Snowspinner muses about stalking and murder, He's "edgy" and "artistic" Options

[orthogonal]

I have mastered the art of surveillance. For the past four years I have meticulously watched the same woman through my telescope. I know every bra and pair of panties that she owns. I can describe, to the millimeter, the location of every blemish on her body. I have also learned endurance - I went the entirety of last March without touching myself as I watched her.

. . . .

In desperate situations, I have learned that I can kill another man. A month ago I went out and found a homeless man. I lured him to the railroad tracks and garroted him. The police have yet to name a suspect. I am confident that they never will. The experience was exhilarating, but not so exhilarating that I would consider myself a psychopath. I am confident I can keep my random murders down to one a month with minimal effort.

Source

I'm sure Fat Phil will explain he was just jerking around, not revealing his unsavory self.

(Of course, he'll explain that his plea to "give jackbooted fascism a chance" on his user page is just a harmless joke too.)

[blissyu2]

Well, let's go over pros and cons, for both of Wikipedia Review and Phil Sandifer, and perhaps for Wikipedia (Slim Virgin etc):

Wikipedia Review:

Pros:
1. Had 127 visitors at a time, beating previous record of 66.
2. Mentioned in several news sources.
3. General exposure of this web forum.
4. Added perhaps 30 new members to the forum.
5. Wikipedia will have to mention Wikipedia Review now (or will they still find some way to get around it?)

Cons:
1. Wikipedia has a new excuse to censor this forum.
2. Many people at Boing Boing and Live Journal, who had never heard of Wikipedia Review, hate it now.

Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner):

Pros:
1. Got about twice as many people reading his blog than before.
2. Got an article on Wikipedia for himself.
3. Got lots of public sympathy thanks to Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing.
4. More excuses for his vile actions on Wikipedia.
5. Wikitruth wrote an "uncensored" article for him, supporting him.

Cons:
1. Had police seriously consider him as a possible murder suspect.
2. Has a lot of people questioning him at university.
3. Has a lot of people questioning him on Wikipedia.
4. Is something that may never go away.
5. Refused to give finger prints, DNA or even to say why he wrote the story, making him look even more guilty.

Wikipedia:

Pros:
1. They get to demonise Wikipedia Review
2. They can justify abusive practises of Snowspinner and the cabal.
3. They have even more excuses to censor this forum.

Cons:
1. They basically have to write an article on Wikipedia Review now.
2. There is even more public scrutiny about what they are doing.

How many people can look at this issue without considering its implications for Wikipedia? Can they regard this purely as an obscure civil liberty exercise?

And how many people can honestly say that it is wrong for police to ask someone for finger prints, a DNA sample and for them to give a reason for why they wrote a story?

How many people can honestly say that Snowspinner proved his innocence by refusing to cooperate with police?

At worst, police violated a technicality. There was no uproar about Bradley John Murdoch being tricked in to providing a DNA sample so that they could prove that he was the guy that killed Peter Falconio. Nobody gave a shit. It was the proof that was important. And similarly, nobody would have given a shit if police had gotten a DNA sample from Snowspinner.

Like, what are they going to do? Plant DNA somewhere just to pin it on him? How paranoid can they get?

In spite of what they might think, we here do not represent the University of Florida campus police. Yes, we are law abiding citizens, but we are not "stitching him up". There's conspiracy theories, and then there's just stupidity.