, 3:30pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 31st August 2008, 4:20pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 31st August 2008, 4:05pm) Yep, that's the one. Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome. Greg It's true, I hardly believed it, but Alex does say that. As a further note, no moderator has yet been able to confirm that this account is genuine, and my question on FT2's talk page is still unanswered, so be careful! And as for Thatcher, I've already mentioned that Thatcher had no prior knowledge of Headley. He confirmed to me that he had simply taken FT2's word that Headley was a virulent whatsit. As far as I can remember, headley admitted to deliberately trolling, but that was years and years ago. I believe he is in or connected to the british army, by the way. You could be right. Headley Down is a village close to Aldershot (UK), so called home of the Brit army. Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sun 31st August 2008, 6:01am) QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 10:51am)
If someone can advise me what are the social norms and standards expected on this site, I'll aim to write in a way that meets them.
"Assume good faith" and "Don't be a dick" usually work fine. "Don't take any accusation anyone makes too seriously unless they have some evidence" and "Remember that people you'd block-on-sight on Wikipedia have legitimate opinions here" are also fairly good ones to remember. Well , no , no one is required to Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF) of anyone, and the always good advice, Be Thou Not A Jackass, Too Often (WR:BTNAJTO), neither obligates anyone to Suffer Idiots Gladly (WP:SIG) nor prohibits anyone from Calling A Simpleton A Simpleton (WR:CASAS). I hope that won't come as too much of a culture shock for you … Not to worry, though, as I am not holding my breath … (IMG: http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon7.gif) Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sun 31st August 2008, 5:42pm) As Peter says, we have no confirmation that this is the real FT2 posting (who doesn't appear to have been online for 14 hours) – for a site that's supposedly full of conspiracy theorists, you're (mostly) being remarkably trusting. Not to mention that any high-ranking Wikipedian using double--hyphens in space of en-dashes would be lynched by the Style Police (as would any British writer using the word "dialog"). Good spot, FT2 always uses Brit English. But it's a remarkably good impersonation. QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Sun 31st August 2008, 5:50pm)
When Wikipedia admins and suchlike sign up to the site, Somey usually confirms they are such before validating their account.
I asked for confirmation but didn't get any. The 'dialog' is very suspicious. [edit] I see Ryan's here, why can't he get confirmation, and delete the message I left on the FT2 talk page. I have no problem if he doesn't want his involvement known. It's also v suspicious this person stopped posting here as soon as I took it on-wiki. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
Having looked more carefully at the FT2 text with the eye of one accustomed to perusing ancient manuscripts for authenticity, I can confirm this is the real FT2 style, inimitable, no doubt. Quotes given below, with translations. QUOTE I've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards.
I have made this point clear already, and I am avoiding answering your question. QUOTE
Others have too, I know.
You are in a minority here. QUOTE
You don't see it although everyone else who's looked into it seems to - right up to the admin who asked for evidence to support the block you were concerned over.
Again, others can see this, you can't. You are in the minority. QUOTE
You need to bear in mind for the first 18 months of Headley's career I wasn't an admin, so I coulnd't have blocked him. So everything I spotted, had to be sent to an admin or checkuser, to look into and agreed by another user.
I have widespread 'community support' for my actions. QUOTE
A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me.
See? QUOTE
In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't.
Bingo! You really ARE in the minority. QUOTE
So you'll have to find out for yourself, I can't convince or show you. That'll happen by seeing what he's up to through others you trust, or by following his line until it gets you where it got him.
Threat. QUOTE
But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list.
Your fault for not trusting me. QUOTE
It's better that you ask someone you trust, another well reputed Wikipedia admin, to check and explain for you, as Alex Bakharev has tried.
Even Alex Bakharev agrees. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
The more influential WP admins almost always want to use Gmail accounts to register here, so we do end up taking extra steps to verify that they're really who they say they are, but there was really no question in this case. More importantly, if Mr. FT2 doesn't want to answer questions regarding the content he's added to Zoophilia and related articles, that's his prerogative, and it would probably be best if he weren't badgered about it. It would also be better if any questions were limited to the actual content in question, rather than speculation - no matter how justifiable it might seem - about his personal proclivities. However, that issue isn't going to go away, at least not without those kinds of answers. And if that means he never posts here ever again, then maybe we'll just have to live with that. Last but not least, any claims regarding what WP accounts Mr. Docknell uses or has used in the past should, ideally, be accompanied by some sort of rationale for it, i.e., more than "oh, it's you again." I can certainly see why Mr. FT2 believes what he believes, but at the same time, the vast majority of people on Earth believe what Mr. Docknell believes (i.e., bestiality is wrong, Scientology is bad, NLP is a crock), even if they don't express it quite as forcefully as he does. Attempting to finger him as a particular WP account isn't going to change that, nor should it. So, did that sound sufficiently admin-ish...? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| wikiwhistle |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined:
Member No.: 3,953
|
QUOTE(Docknell @ Sun 31st August 2008, 4:39pm)
NLP and bestiality. Who other than a virulent horrid person could be against such noble subjects? Only a single virulent entity, meatpuppet's or any other gullible horrid spiteful stalker person who believes sex with animals is wrong. And as for picking on pederasts and pedophiles! My gawd, how narrowminded. Ban them completely and recommend daily dosage of bomis babes before even considering reinstatement. WP rules!!!
Rofl! I think a large section of the world's population are unwitting meatpuppets of Headley Down in that case. QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 2:34pm)
* I cannot imagine a single wiki problem where the aim is to resolve rather than escalate disputes. It's a good rule for life, generaly, too. That focus is so important, I've said it many times.
? Hi FT2. Was this a typo and you meant to say wiki prefers to resolve disputes, rather than you can't imagine that ever being the aim (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) I don't think that is FT2. There are typos too, and although long winded he's not usually this confusing. But then I did run ten miles today. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| wikiwhistle |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined:
Member No.: 3,953
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 1:51pm) For the record, you don't deny you're HeadleyDown, do you? Giveaways here were: turning up to WR almost the same time as Damian, being the only other pusher of the above idea even on WR, Damian getting the "NLP cult" idea from you (as well as a number of your well-known memes, and your favorite "low quality but say what I want them to say" citations at Skeptics Dictionary), These are not unusual opinions. I've heard people call NLP a cult, say bestiality is wrong, and one only has to look at the Skeptic's dictionary site to get a feel for it. If one were for instance on a sceptical forum or mailing list, you would probably get people sharing those ideas about the site. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 31st August 2008, 10:13pm) Hi TBPFor the record, you don't deny you're TBP, do you? An excellent question to which I, too, would like to hear a straight answer. FT2, per your earlier comments, there is much here to discuss. However, since you mentioned a lack of appreciable interaction between us, I believe I first heard of you when you showed up out of nowhere - presumably solicited from IRC - and, without warning, blocked me for a week for attempting to warn contributors that if they use their real name, they are likely to be attacked under that name on Wikipedia. Perhaps just another routine meatpuppet/adminpuppet block for you, but it made an impression on me. The second interaction between us was your and JzG's deletion of my very detailed and accurate sockpuppet reports (Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos, the first resigned, the second still an administrator) and subsequent indefinite block of my account - immediately overturned, but leaving a very false charge of "harassment" in my account history. Reporting administrators for sockpuppetry is not "harassment." So, two more questions for now: 1) Given that you're so protective of your pseudonymity, why did you join in violating mine, and in ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't fairly warn new volunteer contributors of what can happen there? 2) What benefit do you see in covering up evidence of administrator sockpuppetry and dishonesty? This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
(Someone moved it. Took ages to figure where to find it!) Lots to reply to, I hope this catches the main ones. I've priorotized them a bit, or tried to, so if I miss one, PM me with a link to the post number thats missing. First and easiest - now confirmed on my wiki talk page. Damian and Rootology - as explained, I'm not in the habit of assuming all WR users are (whatever). I may ignore individual ones after a time, but I'm no sitting here waiting to confirm some impression of the site. I know roughly what to expect, and asked for an account to be created being aware of that already. The so-called "bitter pill" crowd seem to be roughly two groups: HeadleyDown (WR's "Docknell") and Damian is one rather small group, and those who act as if they want to score points and soundbites, or generic "wikipedia- or arbcom-opposers" is roughly the other. Kohs - you and I may only have a limited amount of interaction. I was willing to support you and look into your case on-wiki in April, but your claim to be an unrepentant sock-user in it for disruption, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a third post of yours is clearly a well thought out debating point and not disruptive, so when you do make perceptive comments, it's appreciated. For the record in citing Alex B as an admin, I am (rather obviously) not endorsing everything he has said, nor everyone he says it to, and you know that. He has said what I cited him as saying, and is competent as an admin to say it. (And if my assessment of you is mistaken please contact me to discuss.) Headley - As since 2005, the denials wear thin; pack it in. You only fool few people, and those few... well, so be it. Damian - you had been given links to a wide range of other users' comments on Headley on several occasions. Evidence was given to you exactly as to others, many times. Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong). Let's leave it all till mediation though. I appreciate the offer of peace, and I would rather follow it up than respond unhelpfully or be seen as attacking in any way. Somey - I don't run away easily. I added content that was, for the most part, researched rather than O.R. I could probably do better with experience. Some day I should go back to those topics for that purpose. It's just not a priority. Headley has spent from 2006 to now - over 2 years at this time - trying to present it as biased editing, and trying to get others via email, to push that viewpoint with him and for him. It hasn't worked so far for him on wikipedia, and even at WR, where you'd think he might get natural traction, I don't get the impression of much real belief. Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease. Kelly Martin - you said You will find such sockpuppetry games unwelcome on WR, FT2.. Technically Docknell isn't a sockpuppet - he's using one account here and if it's not in his better known name, who cares. I can affirm 1/ Damian doesn't use socks so far as I know, and 2/ Damian isn't Docknell/Headley, for the record, and if there was a third pusher of Headley/Docknell's meme who joined in or since December, I think even the gullible at WR would have noticed. However the unfortunate fact is, something being welcome or otherwise does not mean it doesn't exist. The irony is that this does expose the double standard. A number of users here who will endorse and encourage socking when used at wikipedia, will not endorse or encourage when they find it was used against them or "their" forum. I'll try to come back to the rest (if any were important) in a bit. One or two need their own separate posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
| wikiwhistle |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined:
Member No.: 3,953
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 3:32am)
Headley - As since 2005, the denials wear thin; pack it in. You only fool few people, and those few... well, so be it.
I'm surprised to see you (if this is FT2) assume someone is a sock/one particular opponent just because they share any opinion. I thought you were more sophisticated than that. QUOTE Headley has spent from 2006 to now - over 2 years at this time - trying to present it as biased editing, and trying to get others via email, to push that viewpoint with him and for him. It hasn't worked so far for him on wikipedia, and even at WR, where you'd think he might get natural traction, I don't get the impression of much real belief. Of course I don't believe it of you (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But have you thought (playing devils advocate here) that some people are simply being tactful, or not saying they agree with the suggestion because alleging it led to some people being blocked, or because they want to stay on wikipedia? You are in a position of power on WP. It would be hard and unwise for people to publically agree or say that they think there might be a grain of truth in allegations of scandalous things about you, on the record. Just saying (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 2:32am)
Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.
Then why did you take credit for User:TBP's work? QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 28th June 2008, 1:37am) FT2 tacitly admits it's his sock on his user page. He brags QUOTE(FT2) Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ] Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ] . Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=109909 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 1st September 2008, 12:13am) QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 31st August 2008, 10:41pm) What a nest of guttersnipes! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I'll say! The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved. And Mr. FT2, you're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley". Around here we call him "Docknell". User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it? I have fond memories of FTA — I'm wondering if FT2 is any kin? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 1st September 2008, 4:13am) QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 31st August 2008, 10:41pm) What a nest of guttersnipes! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I'll say! The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved. And Mr. FT2, you're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley." Around here we call him "Docknell." User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it? Indeed, and in fact there seem to be many HDs on this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDownall no doubt with similarly sizzling levels of virulence. I am actually none of them, and I'll not be packing anything in whatsoever. The diffs are there for anyone to examine. Doc QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 2:32am) (Someone moved it. Took ages to figure where to find it!) Lots to reply to, I hope this catches the main ones. I've priorotized them a bit, or tried to, so if I miss one, PM me with a link to the post number thats missing. First and easiest - now confirmed on my wiki talk page. Damian and Rootology - as explained, I'm not in the habit of assuming all WR users are (whatever). I may ignore individual ones after a time, but I'm no sitting here waiting to confirm some impression of the site. I know roughly what to expect, and asked for an account to be created being aware of that already. The so-called "bitter pill" crowd seem to be roughly two groups: HeadleyDown (WR's "Docknell") and Damian is one rather small group, and those who act as if they want to score points and soundbites, or generic "wikipedia- or arbcom-opposers" is roughly the other. Kohs - you and I may only have a limited amount of interaction. I was willing to support you and look into your case on-wiki in April, but your claim to be an unrepentant sock-user in it for disruption, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a third post of yours is clearly a well thought out debating point and not disruptive, so when you do make perceptive comments, it's appreciated. For the record in citing Alex B as an admin, I am (rather obviously) not endorsing everything he has said, nor everyone he says it to, and you know that. He has said what I cited him as saying, and is competent as an admin to say it. (And if my assessment of you is mistaken please contact me to discuss.) Headley - As since 2005, the denials wear thin; pack it in. You only fool few people, and those few... well, so be it. Damian - you had been given links to a wide range of other users' comments on Headley on several occasions. Evidence was given to you exactly as to others, many times. Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong). Let's leave it all till mediation though. I appreciate the offer of peace, and I would rather follow it up than respond unhelpfully or be seen as attacking in any way. Somey - I don't run away easily. I added content that was, for the most part, researched rather than O.R. I could probably do better with experience. Some day I should go back to those topics for that purpose. It's just not a priority. Headley has spent from 2006 to now - over 2 years at this time - trying to present it as biased editing, and trying to get others via email, to push that viewpoint with him and for him. It hasn't worked so far for him on wikipedia, and even at WR, where you'd think he might get natural traction, I don't get the impression of much real belief. Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease. Kelly Martin - you said You will find such sockpuppetry games unwelcome on WR, FT2.. Technically Docknell isn't a sockpuppet - he's using one account here and if it's not in his better known name, who cares. I can affirm 1/ Damian doesn't use socks so far as I know, and 2/ Damian isn't Docknell/Headley, for the record, and if there was a third pusher of Headley/Docknell's meme who joined in or since December, I think even the gullible at WR would have noticed. However the unfortunate fact is, something being welcome or otherwise does not mean it doesn't exist. The irony is that this does expose the double standard. A number of users here who will endorse and encourage socking when used at wikipedia, will not endorse or encourage when they find it was used against them or "their" forum. I'll try to come back to the rest (if any were important) in a bit. One or two need their own separate posts. Just a simple question FT2. The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDownhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...on/NLP_ModelingThey are generally against the promotion of pseudoscience. And the articles you created and conflated are indeed being deleted against the persistent arguments from yourself. Do you feel that all those editors who are against your POV pushing should "pack it in"? Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sun 31st August 2008, 7:50pm)
(Snip)
Answered in its own thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vicky |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 196
Joined:
Member No.: 7,391
|
Why, belated greetings from me too, Mr FT2. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) It's so delightful to see someone who has edited several of the same articles as I have. I look forward to resuming our collaboration - whenever you say, Mr FT2! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 3:32am)
Damian - you had been given links to a wide range of other users' comments on Headley on several occasions. Evidence was given to you exactly as to others, many times. Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong). Let's leave it all till mediation though. I appreciate the offer of peace, and I would rather follow it up than respond unhelpfully or be seen as attacking in any way.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply. Please note I have left Wikipedia for good. This refers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235343699so there will be no need for mediation. On your comments about users exasperated with Headley. You originally cited Thatcher and Alex B. Thatcher has said he had never even heard of Headley Down (private email, can't cite). Alex B I don't know about. Was he involved with Headley? And who were the others? I asked Woohookitty, and he (or she) said they didn't want to be involved any more. There were some others involved in the NLP dispute who obviously weren't too keen on Headley, but the vocal ones are all connected with the NLP industry in some way. E.g. Comaze who has admitted on-wiki to being an NLP practitioner. Could you find us a truly independent person to comment on Headley? Thanks [edit] And regarding Doc's post above: he is correct. Nearly all the scientific evidence I have looked at discredits NLP. And on the NLP articles I nominated for deletion, there was an overwhelming majority (apart from you and a handful of others) for 'delete'. Doesn't this suggest that Headley's editing, which was generally sceptical of the claims of NLP, was all right? QUOTE
Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong).
Sorry, what was this? By the way, on WR mores and culture, it is considered impolite not to source any claim with a diff or reference of some sort. Could you give precise references for your claims. And note the falsely attributed quote from Lakoff which you used earlier against me is still there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...of_users_of_NLP(see the bottom). The quote attributed to Lakoff is not by him at all, but by an NLP practitioner. Again, could you please accurately source anything you say here, thanks. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Adversary |
|
CT (Check Troll)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined:
Member No.: 194
|
First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (You should buy Taxwoman a drink) Slightly more seriously, I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) |
|
|
|
|
|
| FT2 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 8,002
|
Quick comments - QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 31st August 2008, 11:13pm) You're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley." Around here we call him "Docknell." User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it? Noted about referring to Docknell as "Docknell" here, that's fine. I will refer to Headley the wiki sock-master as Headley, the WR editor as Docknell, and not use the one name for the other. I call him that since I'm used to him by that name, whatever name of the day he uses on-wiki. One correction - far from not having edited for 2 years, he has edited pretty much without break from 2004/05 to August 2008. The last edits identified as him on-wiki were June 2008, and that is the customary name all concerned ( including him) have consistently used. I don't consider a mere change of nick to signify "hasn't edited". QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 31st August 2008, 11:13pm)
The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved.
There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist. I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange. QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sun 31st August 2008, 9:54pm) I'm surprised to see you (if this is FT2) assume someone is a sock/one particular opponent just because they share any opinion. I thought you were more sophisticated than that.
Did I say that my basis for stating it was "just that they shared an[y] opinion", or is that just an assumption? I think it's the latter. An introductory post isn't the place for detailed analysis, plus, that debate's been had numerous times on-wiki from 2005, for 3 years and some 60 - 80 socks, now. It gets predictable. When I said he's subtle to detect, I meant it. But all that means is, you need someone to show you. One of Headley's annoyances is I've never told anyone except people I'm fairly sure won't leak to him, and only told people what's needed to ID a specific sock, never all of it, in case they do. Even so he's been affirmed by probably dozens of users over time -- are they all wrong? Doubt it. The evidence isn't usually trivial. They, like you, start knowing nothing and requiring good evidence. And yes that caution isn't usual, and ... that's how it is. QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sun 31st August 2008, 9:54pm) Of course I don't believe it of you (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But have you thought (playing devils advocate here) that some people are simply being tactful, or not saying they agree with the suggestion because alleging it led to some people being blocked, or because they want to stay on wikipedia? You are in a position of power on WP. It would be hard and unwise for people to publically agree or say that they think there might be a grain of truth in allegations of scandalous things about you, on the record. Just saying (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Yeah, sadly some people will not be honest about how they see things. They imagine others act as they would, or as they believe others will. The idea some don't, is hard to fit into their world view. My commitment, and I make it publicly in case anyone does have this concern - I will not take action (nor for the suspicious, will I ask others to take action) for views, concerns and other matters expressed on Wikipedia and within wikipedia site norms. I also will not import views from here, to there, other than blatant statements of intent to disrupt or do harm, or evidence relating to actual bad conduct or likely future conduct, or the like. In other words, no, I don't and won't be going "OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING NASTY SO I WILL FIND A WAY TO HURT THEM FOR IT". Thats not okay, that's not the basis anyone should have who's an admin or arb, and anyone who thought it, can forget the possibility. I'd respect some people a load more if they'd ask thoughtful questions for good cause, rather than mere assumption. QUOTE(The Adversary @ Mon 1st September 2008, 1:50am) First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (You should buy Taxwoman a drink) Slightly more seriously, I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one. And no, I haven't. My computer issues have been annoying, and a serious impediment, and lasted from beginning July to now. The alternatives were two laptops - one with a busted keyboard and overheating, and a borrowed one with so little memory that opening a web page is a 90 second adventure. I hope they're over, but god knows. The tech guys don't understand either (multiple components tried with multiple components). At worst it may all go back for testing, and likely I'll pull it offline for 24 hours to do testing anyway here. But today for the first time since June it passed [[Memtest]]. I wish I were as confident as memtest is. As a result I haven't done the full review on that case, which I'd have wished to. Its on my "get caught up" list. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 8:40am)
There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.
I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange.
Ahem this is simply not true. Your first edits (in July 2004) I shall pass over for now (there is a thread about them below). You edited it extensively from 2004-early 2007. My issue with them is nothing to do with 'yuk' factor, but what appears to be highly slanted and promotional editing, selective sourcing and so on. Example given below, of an edit war you had with Skoppensboer. I have included Skopp's comments only, but they were all directed at you. Link to the archived page is given if you want to check. ------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE I stand by what I said. Your edits all tend to minimise perceived risk and your intention is clearly to give the entire topic a gloss of safety and normality, I presume for personal reasons. Let me ask you directly: are you a zoophile? We should be told. It would certainly help to explain your edits made without consensus-seeking. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) QUOTE Please stop using pornographic erotica forums for proof of what we should or shouldn't say here. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) QUOTE I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. As for taking a break, I'll take a permanent break if you agree not to gut the Health and Safety section again. I am also agreeable to spinning it off as a separate page with a {{main| tag linking it to the Zoophilia page H&S section, as I've offered before, and to which you have never agreed, your recent comment about this notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Zoophilia Talk page) ----------------- QUOTE I do not have the time to engage in a long explication of this kerfuffle here, and I see I'm already in danger of being overwhelmed by FT2's verbose style right at the start. I refer the mediator to the actual talk pages where I've made my points. I don't wish or have the time to rewrite them here. Needless to say, I deny all of the points FT2 tries to make above. QUOTE The issue I have with FT2 is that his/her editing always comes from one biased angle. Absolutely every edit he/she's made on my work serves to minimize and normalize aberrant behaviour that could threaten health. Yes, shock, but even in this non-judgemental world, some behaviors are still aberrant from a professional medical POV. I refer you to the various talk pages again. Please note that the quoted "negative" above is not my word. But I do have an issue with a disorder (for that is what the psychiatric profession all over the world classifies it as -- a "disorder") being presented as a charming alternate lifestyle, and with an article in which the health/disease section is almost non-existent, inane and frankly wrong, as it was. I tried to beef the health aspects up and FT2 has opposed me tooth and nail, if you'll excuse the pun. Read the various pages, & the discussions. FT2 has raised trivial objection after trivial objection, edited my work without any attempt at consultation, and he/she clearly has a disturbing sense of ownership of the topic on WP. QUOTE I wish to quote someone else's views on the Zoophilia page, and note that the problems highlighted in this quote are what got me started on the zoophilia page in the first place, attempting to insert balance, and even though I now have a separate page for the health issue, the party responsible for the tone of the original page is intent on pursuing me and keeping the tone in lockstep with the master article. Here's the apposite quote: "In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unnecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. .... this current article is still a terrible embarrassment to wikipedia. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.". [6 December 2006] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ation/Zoophilia |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
FT2, you said: "There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist. I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange." Well, let’s look at that with a few diffs shall we? You seem to be removing well sourced information that is condemnatory to bestiality http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141077281And you seem to have shown a desperate need to save zoophiles from the normal and obvious comparison with pedophiles, and you add NLP vaguery to the opening that quite frankly a pedophile would want to add to the lead of the pedophilia article. That’s not science, its pure promotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62331938There is a definite need to deal with the ick factor. There is an increasingly vocal element among Wikipedians (especially during ANI’s and AfDs that seem to have been complaining about your activities) that seems to cry for the whole of Wikipedia to have such ick hosed out of the project, contributing arbitrators and all. Or do you think casually dismissing the obvious incidence such fringe promotional editing is normal, natural, and acceptable for arbitrators such as yourself? Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 1st September 2008, 9:57am) QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 7:40am)
Quick comments -
…
FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work? http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253Yes, answers needed. Let's spell this out. Here is the contribution history for Hani_Miletski http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=historyfrom which you can see TBP began the article, and left it in pretty much a finished state. QUOTE
(cur) (last) 20:03, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:02, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:58, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:56, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:43, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:41, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:39, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) m (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:30, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs)
FT2 claims to have 'substantially rewritten' the article but when you look at his overall contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52713521they are just referencing, adding tags and a vandalism revert. What is going on? |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 2:32am)
Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2First edit to self-nom 06:13, 17 June 2006 FT2 (Talk | contribs) TBP's last edit01:19, 16 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Animal cognition ‎ (→Emotion: fix section head) How long was checkuser data retained at the time? No, it cannot be definitively proven at this time that the accounts were run by the same person. I've seen users with less mojo templated on weaker evidence, but frankly, it is one of your lesser transgressions. I'm a little busy on another matter that the wikiverse will soon feel the effects of to review your alleged socking, but if you wish to clue us in on this matter, feel free. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 31st August 2008, 10:32pm) Kohs - you and I may only have a limited amount of interaction. I was willing to support you and look into your case on-wiki in April, but your claim to be an unrepentant sock-user in it for disruption, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a third post of yours is clearly a well thought out debating point and not disruptive, so when you do make perceptive comments, it's appreciated. For the record in citing Alex B as an admin, I am (rather obviously) not endorsing everything he has said, nor everyone he says it to, and you know that. He has said what I cited him as saying, and is competent as an admin to say it. (And if my assessment of you is mistaken please contact me to discuss.) You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try -- I know it's difficult for some of you -- but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
It's not just the poo, it's the confusion. Once again, why does FT2 claim to have completely re-written an article (Hani Miletski) that user:TBP in fact wrote? That makes no sense, and FT2 hasn't answered it either. QUOTE
Scientology's inability to tolerate disagreement makes it seem an act of loyalty to label others as enemy and to discredit non-group persons and values. In this authoritarian atmosphere, the Church is always right. In taking any independent position, the individual is always wrong. In the logic of Hard Sell, a clever person can produce an infinity of reasons why the individual is wrong-for-some-reason-or-other without regard to the facts of any particular situation.
A common misdirection is to force attention off the issue and onto intentions and motives; anyone who is not gung ho must have evil intentions. Thus discourse is reduced to smearing, invalidating, or otherwise "disconnecting from" (generally: not seeing) those not of one's persuasion. For example, a Scientologist who saw a very early draft of these notes made no response at all to their content, but was horrified that I would discuss the group in non-group terms. I was told to see an ethics officer and get it "handled."
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 1st September 2008, 10:10am)
You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try — I know it's difficult for some of you — but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point.
Now, Greg, you ought to know this bit by now. Try to play along — you donwanna up ↑set the Wiki-Peeneut Gallery, now do you? After all, up ↑setting the Wiki-Peanut-Brains is my job. FT2 is just the latest in a long, long — long to the WP:PUNT of TL;DR — long, long line of PR agents from the Wiksliver Kill The Messenger Service that we all know as Wikipedia. He will quite natterly feel a bit naked without his Waleser-PPK™ and his License2Kill® over here, so try to be gentle with him @ 1st, will you? He will quickly learn the trick, if he hasn't already, of deftly ignoring anyone who is e-wake e-nuff to speak the discomfitable truth bak@im, devoting his e-tentions to all the X-Boys-Staters and X-Girls-Staters who are so Gawdawful Frank 'n' Earnest 'n' Beans about the ArbCommodious Side-Show known as ARBCon. So all us old BarFlies might as well sit back, relax, have a Strohs (IceCream or Beer, name yer poison), and laugh our arses off at the Comedy of BarfLies that we are about to see Wiki-Paraded b4 us. Cheers! CODE
¤
º
.°
\_/
|
-^-
Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Carruthers |
|
the Omnipotent Autocrat of La La land
Group: Contributors
Posts: 249
Joined:
Member No.: 7,378
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 1st September 2008, 2:40pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 1st September 2008, 10:10am)
You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try — I know it's difficult for some of you — but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point.
Now, Greg, you ought to know this bit by now. Try to play along — you donwanna up ↑set the Wiki-Peeneut Gallery, now do you? After all, up ↑setting the Wiki-Peanut-Brains is my job. FT2 is just the latest in a long, long — long to the WP:PUNT of TL;DR — long, long line of PR agents from the Wiksliver Kill The Messenger Service that we all know as Wikipedia. He will quite natterly feel a bit naked without his Waleser-PPK™ and his License2Kill® over here, so try to be gentle with him @ 1st, will you? He will quickly learn the trick, if he hasn't already, of deftly ignoring anyone who is e-wake e-nuff to speak the discomfitable truth bak@im, devoting his e-tentions to all the X-Boys-Staters and X-Girls-Staters who are so Gawdawful Frank 'n' Earnest 'n' Beans about the ArbCommodious Side-Show known as ARBCon. So all us old BarFlies might as well sit back, relax, have a Strohs (IceCream or Beer, name yer poison), and laugh our arses off at the Comedy of BarfLies that we are about to see Wiki-Paraded b4 us. Cheers! CODE
¤
º
.°
\_/
|
-^-
Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) I'll drink to that! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
