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

[Kelly Martin]

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

Why not?

No, you really don't have the faintest idea about the real issues, do you. The issue is about the ownership of the Zoo page by a group of individuals led by FT2 who had an agenda to normalise the practice of bestiality.

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

[Lar]

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

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

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

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

[Peter Damian]

Not one significant thing you have said about your actions of December from then till now has been truthful.[list]
[*] You claimed you "never" alleged participation. Quick test, you called Radiant! "another" dog lover. If he was "another" practitioner, whom did you believe/claim was the first?

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

You claimed you were blocked by admins who subjected you to a "hate" campaign", but the truth is all you were asked to do was to stop acting up. You were unblocked on giving your word you would do so. Even your final block of December 2007 was to be unblocked on reasonable conditions. Would you categorize that as a "hate campaign"?

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

[*] You claimed the edit was being used as evidence, and was deleted to prevent its use, but omitted to mention it was also being used in a blog post to "activist sites" and "organizations" (plural) where you were "spreading the word" as a means to identify a target. You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation. So... did you not think that other copies of your blog post might still be circulating...? Or is defamation and harassment just a game to you?

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

Can you reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your prior claim to have already contacted "organizations" plural? You were asked where you had posted it to (by WJB, same post) and preferred to stay blocked than to answer and withdraw the matter. You broke your word repeatedly. Anyone reading your words is quite entitled to assume anything from SPCA to ALF, and multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

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

And so on, and so on. You're mendacious, Peter. You fabricate and lie like some people fart - obnoxiously, habitually, loudly, and badly. Name one reason your halo-polishing claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest.

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 19th January 2009, 5:16pm

[Doc glasgow]

my own avatar here and elsewhere is a feeble attempt to remind myself of that.

HA!

[Lar]

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

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

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

I predicted that Charles Matthews and Jehochman would play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern last year during the Arbcom elections. With NewYorkBrad announcing their demise when all the dust had settled. In the end it was FT2 who was the ultimate fall guy.

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

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

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

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

my own avatar here and elsewhere is a feeble attempt to remind myself of that.

HA!

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

A side note, I built the flying wing set last night. I found mistakes in the instructions. Another illusion shattered.

[everyking]

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

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

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

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

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

[Giano]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giano

[Doc glasgow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dtobias]

You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation.

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

[FT2]

[*] You claimed you "never" alleged participation. Quick test, you called Radiant! "another" dog lover. If he was "another" practitioner, whom did you believe/claim was the first?

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

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

Did you 1) make claims at any time of criminal sexual abuse, and then 2) spend most of 2008 explicitly lying by claiming you had never done so? Is it also not true that far from having any "regret", bitter or otherwise, you were busy continuing to imply this to other people as late as 16-17 September 2008 when you wrote Jimbo "I have not speculated about his private life" and Jimbo replied "You just did, in this very email thread".

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

You claimed you were blocked by admins who subjected you to a "hate" campaign", but the truth is all you were asked to do was to stop acting up. You were unblocked on giving your word you would do so. Even your final block of December 2007 was to be unblocked on reasonable conditions. Would you categorize that as a "hate campaign"?

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

That's also not an answer. The "poisonous messages" can be seen in your block log. They were this and this. Evidence of a "hate campaign"? Laughable. Not that you would ever know what a "very nasty hate campaign" was, right? Do you still want to claim this was accurate? You haven't shown a solitary word to that effect.

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

[*] You claimed the edit was being used as evidence, and was deleted to prevent its use, but omitted to mention it was also being used in a blog post to "activist sites" and "organizations" (plural) where you were "spreading the word" as a means to identify a target. You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation. So... did you not think that other copies of your blog post might still be circulating...? Or is defamation and harassment just a game to you?

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

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

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

Can you reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your prior claim to have already contacted "organizations" plural? You were asked where you had posted it to (by WJB, same post) and preferred to stay blocked than to answer and withdraw the matter. You broke your word repeatedly. Anyone reading your words is quite entitled to assume anything from SPCA to ALF, and multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

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

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

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

And so on, and so on. You're mendacious, Peter. You fabricate and lie like some people fart - obnoxiously, habitually, loudly, and badly. Name one reason your halo-polishing claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest.

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

"Poor Suess". My heart is dripping pathos right now. Do you really think anyone here wears their heart on their sleeve? You probably knew the background on TBP and Suess (just looked up to check I have the right incidents) and knew she was an SPA canvasser all along, but still try to push a case here because it suits you to portray her that way; you also apparently find it easier to focus on accounts involved and ignore the content. This is Emotional Cliches #101, Peter, "Make A Martyr Of Them". You lied (according to Thatcher's assessment) about Phdarts too which was rather transparent ("Later, he admitted knowing").


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

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

This post has been edited by FT2: Mon 19th January 2009, 10:59pm

[Moulton]

Uffda!

See: Narcissistic Wounding and Narcissistic Rage.

[Basil]

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

[Giano]

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

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

Giano

This post has been edited by Giano: Mon 19th January 2009, 11:00pm

[FT2]

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

Giano

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

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

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

This post has been edited by FT2: Mon 19th January 2009, 11:36pm

[Cla68]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 19th January 2009, 11:36pm

[Giano]

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

Giano

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

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

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

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

Giano

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

just remind yourself that Wikipedia is an entertainment website. That's it. It's a hobby, or should be anyway.

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

[EricBarbour]

Do you really want to be flagellated for sin, like your fanatic namesake? And a mistress to "punish" you for being naughty? Do you like making sordid libels like this? .............blah blah blah etc etc etc...............

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

just remind yourself that Wikipedia is an entertainment website. That's it. It's a hobby, or should be anyway.

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

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

[Cla68]

just remind yourself that Wikipedia is an entertainment website. That's it. It's a hobby, or should be anyway.

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

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

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 20th January 2009, 12:33am

[wikiwhistle]

Do you really want to be flagellated for sin, like your fanatic namesake? And a mistress to "punish" you for being naughty? Do you like making sordid libels like this? Have you got issues around sex like your namesake? He liked a touch of the whip and punishment too, didn't he?

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

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

zoophilia and society
zoophilia and religion
List of studies into zoosexuality
research into zoophilia
An article claiming how all sex with animals might not be sexual abuse
zoosexuality and emotion
zoophilia and the media

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

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