The Oversighted Edits, Why were these deleted? Who deleted them? Options

[Peter Damian]

As this has caused so much controversy, here are the two edits that FT2 made to the Zoophilia article in July 2004. I was asked to provide these to the Wikipedia administration on Thursday 6 December 2007. After doing this, they were 'oversighted' - Wikipedia jargon for deletion - early Saturday morning, 8 December 2007.

They were meant to support my claims of slanted editing of that article, which a number of administrators have described as 'absurd' or 'crazy'.

My emphases throughout.

EDB April 22 2008

[Edit EDB July 9 2008] A link a document written by administrator WJBScribe early in May 2008, where he confirms that the edits were by FT2.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=111850



----------------------- THE OVERSIGHTED EDITS ------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4559833

In [[pornography]], zoosexuality is occasionally referred to as "'''farmsex'''" or or "'''dogsex'''" . The comment is "added "dogsex" to "farmsex", being the two terms commonly used in pornography)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4557792

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle. A common reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. Lifestyle zoophiles often share some or all of the following common traits:Some form of social individualism. This can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group.An emotional respect for animals. Examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common (google: pet memorials); in some cases this will become akin to a partnership, or become sexual. Belief that animals and humans are not so different in many ways, similar to the way that homosexuals feel the gender gap is not a major issue.A sense that humans can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect animals and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.

A "romantic" nature, the desire to have a bond for life, and a partner to devote oneself to fully. (Relationships of this quality are hard to depend upon with humans, as human partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)Above average awareness of feelings ([[empathy]]). This may be cause or effect, it isn't clear which. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. Either way, zoophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find.An open view on sexuality. Sex is commonly seen as "just part of life".
Zoophiles tend also to be highly accepting of bi/homosexuality, but less accepting of abusive activities.

A higher proportion than average of zoophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for animal welfare, SPCA, conservation organisations, etc.That the ideal life would be an animal as lifelong mate, and a human as a companion (with or without the possibility of sexual relationship). Lifestyle zoophiles often experience the biggest issues of their chosen life as the inability to be open or accepted in their relationships. This is not usually [[religion]]-oriented, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible. Another difficulty is the loss of loved ones, in a world that dismisses animals as secondary species.

Animals and humans differ in sexuality. For most animals, sex carries less importance, is burdened with fewer social and conceptual barriers, and is more an immediate than a conceptual experience. Therefore there are 3 trends amongst zoophiles, depending whether the human partner feels inclined to human-style relationships (human remains monogamous), animal-style relationships (both partners trusted to make own sexual choices, humans role is primarily as protector), or tries to blend the two in various ways.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners. In some cases the human partner or family knows. As human partnerships are often seen by society as desirable and there is social pressure to be in them, both male and female zoophiles often marry and this forces many to keep their other lifestyle as a private affair.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.

[Peter Damian]

Bumping this one - had further communications from the Arbs but it is stalling on the question of the edits. They are denying all knowledge and I have said I am not taking the case further in private unless they acknowledge the deletions. It is obviously absurd for me to have to prove that they deleted edits from their own database. Specifically: that revisions #4559833 and #4557792 were deleted between 7-8 December.

[Alex]

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.

It is possible to use a source but not reference it.

[Peter Damian]

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.

It is possible to use a source but not reference it.

Eh I'm sorry but we are still stuck at the bit where we are wondering who wrote those edits. The Arbcom is still stuck on that bit.

[Cla68]

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.

It is possible to use a source but not reference it.

Eh I'm sorry but we are still stuck at the bit where we are wondering who wrote those edits. The Arbcom is still stuck on that bit.

I'm willing to ask FT2 on his userpage about this if it will help resolve it. But I need some help, because I can't completely understand what the problem is. Would someone please tell me exactly what question needs to be asked of him?

[Peter Damian]

I'm willing to ask FT2 on his userpage about this if it will help resolve it. But I need some help, because I can't completely understand what the problem is. Would someone please tell me exactly what question needs to be asked of him?

I don't think that would be a wise idea. Since I posted this, the Arbcom have agreed to move on the matter, and I will say nothing further. Though the question would have been: what happened to revisions #4559833 and #4557792? Every edit to Wikipedia is assigned a unique ascending integer ID. We are now up at 200,000,000 or something like that. Thus these numbers, which now no longer return a page, must have been oversighted. The question is, who oversighted them?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Miltopia]

Peter, you may want to double check and edit the dates you posted. I assume you mean April 2008 is when they were oversighted?

This post has been edited by Miltopia:

[Peter Damian]

Peter, you may want to double check and edit the dates you posted. I assume you mean April 2008 is when they were oversighted?

Thanks for spotting there was an error. But it was December 8 2007 (I have changed it). Otherwise my account (that I notified the administrators on the 6 December, and that this is what prompted the deletion or oversight) makes no sense.

[Peter Damian]

I am now publishing material from private correspondence with Arbcom. Apologies to the squeamish for doing so but it is now two months since I asked them to act on this, and they are refusing even to acknowledge my mails. The excerpt is from a document put together by WJBScribe, which is remarkably accurate and candid. In it, Scribe admits that the edits had been oversighted, and mentions the name of Jimbo and Cary Bass.

I have hesitated to publish this for some time, because it shows how stupid Scribe was. He says the edits were not particularly momentous. Well, first, read the edits themselves. Second, did he not ask himself why if there was nothing wrong with them, they were being deleted so as to hide the fact that FT2 was the editor? Third, did he not see this would do nothing but inflame the situation (as it indeed did)?

Matters came to a head later when B--- claimed that edits which formed
part of his "evidence" had been deleted from the article on Zoophilia. He
had previous linked to 2 edits to that page which were no longer in the
database - as there was no deletion log entry for that page, it appeared
they had been oversighted. I was copied into an email exchange where Jimbo
asked Cary who had oversighted those edits, but did not see the reply if
there was one. I remain unaware of who oversighted the edits or why they did
so. Some have asked since why I did not pursue this matter more. The honest
answer is that by this stage I simply did not believe B--- - I had seen
the edits and did not recall them being very momentous - they merely
confirmed FT2 had edited the article [my emphasis]. The deletion of evidence I had found
utterly unpersuasive did not concern me much and it seemed to me others were
better placed to investigate the matter. I had put B--- in contact with
Jimbo, it was up to him whether to pursue the matter further. Had the
oversighting been improper, that would no doubt have come to light. I never
saw it as my role to investigate B---'s claims, why I regard as
fantastical, and felt that putting him in touch with appropriate people and
preventing the matter from derailing the onwiki elections should be the
limit of my involvement.
2008/5/8 Will wjbscribe@gmail.com

Interesting that someone who claims to be a lawyer says that the deletion of evidence does not concern him much, though I suppose lawyers do see a lot of that don't they.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Docknell]

As this has caused so much controversy, here are the two edits that FT2 made to the Zoophilia article in July 2004. I was asked to provide these to the Wikipedia administration on Thursday 6 December 2007. After doing this, they were 'oversighted' - Wikipedia jargon for deletion - early Saturday morning, 8 December 2007.

They were meant to support my claims of slanted editing of that article, which a number of administrators have described as 'absurd' or 'crazy'.

My emphases throughout.

EDB April 22 2008


----------------------- THE OVERSIGHTED EDITS ------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4559833

In [[pornography]], zoosexuality is occasionally referred to as "'''farmsex'''" or or "'''dogsex'''" . The comment is "added "dogsex" to "farmsex", being the two terms commonly used in pornography)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4557792

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle. A common reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. Lifestyle zoophiles often share some or all of the following common traits:Some form of social individualism. This can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group.An emotional respect for animals. Examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common (google: pet memorials); in some cases this will become akin to a partnership, or become sexual. Belief that animals and humans are not so different in many ways, similar to the way that homosexuals feel the gender gap is not a major issue.A sense that humans can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect animals and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.

A "romantic" nature, the desire to have a bond for life, and a partner to devote oneself to fully. (Relationships of this quality are hard to depend upon with humans, as human partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)Above average awareness of feelings ([[empathy]]). This may be cause or effect, it isn't clear which. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. Either way, zoophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find.An open view on sexuality. Sex is commonly seen as "just part of life".
Zoophiles tend also to be highly accepting of bi/homosexuality, but less accepting of abusive activities.

A higher proportion than average of zoophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for animal welfare, SPCA, conservation organisations, etc.That the ideal life would be an animal as lifelong mate, and a human as a companion (with or without the possibility of sexual relationship). Lifestyle zoophiles often experience the biggest issues of their chosen life as the inability to be open or accepted in their relationships. This is not usually [[religion]]-oriented, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible. Another difficulty is the loss of loved ones, in a world that dismisses animals as secondary species.

Animals and humans differ in sexuality. For most animals, sex carries less importance, is burdened with fewer social and conceptual barriers, and is more an immediate than a conceptual experience. Therefore there are 3 trends amongst zoophiles, depending whether the human partner feels inclined to human-style relationships (human remains monogamous), animal-style relationships (both partners trusted to make own sexual choices, humans role is primarily as protector), or tries to blend the two in various ways.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners. In some cases the human partner or family knows. As human partnerships are often seen by society as desirable and there is social pressure to be in them, both male and female zoophiles often marry and this forces many to keep their other lifestyle as a private affair.

Maybe it was this line FT2 was trying to hide:

"Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group"

If the voters noticed, they would never have voted him in:)

Doc

[Docknell]

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.

Hi Thekohser

Here are some more of such lifestyle edits by FT2, all seem to be pushing for lifestyle normality, without citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=8285000
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9174554
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=12624105
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=22039242


And this is consistent with FT2's push in general in the leading "zoos and pets riding off into the sunset" conclusion in the lead

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=22038466
Ft2 is making it look more like zoophilia is not functionally different from normal relations per se.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62344974
the idea that research supports the claims of zoophiles

Dismissal of the notion that zoophilia is often compared to pedophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62345233

And some interestingly related edits on the labrador article

Labrador retrievers: the perfect sex toy:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21348442
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21348400

[Peter Damian]

Adding this post on another thread by Probivouac - attempting to get all the material in one place if possible!

The supposed edits by FT2 would not qualify for Oversight...

Following confidential information which has been forwarded to me by an uninvolved party, I can independently confirm that the edits existed and were oversighted. Though it was already obvious that Peter Damian was telling the truth, it no longer rests solely upon his word. The edits were 4557792 8:23 4 July 2004, 4559833 11:48 4 July 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4557792
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4559833

The contents were as Peter Damian described them, and are now blamed on an anonymous IP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4570685

[dogbiscuit]

And some interestingly related edits on the labrador article

Labrador retrievers: the perfect sex toy:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21348442

I've never thought that my highly trainable Labrador-Retriever cross could be described as "open-minded to new things" - it is more a case of she'll do anything for a biscuit. That edit has to be the most creepy of the lot when you think of the context of FT2's editing.

[Docknell]

Adding this post on another thread by Probivouac - attempting to get all the material in one place if possible!

The supposed edits by FT2 would not qualify for Oversight...

Following confidential information which has been forwarded to me by an uninvolved party, I can independently confirm that the edits existed and were oversighted. Though it was already obvious that Peter Damian was telling the truth, it no longer rests solely upon his word. The edits were 4557792 8:23 4 July 2004, 4559833 11:48 4 July 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4557792
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4559833

The contents were as Peter Damian described them, and are now blamed on an anonymous IP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4570685

Thanks much. There's so much of the stuff, I'm losing count.
Doc

[Peter Damian]

[filing] Evidence that WJ Scribe denied knowledge of the oversighted edits at the time (although admitted it later).

If so, post the evidence here, and I'll go ask the candidate some direct questions on their candidacy page. I'm not shy about doing so.

Why not. The emails are below. The first is to Scribe on the morning that the oversights were made. Scribe replies later that afternoon, saying he has no knowledge of any content deletion.

My second email was some weeks later on the 17 December. Again, Scribe denies any knowledge of there being such a deletion. This seems to conflict with his later claim here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...50&#entry111850

made in May 2008 that he was copied in to email exchanges about the oversights from Jimbo and Cary Bass. It is possible that these email exchanges happened after the 17 December, but that would have been some weeks after the incident, and seems highly implausible.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
To: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
Cc: "GRBerry" Glenn.Berry AT pega.com
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:49 AM
Subject: Recent deletions from Wiki database


Will,

I checked this morning and this user's first edit to the Zoophilia article
has disappeared. This takes the affair to an unprecedented level and I can
have nothing more to do with it. Clearly I can't discuss with Wales unless
the edit trail is public domain.

The deletion was a rather inept thing to do. The edit is still there but
now has apparently been made by a different editor. And more than one edit
has been removed. I made a list of the entire edit trail to this articles
'Zoophilia', its talk page and the user-in-question's talk page, so it is
completely obvious to me where this has happened, or where further deletions
will be made.

As your organisation needs to think carefully how this is handled, and as I
want to enjoy my gardening leave and Christmas period in peace, can I
suggest we all leave the matter until the New Year.

Will, as you are a volunteer and as you work for a law firm yourself can I
suggest you also take no further action. You should hand this over to a
third party who is employed by the Wikimedia foundation and who can deal
with the matter in a way that is conflict-free. There is no point in you
getting any further involved. I have agreed take no further action myself,
indeed, have no reason to take any action given some of the evidence has
been removed, and for the other reasons stated.


Sincerely

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
To: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Recent deletions from Wiki database

I have no knowledge of any content deletion in relation to this
matter. And in reply to another email of yours, no I would not restore
the block on your IP to pressure you. I don't think that would be
legitimate.
Will

----- Original Message -----
From: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
To: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Fw: Username - stil problems

[…]

On other matters, we still have to get to the bottom of who erased the
two edits in question. Can we sort that one out please - or you hand the
whole matter over to someone else who can deal with it.

Thanks.

EDB

----- Original Message -----
From: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
To: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Username - stil problems

[…]

As to the other matter, I cannot help you. I am unable at my access
level to confirm that any content has been deleted, never mind by whom.
You have Jimbo Wales' contact details and it would seem his attention.
If you wish to pursue anything about FT2 further, he would seem that
appropriate person to contact.

Will

[Peter Damian]

Giano is doing the rounds of the Arbcom asking about the oversighted edits. The members are not even bothering to check each other's answers. Thus Morven says it is old news, Blacketer says it is all nonsense and conspiracy theory. Flo claims she doesn't know anything. Which is very strange in view of my my email exchange with Flo in May this year when

1. She confirmed that the edits had been oversighted

2. She promised to consult with the Arbcom members about whether this should be made public (I urged her it should be made public for it would be far worse if it eventually got out)

Giano, as someone that talks to you and the Committee regularly, I can say that the Committee and you often receive information about situations around the same time. As you know, often the information is exaggerated, or faulty in another why that makes in plain wrong. We both know that the information that people send us is sometimes dodgy and perhaps meant to deceive us so we make poor decisions. Like you, the Committee does not rush to judgments based on rumors and unsupported claims. When and if good information becoames available then we can act. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying we cannot trust the word of Thatcher and Fred Bauder who both comfirmed the oversights? Giano (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[Giano]

Giano is doing the rounds of the Arbcom asking about the oversighted edits. The members are not even bothering to check each other's answers. Thus Morven says it is old news, Blacketer says it is all nonsense and conspiracy theory. Flo claims she doesn't know anything. Which is very strange in view of my my email exchange with Flo in May this year when

1. She confirmed that the edits had been oversighted

2. She promised to consult with the Arbcom members about whether this should be made public (I urged her it should be made public for it would be far worse if it eventually got out)

Giano, as someone that talks to you and the Committee regularly, I can say that the Committee and you often receive information about situations around the same time. As you know, often the information is exaggerated, or faulty in another why that makes in plain wrong. We both know that the information that people send us is sometimes dodgy and perhaps meant to deceive us so we make poor decisions. Like you, the Committee does not rush to judgments based on rumors and unsupported claims. When and if good information becoames available then we can act. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying we cannot trust the word of Thatcher and Fred Bauder who both comfirmed the oversights? Giano (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and J P Gordon does not seem to want to discuss it at all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=254463437, at least with me.

Giano

This post has been edited by Giano:

[Doc glasgow]

Yes, and J P Gordon does not seem to want to discuss it at all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=254463437, at least with me.

Giano

Why on earth would he want to feed trolling on this non-issue?

Giano, can't you find a cause that matters to pursue. This petty revenge seeking ill-becomes you.

[wikiwhistle]

Yes, and J P Gordon does not seem to want to discuss it at all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=254463437, at least with me.

Giano

Why on earth would he want to feed trolling on this non-issue?

Respect to him.