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

[Anonymous editor]

Link

Noticeboard

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Moulton]

Sherlock Holmes was bored when he was not working on a case.

He was fascinated by a good mystery, and went about solving it methodically and scientifically.

It was up to Watson to manifest the hidden emotions of confusion and perplexity.

A good thinker displaces boredom by finding something to focus on that balances the fascination of a mystery with its complexity and it perplexity.

Now that FT2 is liberated from the banal liminal political drama associated with a rather pedestrian breach of expectations, perhaps he will put his analytical mind to higher-order problems than disciplining the incorrigible miscreants of IDCab.

[FT2]

All you have to do is to answer straight questions with straight answers.
(Snip)

Which is to completely disregard the context, that you are a user with a history of spurious claims. I don't have much interest in that. I forget the exact wording but there's a saying to the effect that the internet is full of 14 year olds with infinite time for whatever view they hold. You have to learn to not react to such things. For me, the matters you raise fall in that category no matter your real age; they were raised much more for the drama and point than from genuine good faith (sorry about using wiki-isms!). Had it been otherwise, you would not have acted as you did; the way you acted was not someone seeking answers, that was a rationalization that came far later. You have no information on my personal life, but you spent most of 2008 assuming it anyway and spreading your assumptions to others as your truths. Those actions get you and the drama-oriented "questions" you tried to raise for "political capital" purposes basically, ignored. What you might have asked, you asserted instead and I'm not usually inclined to engage a pissing match with someone who seems to have an endless supply of urea. Sorry. C'est la vie.

Question for you though. Do you really believe I've studied or been involved in most of what I edit in depth on? Do you believe I'm a lawyer because I authored a number of law articles and added in-depth on a range of others? A historian because I wrote on specialist historical matters? A psychologist because I wrote articles on 3 or 4 types of psychology and therapy? A movie fan because I wrote plot summaries for many movies? A weird sex practitioner because I worked on weird sex articles? A Christian or Jew because I wrote on judeo-christian articles? A politically involved person because I used to spend so much time on US political articles? That I know a thing about using Linux because I researched and authored the article on its start-up process? I don't think you really thought any of those things, did you?

Now that FT2 is liberated from the banal liminal political drama associated with a rather pedestrian breach of expectations, perhaps he will put his analytical mind to higher-order problems than disciplining the incorrigible miscreants of IDCab.

Oddly, Moulton, that's exactly been my thinking since stepping down. I'm now free to work on a couple of more structural dispute issues that need addressing and that I couldn't easily do "within arbcom". On the other hand I lose the option of arbcom decision-making (2009 style) if they are viable, as well. No idea if it'll happen or not - we'll see.

[Peter Damian]

Question for you though. Do you really believe I've studied or been involved in most of what I edit in depth on? Do you believe I'm a lawyer because I authored a number of law articles and added in-depth on a range of others?

No, and ditto the others. My claim was that certain of your edits were biased and slanted. Having been through many of your edits, I can confirm absolutely that there is no evidence whatsoever you have practised any of the things you talked about. I already said this while discussing the issue in private with WJBScribe last year. But you nonetheless put a positive and (to my mind) biased slant on many of those edits.

Many people will no doubt disagree about the bias (Giano already has). But the point is the authorship of the edits should not have been disguised as they were. If there was nothing wrong with them, why couldn't the community make its own mind up? Most people, including Thatcher, think that the community was liberal-minded enough to see past that.

My main concern at the time and afterwards was the Neurolinguistic programming articles, and I bitterly regret having brought the other matter up at all.

However, writing about bestiality, or whether it is now called, is perfectly legitimate. You may not like it, but coverage of the subject is lawful. There is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that FT2 was anything more than a writer on the subject, and had FT2 had better communication skills this matter would have been brought to a better conclusion months ago.

See my comment above. I will publish my correspondence with Scribe if necessary. My disagreement was with the way the edits seemed to promote the subject. That is a matter of editorial judgment, and also a matter relevant to the 2007 elections. I put forward the view (on a page which is now unfortunately also oversighted) that having someone promoting these views in this way on the Arbcom would turn out to be a public relations disaster, and would split the community.

A view which turned out to be entirely correct.

[edit] If it helps, can I apologise to FT2 here and now. I am sorry for the intemperate comments I made during the week of Dec 4 2007. I have an appalling temper and should know better. I bitterly regret all those remarks.

Nonetheless, I stick to my claim about 'positive promotion' of a controversial subject.

Should we not move on? There are other issues that have not been put to bed. If my private discussion with Scribe had not been completely derailed by the oversights, if Jimbo had bothered to reply to my complaints the following week, the whole matter would have been closed in a matter of days. The rest is history, of course.

It is Gerard and Jimbo whom the focus should be on now.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[wikiwhistle]

Question for you though. Do you really believe I've studied or been involved in most of what I edit in depth on? Do you believe I'm a lawyer because I authored a number of law articles and added in-depth on a range of others?

No, and ditto the others. My claim was that certain of your edits were biased and slanted.

Not so- you said you might report him to the RSPCA or something. That implies you thought he did something to animals they should know about.

I for one think the edits were somewhat erm...disturbing and he seemed to exhibit a knowledge of what might well be the inner life/self-justifications of someone with this issue. I showed someone the edits and within a couple of sentences they'd made up their mind. Maybe it was just an unfortunate impression the edits created. There was the block over "chocolate labrador", for 3RR too, although I think he was actually reverting a vandal, it shows someone taking particular care of that article.

Peter, you were used in an attempt to take out one enemy; now they are hoping to flip that enemy in their quest to take out a greater one.

Who are they trying to get at now, do you think? Not disagreeing with you, just I can't see their target yet. I too am surprised G has turned on Peter. If they're after David G, why not go straight for him? Or is it just that FT was the easier target?

Can I go back to being "an editor who likes tough articles", who has awareness of that topic area via anti-abuse work

Oh come on, these were some of your first edits. People don't even know about the wiki rule of Neutral Point of View when they join the project. They write about something they're fired up about, usually with a point of view. For instance, they might post a link to their own site, or in my case my most serious IRL enemies had written vanity and POV articles about themselves and how wonderful they are, so I joined to contribute to the AfDs (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Peter Damian]

Not so- you said you might report him to the RSPCA or something. That implies you thought he did something to animals they should know about.

No not so that is a complete fabrication and you should know that from the Dec 2007 email I copied you last week. For goodness sake.

I said I would be contacting the appropriate organisations, by which I meant some of the organisations that had expressed concern about the Zoophilia article (e.g. ASAIRS). I talked to a couple then W Scribe asked me to stop & I did. Then they blocked my anyway (partly o/a of a crossed wire with Scribe which I had explained before) and then they oversighted.

The Zoophilia article was and still is a disgrace.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Giano]

Not so- you said you might report him to the RSPCA or something. That implies you thought he did something to animals they should know about.

No not so that is a complete fabrication and you should know that from the Dec 2007 email I copied you last week. For goodness sake.

I said I would be contacting the appropriate organisations, by which I meant some of the organisations that had expressed concern about the Zoophilia article (e.g. ASAIRS). I talked to a couple then W Scribe asked me to stop & I did. Then they blocked my anyway (partly o/a of a crossed wire with Scribe which I had explained before) and then they oversighted.

The Zoophilia article was and still is a disgrace.

Appropriate organisations, now that depends on interpretation of appropriate, your exact words, from that date, to FT2 were "I am posting at various activist sites, and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this." or am I mistaken, is that a lie are they not your exact words? (the higher case emphasis is yours)

Giano

This post has been edited by Giano:

[Peter Damian]

Not so- you said you might report him to the RSPCA or something. That implies you thought he did something to animals they should know about.

No not so that is a complete fabrication and you should know that from the Dec 2007 email I copied you last week. For goodness sake.

I said I would be contacting the appropriate organisations, by which I meant some of the organisations that had expressed concern about the Zoophilia article (e.g. ASAIRS). I talked to a couple then W Scribe asked me to stop & I did. Then they blocked my anyway (partly o/a of a crossed wire with Scribe which I had explained before) and then they oversighted.

The Zoophilia article was and still is a disgrace.

Appropriate organisations, now that depends on interpretation of appropriate, your exact words, from that date, to FT2 were "I am posting at various activist sites,
and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this." or am I mistaken, is that a lie are they not your exact words? (the higher case emphasis is yours)

Giano

That is consistent with my intention to contact ASAIRS - an organisation set up to combat Zoophiliac propaganda on the internet. As I said, I stopped this shortly afterwards. (and ASAIRS is moribund, anyway).

And why, if the edits were not bestialist propaganda, as I think they were, should FT2 have any difficulty with this? I wanted a second opinion of the edits, and I was particularly concerned that Wikipedia was prepared to appoint to a high position a person who was promoting this propaganda.

It seems Giano you do not view this as propaganda. In which case you could not view the message as a realistic threat.

[edit] I also discussed the issue at 'Veggie boards' but there was no great interest as it turns out that a number of these vegetarian eco-warrior types are themselves quite keen on these sorts of activities - FT2 will recall from his experience of the Zoophilia talk pages that this has happened once before.

[edit] Here indeed it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...401710#Advocacy

A sad user called Seus Hawkins tried to contact a Vegan society in Queensland. FT2 (as sockpuppet User:TBP) has a good laugh at him when he found out that some of the vegans were quite approving of, er, the leg over part.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Giano]

Not so- you said you might report him to the RSPCA or something. That implies you thought he did something to animals they should know about.

No not so that is a complete fabrication and you should know that from the Dec 2007 email I copied you last week. For goodness sake.

I said I would be contacting the appropriate organisations, by which I meant some of the organisations that had expressed concern about the Zoophilia article (e.g. ASAIRS). I talked to a couple then W Scribe asked me to stop & I did. Then they blocked my anyway (partly o/a of a crossed wire with Scribe which I had explained before) and then they oversighted.

The Zoophilia article was and still is a disgrace.

Appropriate organisations, now that depends on interpretation of appropriate, your exact words, from that date, to FT2 were "I am posting at various activist sites,
and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this." or am I mistaken, is that a lie are they not your exact words? (the higher case emphasis is yours)

Giano

That is consistent with my intention to contact ASAIRS - an organisation set up to combat Zoophiliac propaganda on the internet. As I said, I stopped this shortly afterwards. (and ASAIRS is moribund, anyway).

And why, if the edits were not bestialist propaganda, as I think they were, should FT2 have any difficulty with this? I wanted a second opinion of the edits, and I was particularly concerned that Wikipedia was prepared to appoint to a high position a person who was promoting this propaganda.

It seems Giano you do not view this as propaganda. In which case you could not view the message as a realistic threat.

activist sites

The words you used were "activist sites" that is a plural, what were the other sites? Activist, now there's nasty word, and as for Propganda - Oh just don't go there, you don't know the meaning of the word. Now sites with an "S" what other sites? You are fooling no one.

Giano