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:

[Somey]

Good thing he already has a WR account! That should save him some time.

[Anonymous editor]

unblocked 10 minutes later by another admin.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[trenton]

....and unblocked by crony Scarian...

Incidentally anybody want to start a pool on the word count of FT2's "clarification"? My guess is 20,404 words which will probably amount to the Essjay defense of "I had to lie to protect myself and my family from the uber-evil WR stalkers"

[Kelly Martin]

I guess the WikiDramaQuotient (WDQ) had dropped too low, what with the ArbCom elections being over and all.

[Peter Damian]

F--- I was just going to bed how dare she do that.

[Bottled_Spider]

This is going to be fun.

[SirFozzie]

.... WHAFUCK????

15 edit conflicts before I could post.

ANI Go Boom!

I hope Bishonen thought long and hard about the amount of heat she's about to take before she did this.

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

[everyking]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

[Dzonatas]

....and unblocked by crony Scarian...

Incidentally anybody want to start a pool on the word count of FT2's "clarification"? My guess is 20,404 words which will probably amount to the Essjay defense of "I had to lie to protect myself and my family from the uber-evil WR stalkers"

I thought there was an ArbCom decision that admins shouldn't undo actions of other admins because it would be a wheel-war and lead to suspension of sysop bits and such. (Connely & George)

[Anonymous editor]

reading the thread.

Obviously Bish has just heavily invested in popcorn stocks and is trying to make a quick return on investment. *munch* –xeno (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Damned right. Pass the salt. GbT/c 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot on.

[cyofee]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

Bishonen just followed WP:BOLD.

This post has been edited by cyofee:

[EricBarbour]

FT2 is an obvious kook, and makes the entire project look ridiculous. It only shows how poorly things work here that he could get any position of responsibility, much less keep it for any length of time. However, I can't imagine this block will stick, and I can see all manner of drama ensuing. I think social ostracism works better than a block in cases like this. Friday (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I seriously think Bishonen should start an RFC on FT2. Blocking him like this is punitive. The encyclopedia isn't being damaged with him editing it. Majorly talk 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what good this is supposed to do. What exactly is the block going to prevent - and if we're going to be creative - what behavior, practice, norm, policy, or principle is being assuaged here?--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:RFC time. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Friday, please don't throw around terms like "kook". This is a delicate matter and inflammatory words might only cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see that more people are starting to talk about FT2's insane behaviour.
He still has his brown-nosers, but general opinion seems to be moving against him.

About time, after FIVE YEARS of his backstabbing and meaningless verbal diarrhea.....

Hah! 13 votes of confidence, 63 votes of no confidence.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[written by he who wrote it]

Clearly she's fed up with FT2's inability (or deliberate refusal) to give a straightforward answer to an apparently simple question. My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

[SirFozzie]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

Bishonen just followed WP:BOLD.

There's also been WP:REVERT, and now we're on WP:DISCUSSing how unnecessarily BOLD and ill-advised it was. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

[Anonymous editor]

Clearly she's fed up with FT2's inability (or deliberate refusal) to give a straightforward answer to an apparently simple question. My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

[Dzonatas]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

Hypocrisy at a finest.

[SirFozzie]

That is the first time I've seen ANI full protected due to excessive usage.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever been sanctioned for wheel-warring for undoing a single admin action (that hadn't already been undone). According to the letter of [[WP:WHEEL]], wheel-warring doesn't actually start until somebody redoes an admin action that has already been undone once, and I believe that's usually how it's enforced (when it's enforced).

[Anonymous editor]

You know, time was we blocked editors for disruption. Blocking to get attention and make a fuss doesn't seem very sensible to me. --TS 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

agree

[trenton]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

Hypocrisy at a finest.

The block should have been labeled as "Arbitration Enforcement" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[SirFozzie]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever been sanctioned for wheel-warring for undoing a single admin action (that hadn't already been undone). According to the letter of [[WP:WHEEL]], wheel-warring doesn't actually start until somebody redoes an admin action that has already been undone once, and I believe that's usually how it's enforced (when it's enforced).

Correct. There's an additional caveat , however, that undoing an Arbitration Committee Action (or an ArbCom Enforcement action, which by default is an arbitration action) unilaterally without discussion is considered a "Real Bad Thing." (That came out recently)

[Anonymous editor]

sarcasticidealist (who is here and I'm sure will comment) put AN/I back on semi-protection.

also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...otection_of_ANI

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[EricBarbour]

damn, this is one hot topic.

FT2 finally did it. He's become the OJ Simpson of Arbcom. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

sarcasticidealist (who is here and I'm sure will comment) put AN/I back on semi-protection.

I actually misunderstood Tznkai's protection summary ("temporary halting high traffic to subpage"). I thought he meant that he was halting high traffic *to* a subpage (that being ANI). It didn't occur to me that "subpage" could be used as a verb. If I'd understood his summary properly, I wouldn't have unprotected. Oh well.

This post has been edited by sarcasticidealist:

[written by he who wrote it]

Clearly she's fed up with FT2's inability (or deliberate refusal) to give a straightforward answer to an apparently simple question. My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

To shine a big effin' spotlight on FT2's bad behavior? To force FT2, and the arbcom, to quit stalling and either admit to misuse of oversight or explain why it wasn't actually a misuse? It's MeatBall:DirectAction.

[wikiwhistle]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

It is bullying IMHO, what reason did she give? No-one can say he's disruptive, exceptionally, as an editor.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Dzonatas]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever been sanctioned for wheel-warring for undoing a single admin action (that hadn't already been undone). According to the letter of [[WP:WHEEL]], wheel-warring doesn't actually start until somebody redoes an admin action that has already been undone once, and I believe that's usually how it's enforced (when it's enforced).

Found the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...am_M._Connolley

[Milton Roe]

I hope Bishonen thought long and hard about the amount of heat she's about to take before she did this.

Yeah, as in (IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Bishzilla_blink.gif)

Shame the flaming Godzilla version of Bish never made it to sysop, or the block could have been done by "it" as an even more drawwhmaitc move. Zoophilia fought with a radioactive Japanese monstermovie creature. Hmmm. Appropriate.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

[Black Kite]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

Well, sort of

This post has been edited by Black Kite:

[Anonymous editor]

I hope Bishonen thought long and hard about the amount of heat she's about to take before she did this.

Yeah, as in (IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Bishzilla_blink.gif)

Shame the flaming Godzilla version of Bish never made it to sysop, or the block could have been done by "it" as an even more drawwhmaitc move. Zoophilia fought with a radioactive Japanese monstermovie creature. Hmmm. Appropriate.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

the block was done by Bishzilla. Bishonen doesn't perform admin activities except through her sock.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Shame the flaming Godzilla version of Bish never made it to sysop, or the block could have been done by "it"

It was done by it - she had the bit transferred.

[JoseClutch]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

I never would have expect to see you in the "longstanding contributors should be unaccountable for their actions" crowd, who seem to be the ones advocating this hogwash.

[Milton Roe]

Shame the flaming Godzilla version of Bish never made it to sysop, or the block could have been done by "it"

It was done by it - she had the bit transferred.

Yikes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Should have checked. Too many times when I parody or satirize WP for the lulz, I find the real thing has already equalled or outdone me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Dzonatas]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

Well, sort of

*gasp*

Statement by Jehochman

I suggest the entire matter be sent to Jimbo for sorting. The Committee is not competent to handle this matter, or they would have done so already. Jehochman Talk 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[everyking]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

I never would have expect to see you in the "longstanding contributors should be unaccountable for their actions" crowd, who seem to be the ones advocating this hogwash.

Accountable to the community. Not to Bishonen acting as an individual admin. Bishonen could propose action to the community, but it's unacceptable for her to make the judgment and carry out the sentence without any community deliberation.

[SirFozzie]

Jimbo has already stated he's not going to act on this.

[Bottled_Spider]

My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

[everyking]

Durova's summary in the RfAr is excellent. She correctly observes that any action against FT2 should be taken after due deliberation and not on the say-so of a lone admin. She even points out Bishonen's inappropriate use of a joke account to carry out admin actions.

[Moulton]

I'm surprised the unblock hasn't been taken to ArbCom for the wheel-war bit.

Well, sort of

*gasp*

Statement by Jehochman

I suggest the entire matter be sent to Jimbo for sorting. The Committee is not competent to handle this matter, or they would have done so already. Jehochman Talk 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has already stated he's not going to act on this.

This scenario is exemplary of what I call a Polionic System.

[Viridae]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

Its not a ban.

[Hipocrite]

It doesn't take 2 months to answer a simple yes or no question about a knowing lie you told 6 months ago.

It takes 2 months to hope that the people who are gunning for you go away. FT2s answer can be assumed - "Yes, I did know." FT2s excuse can be assumed

"meaningless words x 10000"

[Viridae]

Oh every time I go away for a day or two a huge dramafest occurs.

[SirFozzie]

Oh every time I go away for a day or two a huge dramafest occurs.

Well then, don't go anywhere anymore!

(bans Viridae) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Bottled_Spider]

Durova's summary in the RfAr is excellent.

No it isn't. It's shite. It reads like your interminable WikiDefender-style contributions to this thread. Which is disappointing, as you're usually quite un-dull.

[Dzonatas]

Guess FT2 could be like that guard that shot Grant in L.A. BART station. When the guard was approached with the situation that he had to answer questions... he resigned to avoid it.

[Somey]

Guess FT2 could be like that guard that shot Grant in L.A. BART station. When the guard was approached with the situation that he had to answer questions... he resigned to avoid it.

Los Angeles has a BART station? Damn, that must be one long-ass subway system! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Still, not to miss the point or anything... I've always wondered why he doesn't just deny the whole "zoophile" thing. I mean, it's Wikipedia, not some high-tone country club for rich social climbers. Failure to deny is probably the same as an outright admission to most people there, and here too for that matter. And if it turns out the denial is false, so what? It's Wikipedia, not some high-tone court of law for people who have actual reputations to protect!

[Dzonatas]

The RFArb seems to call this an attempt to desysop/block Bishonen, which would mean FT2 could avoid the question with this distraction call.

[Cla68]

If no one has said so already, I'll point out that this is an attempt to put more pressure on FT2 by stirring the pot to try to get more community members involved with it and to try to force the issue to a head.

Bishonen/Bishzilla, Giano, and SlimVirgin, among a few others, don't appear to like FT2 very much and appear to want him off the Committee, perhaps even off of Wikipedia altogether. He has made some mistakes, but I personally don't understand the level of vitriol directed at him. In my three years of participation in Wikipedia, I think I've seen much worse behavior from other "established" editors.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[cyofee]

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Politely asking FT2 to answer the infamous question only got people an eye strain.

This post has been edited by cyofee:

[Dzonatas]

Let's say a user has been blocked, and evidence was provided. An admin reviews the block as an appeal. The admin refuses to answer a certain question about the block, which then keeps that user indefinitely blocked since the answer would provide evidence.

That could be obstruction of justice in court law. In Wikipedia however, it would be simply disruptive to cause someone to remain blocked by refusal to answer a question.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this.

I'm sure B didn't think this block wold solve the problem, just bring it up front and center.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

[Anonymous editor]

My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

that's friggin' stupid. There are much better means of achieving that end.

[Viridae]

For those who need a refresher, this is why I said that the block of FT2 was not a ban (in a message to Moulton):

A ban is not a physical impediment (though it involves one) it is an agreement among the members of the community that comment that they no longer want X person to participate in any form. It therefore requires further agreement to be overturned. (it can also occur without discussion if no person with the ability to do so (ie an admin) feels inclined to overturn an indefinite block) - I think that might be your case. The latter type (a defacto ban) can technically be overturned by any admin. The former type cannot. This block fits neither of those cases because there is neither an agreement nor an unwillingness to unblock - in this case it was an indefinite (ie of undefined but not necessarily infinite length) block which was quickly overturned.

[written by he who wrote it]

My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

that's friggin' stupid. There are much better means of achieving that end.

And those are. . .? He's been delaying the requested answer for months, despite numerous inquiries; Bishonen's frustration is quite understandable.

[Kelly Martin]

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

that's friggin' stupid. There are much better means of achieving that end.

There probably should be, but this is Wikipedia w'ere talking about. Generating drama is really the only way to get attention to an issue, provided that you're not already either rich or powerful (in which case you can get attention by calling/threatening Jimmy).

[Moulton]

Ever since the advent of legal thinking about bans was first carved into stone tablets (some 3769 years ago), the party enacting the ban was obliged to prove just cause. Failing to present a valid proof of just cause not only invalidated the ban, it subjected the would-be banner to the death penalty. This was not just some random law. This was literally the very first law ever carved into stone tablets.

What we see at Wikipedia is a manipulation of the practice of blocking/banning/blacklisting that verges on corruption. A community ban would at least correspond to a Parliamentary Bill of Attainder (a practice forbidden by Article I of the US Constitution and also abandoned by the British legal system). Capricious blocks, predicated on the presumption that the community would then become hopelessly deadlocked, is not a very intelligent way to manage a 21st Century community that purports to be manifesting the sum of all human knowledge under the umbrella of a tax-exempt educational non-profit. Do the donors appreciate that Wikipedia is teaching 21st Century youth to engage in corrupt political practices that were already going out of style 3769 years ago?

[Cla68]

Has anyone linked to this statement by Thatcher yet? Here's the diff so that it can still be read if it's archived or deleted.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[trenton]

Defense: FT2's defense as I understand it is two-fold. First, Wikipedia Review was attempting to "out" him and he wanted to avoid giving them what amounted to confirmation of his general geographic location.

Called it! Fourth post. WR make such good villains to excuse anything.

Incidentally anybody want to start a pool on the word count of FT2's "clarification"? My guess is 20,404 words which will probably amount to the Essjay defense of "I had to lie to protect myself and my family from the uber-evil WR stalkers"

[NuclearWarfare]

Go see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22368

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[Peter Damian]

facepalm* DuncanHill, since nobody seems to have gotten this through to you, I'm going to put it simply. Oversighted material is removed for reasons of privacy concerns. Therefore, not even Jimbo can reveal the exact content of oversighted material. Feel free to ask User:MGodwin if you don't believe me.

Given that the oversighted edits had nothing relating to privacy (they were simply edits to an article), and that the reason for the oversight was simply to obliterate the fact that FT2 was their author (and in consequence shifting the apparent authorship to a third party), and given, therefore, that the oversights were against policy and should therefore be reversed, why are people still saying things like this? There should be no problem about revealing their contents.

[Peter Damian]

Aha -

SV has filed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...for_comment/FT2

which makes the whole thing very clear. Good.

He is therefore asking the community to believe that he did not request the oversighting of his earliest edits; that David Gerard did not tell him he had oversighted them; that he did not notice they had disappeared; that when Jimbo asked him about them in December 2008, the question was so unmemorable that he quickly forgot about it; that FloNight's and Peter Damian's e-mails about them either went unread or were similarly unmemorable and soon forgotten; and that the extensive discussion on another website, where he has an account and has been active, also failed to jog his memory. As a result, his statements of July and November 2008 that he knew nothing before July were mistaken, he says, but he believed he was telling the truth. He says he did not remember until December 2008 that he had been told about the oversights in December 2007 by Jimbo.

It is submitted that this version of events does not stand up to scrutiny, that the reluctance to be forthcoming amounts to behavior unbecoming of a member of the ArbCom — as well as a checkuser and oversighter — and that the situation is damaging the Committee. Accordingly, FT2 is asked to resign his seat.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Bottled_Spider]

My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

that's friggin' stupid.

Ah! So you've finally "got" what's being said. Well done.

There are much better means of achieving that end.

Yes. So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid.

[Milton Roe]

Aha -

SV has filed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...for_comment/FT2

which makes the whole thing very clear. Good.

He is therefore asking the community to believe that he did not request the oversighting of his earliest edits; that David Gerard did not tell him he had oversighted them; that he did not notice they had disappeared; that when Jimbo asked him about them in December 2008, the question was so unmemorable that he quickly forgot about it; that FloNight's and Peter Damian's e-mails about them either went unread or were similarly unmemorable and soon forgotten; and that the extensive discussion on another website, where he has an account and has been active, also failed to jog his memory. As a result, his statements of July and November 2008 that he knew nothing before July were mistaken, he says, but he believed he was telling the truth. He says he did not remember until December 2008 that he had been told about the oversights in December 2007 by Jimbo.

Aha! I have it. FT2 is actually Alberto Gonzales.

[Bottled_Spider]

For those who need a refresher, this is why I said that the block of FT2 was not a ban (in a message to Moulton):

A ban is not a physical impediment (though it involves one) it is an agreement among the members of the community that comment that they no longer want X person to participate in any form. It therefore requires further agreement to be overturned. (it can also occur without discussion if no person with the ability to do so (ie an admin) feels inclined to overturn an indefinite block) - I think that might be your case. The latter type (a defacto ban) can technically be overturned by any admin. The former type cannot. This block fits neither of those cases because there is neither an agreement nor an unwillingness to unblock - in this case it was an indefinite (ie of undefined but not necessarily infinite length) block which was quickly overturned.

Yeah! Thanks, mate. Much obliged. But why, in a message to Moulton, did you say that the block of FT2 was not a ban?

(Hey. I'm just yankin' your chain). But .......... I have to say that it really does all sound like a bunch of Wiki wankery. The explanation of the silly process, I mean. No offence intended to you, though yes offence to Wikipedia and its labyrinthine rules, or whatever they are.

[Sylar]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

[Friday]

The issue of which account was used seems like a trivial thing to me- simply a distraction. Who cares about such unimportant details?

The block.. well, it's not what I'd have done, but it was certainly bold direct action. Misuse of tools? Perhaps, but she did _one_ bold thing and reported it at AN/I. This does not warrant any censure.

It certainly brought attention to the issue again. As for whether it was a good idea or not, I don't think we know yet. It's going to depend how it turns out.

[Dzonatas]

You'd think by this time the forum would be taken off of Wikipedia and moved to another Wikimedia project.... just to keep Wikipedia's purpose pure.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Though the case looks likely to be rejected, FayssalF's comments in advocating acceptance may be of interest.

[GlassBeadGame]

Though the case looks likely to be rejected, FayssalF's comments in advocating acceptance may be of interest.

I like how he fashions sanctions before the decision to even hear the case is made. This is the very model of efficiency. Might as well dispose of "evidence" and opportunity to be heard if it is only going to mangled by a crappy "made up as you go along" process in any event.

[Milton Roe]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

Yeah, but it used to be the other way around. People never would have passed Bishonen's Godzilla account at an RfA (though why not exactly, escapes me). Letting the account with the "respectable" persona ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) go up for, and pass, an adminship "election", THEN trading bits for the two accounts on grounds that they are the same person anyway, seems like cheating to me. Again, the reason being that this could not have been done from the outset-- the community would not have allowed it directly-- so why should it be allowed to happen the sneaky way?

And god knows we wouldn't want to have cheating or lack of fair play at Wikipedia.

Milt

[Viridae]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

Yeah, but it used to be the other way around. People never would have passed Bishonen's Godzilla account at an RfA (though why not exactly, escapes me). Letting the account with the "respectable" persona ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) go up for, and pass, an adminship "election", THEN trading bits for the two accounts on grounds that they are the same person anyway, seems like cheating to me. Again, the reason being that this could not have been done from the outset-- the community would not have allowed it directly-- so why should it be allowed to happen the sneaky way?

And god knows we wouldn't want to have cheating or lack of fair play at Wikipedia.

Milt

It didn't happen for a long time though.

[Anonymous editor]

Yes. So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid.

I got immediately that the goal was a huge dramafest. I posted that at the beginning.

What's friggin' stupid are Bishonen's actions. It shouldn't be difficult to grasp why.

You don't seem to understand that.

I can't really be troubled to explain it to you.

Thanks for proving my point, though. We can now add January to the list.

(Hey. I'm just yankin' your chain).

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Bottled_Spider]

Yes. So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid.

I got immediately that the goal was a huge dramafest.

No you didn't.

I posted that at the beginning.

No you didn't.

What's friggin' stupid are Bishonen's actions.

So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid. Though I do understand that poor old FT2 needs all the arse-kissing that he can get just now. Yes.

It shouldn't be difficult to grasp why. You don't seem to understand that. I can't really be troubled to explain it to you.

Good. Very good. You'd only confuse yourself. Again.

Thanks for proving my point, though. We can now add January to the list.

"We"?! I think you should contact the police. Someone has sneaked into your head - probably while you were friggin' sleeping / editing Wikipedia - and brutally stolen your friggin' humour gene. And probably lots of other things as well. Eh?

[Anonymous editor]

Are you mentally disabled? Where did I say anything about FT2 and my opinion of him?


Thanks for proving my point, though. We can now add January to the list.

(Hey. I'm just yankin' your chain).

"probably while you were friggin' sleeping / editing Wikipedia "

Editing Wikipedia? Really? I'll go out on a limb and say you have more edits in the last year to Wikipedia than I do.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Milton Roe]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

Yeah, but it used to be the other way around. People never would have passed Bishonen's Godzilla account at an RfA (though why not exactly, escapes me). Letting the account with the "respectable" persona ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) go up for, and pass, an adminship "election", THEN trading bits for the two accounts on grounds that they are the same person anyway, seems like cheating to me. Again, the reason being that this could not have been done from the outset-- the community would not have allowed it directly-- so why should it be allowed to happen the sneaky way?

And god knows we wouldn't want to have cheating or lack of fair play at Wikipedia.

Milt

It didn't happen for a long time though.

So? That just makes it sneakier. If Bishilla couldn't have passed an RfA, Bishilla should not be able to finesse "itself" into getting the bit by some other means.

(Other than the old traditional ones of donating to, programming for, or gettting into bed somehow with Jimbo Wales).

[Anonymous editor]

So? That just makes it sneakier. If Bishilla couldn't have passed an RfA, Bishilla should not be able to finesse "itself" into getting the bit by some other means.

(Other than the old tradiational ones of donating to, programing for, or gettting into bed somehow with Jimbo Wales).

Agree completely. Also agree about admins sneakily "vanishing" and getting the bit transferred to their new accounts. That's happened like ten different times.

[tarantino]

lol at Sherilyn lecturing Peter -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264159633

Thou shalt not troll. This is part and parcel, in my view, of the kind of shit the committee finds itself knee deep in. Some heads need to be banged together. I suggest that we immediately start constructing a B Ark wiki for those Wikipedians who have become addicted to drama and politics ...

Peter, "Better shun the bait than struggle in the snare. — John Dryden"

[SirFozzie]

Heh. Funny Red Dwarf reference.

Although I understand the motive behind Bishonen's block.. I think just bringing a AN notice that she found the lack of response distressing instead of a fait accompli block would have done almost as much for the cause, and focused a lot less of the resulting heat on her. But that's just my two braincells bashing together (they get lonely), and what do I know?

[Kelly Martin]

The "B Ark" is a Hitchhiker's reference, not a Red Dwarf one as far as I know. It's ironic that Tony/Sherilyn would undoubtedly be on the B Ark if Wikipedia ever made one.

[Somey]

This is actually a side issue, and obviously JzG (T-C-L-K-R-D) has always had some problems with personal honesty and the accuracy of his accusations... but I couldn't help but notice this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264133911

There seems to be some kind of idea that content which can be used to attack people is in some way sacrosanct. Any edit that is long in the past and is being used to deliberately smear someone can and should be quietly nuked. Do we have single-revision deletion yet? We didn't then, and the process of nuking and then restoring a page was more or less guaranteed to create mass drama and have the deleted revision published on WR within the hour. Even if it were a Really Big Deal - whihc it isn't - there is no evidence of any pattern of abuse by David. Rather the opposite; of all Wikipedians he is probably among the most likely to tell people to grow up if they request oversighting of trivial things.

Was any deleted revision ever posted to Wikipedia Review prior to the inception of the Oversight feature, in any amount of time after the deletion? I think I would have remembered that, at least if it had happened while I was here.

Obviously people refer to the existence of deleted revisions and occasionally comment on their contents, most notably with some of the SlimVirgin stuff relating to Lockerbie and the whole Weiss vs. Bagley brouhaha... and I realize Mr. Chapman is engaging in his usual irrational hyperbole here, of course. But it seems to me like we're normally the ones who are trying to bring these things to their attention, and make sure they stay deleted, aren't we? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[SirFozzie]

my bad. (blame my work schedule for it, I'll post more on teh fun times I'm going through in the Lounge in a minute)

[Cla68]

FT2 has posted a letter of resignation on Jimbo's talk page:

link to thread

diff

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Somey]

FT2 has posted a letter of conditional resignation on Jimbo's talk page:

link to thread

diff

Yikes - I have to say, I wasn't expecting that. (Though the line about the "fair hearing with appropriate gravitas" is priceless!)

And he managed to do it in only 2,600 words, too... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

FT2 has posted a letter of conditional resignation on Jimbo's talk page:

link to thread

diff

Yikes - I have to say, I wasn't expecting that. (Though the line about the "fair hearing with appropriate gravitas" is priceless!)

And he managed to do it in only 2,600 words, too... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I got bored, but I think his little rant showed his fundamental lack of self-awareness which has always been at the bottom of his disputes.

I found the PoetLister section a classic - how he solved it all himself alone (is he therefore admitting that he was the one who hacked the private emails?) how this vital issue of international importance required him interfering with PL's employers at the highest level.

More generally all the good things we can never understand he did so perfectly because it is all private, so we just have to take his word for it. We have lost Wikipedia's most valuable asset, obviously.

[Anonymous editor]

hmmm, I guess Bishonen got what she desired, then. I have no opinion on FT2. I never cared to form one.

I do hope that Bishzilla loses the tools, though. You can't block people for not answering a question and thinking that you can do it and get away with it is disastrously bad judgment.

All in all, I think Wikipedia would be better off with FT2 off ArbCom and Bishzilla out of the admin corps.

[Viridae]

The "B Ark" is a Hitchhiker's reference, not a Red Dwarf one as far as I know. It's ironic that Tony/Sherilyn would undoubtedly be on the B Ark if Wikipedia ever made one.

Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264157476

[Bottled_Spider]

FT2 has posted a letter of resignation on Jimbo's talk page:

link to thread

diff

For those sensible people who can't be arsed reading through the mind-numbing screed, here's a quick rundown of what he's saying in a nutshell :

Dear Jimmy,

It wasn't my fault. I've done some great stuff on Wikipedia, and if I could have my own way with Arbcom, and stuff, things would be perfect. I'm leaving the committee (before I get kicked off) but I fully expect to be re-instated sooner rather than later. Note that I'm not resigning my adminship or leaving Wiki. That would be silly because I'm great, and a victim of dreadful injustice.

Either way it is an honor serving the community, and I bear none ill-will (I'm lying to myself, really).

Aaaaaanyway ........... how about a special mention for Bishonen / Bishzilla in the forthcoming 3rd Annual awards? She's a heroine. Both of her.

[Peter Damian]

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

I've just read pages and pages of rubbish on this stuff, much of it mentioning me, and no-one's actually asked me any direct questions as yet. So I thought I'd answer them anyway.
I first met FT2 when the arbcom election was in full swing. FT2 had barely shown up on my radar before then. I believe I greeted FT2 with "Haha, you're going straight to ArbCom. HERE'S YOUR SHOVEL." which is my usual greeting to new arbs. The votes were making it a dead cert FT2 would be on the arbcom, and so it came to be.
The oversighted edit should have been single-revision deleted. This was because Peter Damian was using it in a trolling post attempting to paint FT2 as a bestialist. Jimbo asked me about it afterwards and I went "good Lord, should have been a deletion not an oversight, I shall be more careful in future." Jimbo concurred that single-rev deletion to quash obnoxious WR-sourced idiot trolling like this was quite in order. And I was and have been more careful, and that was the end of it. Until Peter Damian got in with Giano, who appears to now consider Wikipedia Review regulars to be reliable and trustworthy sources. I'm sure that will work out well. (Oddly, I understand Giano previously emailed FT2 about this exact matter and was satisfied at the time. I'm sure Giano can find this email in his records; if not, I'm sure FT2 can put it up with full headers, with Giano's permission of course.)
Summary: this is an idiot tempest driven by a banned WR troll and Giano's wounded sensibilities. Just because the wiki's biggest smoke machines are furiously pumping out clouds doesn't actually imply there's a fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264236296

Fact: I hadn't even heard of Wikipedia Review when I made the post. The post did not mention FT2 directly. The post was entirely about ethical issues. The deception about Giano's email has already been taken up separately by Giano, as you can well imagine.

[wikiwhistle]

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

But in part of his statement DG admitted to telling FT2 after he'd done the oversight, whiihh as FT2 claimed he never knew and didn't cover it in the timeline, seems to me the most telling bit.

[Peter Damian]

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

But in part of his statement DG admitted to telling FT2 after he'd done the oversight, whiihh as FT2 claimed he never knew and didn't cover it in the timeline, seems to me the most telling bit.

Actually that bit was dickish, from FT2's POV.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

What we have here is a failure to excommunicate.

FT2 has placed himself in an interesting position on the Carrollian Chess Board.

Has he resigned outright? Evidently not.

Has he merely recused himself from handling ArbCom business while there is a cloud looming over his head? Evidently not.

Rather he is "standing down" (whatever that means). Perhaps it's the opposite of "sitting up" or "not taking it lying down" or something not unlike that.

As I see it, he's in that strange twilight zone otherwise known as Limbo.

There is a classic passage in subtle dramas where the protagonist stands mute, not dumbfounded, but intentionally unresponsive to the insistent inquiries of the Spammish Inquisition.

In Zen Koans, the response would be "Mu" — a word that literally means "No Thing" but carries far more subtle connotations. Technically, it means that a question cannot be answered in a simple Yes/No manner because the question embraces a counterfactual, predicated on a lamentable misconception. But the misconception cannot be rectified, for reasons too complicated (or too sensitive) to explain in mere words.

[Peter Damian]

What we have here is a failure to excommunicate.

FT2 has placed himself in an interesting position on the Carrollian Chess Board.

Has he resigned outright? Evidently not.

[ctd p94 ...]

No he has resigned. Read his reply to the request for clarification on Jimbo's page.

[Kelly Martin]

hmmm, I guess Bishonen got what she desired, then. I have no opinion on FT2. I never cared to form one.

Not really. The real target was David Gerard.

[Kato]

I found the PoetLister section a classic - how he solved it all himself alone (is he therefore admitting that he was the one who hacked the private emails?) how this vital issue of international importance required him interfering with PL's employers at the highest level.

FT2 writes:

I handled personally and alone, the cross-wiki inquiry into Poetlister/Cato. This involved a team of arbs, crats, and cross-wiki stewards, the historically prickly "political" relationships between the enwiki and wikiquote communities or users within them, WMF (Jimbo, Cary), three top level directors within the UK civil service, and the user himself. The risk here was of "rogue checkuser", the creation of a media storm harmful to the project, and immense loss of trust related to private data handling. It was complicated by a lack of formal proof of rogue-ness, and communal mis-belief these socks were genuine people. The matter was handled in a way that caused less drama than most desysoppings. It took a large part of 3 - 4 months of my year to do so, and was highly commended by seasoned Wikimedians.

Despite being by far the most sensitive and complex sock-puppetry matter in the entire history of all WMF projects combined, and with inter-project and real-life "political" concerns, it still concluded with barely a ripple in any WMF sense, and with all matters under good control from a WMF and enwiki perspective.

So who hacked Poetguy's private email - read all the posts to discover the sockpuppetry - and did the nasty? That question has never been answered.

What was FT2's involvement in that? If any?

And besides, by the time Poetguy imploded all over this board last Spring, Somey was just about the last person left who was still convinced Poetguy wasn't a fraud of some sort. FT2 was somewhere behind Inspector Clouseau and Helen Keller in making the necessary connections.

Anyway, I'm glad FT2 has resigned. I've been calling for leading disgraced Wikipedians to do the honourable thing and resign when it gets too much for a long while. But they hardly ever do. At least FT2 had the good sense now. Last month, when FT2 was engaged in some sordid drama or other here, I requested that he get off the pot asap. He should have done it then, as his extra month has done him no favors.

FT2, word of advice; I hope you will lay down the tools from the websites you have used them, and get on with your mainstream life, as well.

It's time for you to move on from Wikipedia because you are drowning. And the only way is down for you.

Wikipedia has become too important for someone who goes about like you to hold positions of power over other people. And the whirlpools surrounding your every move are getting faster and faster.

You need to recognize this and cut your losses before you find yourself sinking deeper and deeper into grimy tarpits like this.

[wikiwhistle]

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

But in part of his statement DG admitted to telling FT2 after he'd done the oversight, whiihh as FT2 claimed he never knew and didn't cover it in the timeline, seems to me the most telling bit.

Actually that bit was dickish, from FT2's POV.

What do you mean (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) It meanns DG told the truth/ let us know about that bit, I presume. Or do you just mean that FT would have seen that as dickish; has he said that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) I expect he's not happy about it. Or do you mean at that point FT acted dickish? Sorry if I'm being thick.

[Moulton]

Wow.

# (cur) (prev) 12:01, 15 January 2009 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (33,820 bytes) (Null edit: please leave the song, Risker.) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 11:53, 15 January 2009 68.160.141.71 (Talk) (33,819 bytes) (→My Dear Bish Do Shame: Song Parody based on Bei Mir Bist Du Schön) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 05:54, 15 January 2009 Risker (Talk | contribs) m (32,733 bytes) (Reverted edits by 68.160.141.71 (talk) to last version by Verbal) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 03:43, 15 January 2009 68.160.141.71 (Talk) (33,819 bytes) (→My Dear Bish Do Shame: new section) (undo)

Moulton was that you?

Who else around here is ancient enough to actually remember any songs from that era?

In the mid-50's, the Andrew Sisters appeared live at the Auto Show at the newly opened Civic Auditorium in Omaha and sang that number.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Kato]

Hey - we can play my bingo derived Wikipedia Flashmob game on this rfc! Checking for which nosey gobsites have parked up to vent their tedious spleens at the latest drama venue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...for_comment/FT2

We should create a game. Where we follow the names of the "uninvolved parties" on each case to see if we get a Full House.

A Full House is

1. DocG (Scott Macdonald)[/s]
2. SlimVirgin
3. Sticky Parkin
4. Jehochman
5. ElonkaD
6. DTobias
7. Ryan Postlethwaite
8. Durova
9. Privatemusings
10. Tony Sidaway
11. Alex Bakharev
12. MONGO
13. ElinorD/Wikitumnus
14. Fred Bauder

The Reviewer who is the first to spot a Full House and shouts "House" on a thread receives a Wikipedia Review prize.

You can still win secondary prizes for a "trick". If you see this first you can call it if you wish:

1. Jehochman
2. ElonkaD
3. Durova

For a "line / run / straight", you need:

1. SlimVirgin
2. MONGO
3. Fred Bauder

If you see that you can call "Line" on the thread.

[Peter Damian]

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

But in part of his statement DG admitted to telling FT2 after he'd done the oversight, whiihh as FT2 claimed he never knew and didn't cover it in the timeline, seems to me the most telling bit.

Actually that bit was dickish, from FT2's POV.

What do you mean (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) It meanns DG told the truth/ let us know about that bit, I presume. Or do you just mean that FT would have seen that as dickish; has he said that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) I expect he's not happy about it. Or do you mean at that point FT acted dickish? Sorry if I'm being thick.

Well FT2 had a pretty good case that he had forgotten about Jimmy's email, he had thought the April IRC discussion was about an entirely different oversight issue. But then Gerard spoiled it all. If I was him I would be angry. Or have I misunderstood?

Wow.

# (cur) (prev) 12:01, 15 January 2009 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (33,820 bytes) (Null edit: please leave the song, Risker.) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 11:53, 15 January 2009 68.160.141.71 (Talk) (33,819 bytes) (→My Dear Bish Do Shame: Song Parody based on Bei Mir Bist Du Schön) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 05:54, 15 January 2009 Risker (Talk | contribs) m (32,733 bytes) (Reverted edits by 68.160.141.71 (talk) to last version by Verbal) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 03:43, 15 January 2009 68.160.141.71 (Talk) (33,819 bytes) (→My Dear Bish Do Shame: new section) (undo)

Moulton was that you?

[Doc glasgow]

Hey - we can play my bingo derived Wikipedia Flashmob game on this rfc! Checking for which nosey gobsites have parked up to vent their tedious spleens at the latest drama venue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...for_comment/FT2

We should create a game. Where we follow the names of the "uninvolved parties" on each case to see if we get a Full House.

A Full House is

1. DocG (Scott Macdonald)[/s]
2. SlimVirgin
3. Sticky Parkin
4. Jehochman
5. ElonkaD
6. DTobias
7. Ryan Postlethwaite
8. Durova
9. Privatemusings
10. Tony Sidaway
11. Alex Bakharev
12. MONGO
13. ElinorD/Wikitumnus
14. Fred Bauder

The Reviewer who is the first to spot a Full House and shouts "House" on a thread receives a Wikipedia Review prize.

You can still win secondary prizes for a "trick". If you see this first you can call it if you wish:

1. Jehochman
2. ElonkaD
3. Durova

For a "line / run / straight", you need:

1. SlimVirgin
2. MONGO
3. Fred Bauder

If you see that you can call "Line" on the thread.

Get someone to put up some prize money for the Bingo and I'm in.

(This would be so easy for us cabalists to game with a bit of IRC and a few sticks)

[Kato]

Get someone to put up some prize money for the Bingo and I'm in.

(This would be so easy for us cabalists to game with a bit of IRC and a few sticks)

As usual, the prize shall be a bowl of Wotsit nibnobs.

[InkBlot]

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

But in part of his statement DG admitted to telling FT2 after he'd done the oversight, whiihh as FT2 claimed he never knew and didn't cover it in the timeline, seems to me the most telling bit.

I'm wondering about this one, and the IRC conversation. For the e-mail part, DG claims he told FT2 when it happened, but admits to not digging around his own e-mail for a record of it...so it's DG's memory versus FT2's memory, and at least FT2 claims to have scrutinized every bit of email, IRC log, etc. that he has.

Which brings us to IRC, and the dueling logs posted by FT2 and Thatcher. FT2's just shows choice quotes of his own (in line with his proclaimed standards of privacy, I don't expect he'd post anyone else's comments in the logs without permission), whereas Thatcher's shows a different bit of the conversation with FT2 and FloNight. Both, to me, destroy a lot of context...I'd rather just see an uninterupted chunk of log from when that whole chat started to when it ended, with nothing edited out.

Right now, my impression is FT2's story boils down to a lot of head-in-the-sand behavior any time Peter Damian gets mentioned around ArbCom, which led to him missing 99.994% of any mention of the oversights. I see some bouncing around on the RFC talk page that some people feel it's foregone now: he lied! He lied! I don't think he lied, or purposely tried to deceive anyone. I think he just tried so hard to distance himself from it all, he missed some truly important goings on. Fingers in the ears, and 1,000+ verses of "La, La, La, I can't hear you!" that go on so long, it almost makes Moulton seem brief.

I'm just waiting now to see them go after his other bits. Like happened to Kelly, I'm sure certain people won't be satisfied until he's given up Oversight, Checkuser and access to the mailing lists. The Admin bit might be the only thing he's able to hold on to, in the long run.

InkBlot
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

Get someone to put up some prize money for the Bingo and I'm in.

(This would be so easy for us cabalists to game with a bit of IRC and a few sticks)

As usual, the prize shall be a bowl of Wotsit nibnobs.

Damn, I hate those things.

[Peter Damian]

A conversation with Thatcher that FT2 has now archived. FT2 was complaining that Thatcher had quoted him from the IRC logs out of context. So FT2 supplies 9 lines that preceded it, together with 3 lines that overlap with Thatcher's version.

------------ FT2 version
<FT2-away> but hiding it [i.e., hearing Damian's unban appeal in private]...
<FT2-away> how will that resolve anything?
<thatcher-wiki> you believe that by arguing rationally with an irrational person, you can convince him he is irrational?
<FloNight> We're not hiding it.
<FloNight> We're ignoring it.
<FloNight> Folks like him want a platform
<thatcher-wiki> if his argument is you made naughty edits, then no matter what the article content is, he will claim it is oversighted
<thatcher-wiki> if you grant him oversight access and the edits aren't there, he'll just say a dev removed them
<thatcher-wiki> unless you're prepared to admit to making some naughty edits and unfairly blocking him for trying to point out THE TRUTH, I don't see any other winning strategy
< FT2-away> Ive never made any edit I couldnt stand by
<FT2-away> so thats easy
<FT2-away> unfortunately the oversight log is down -- I ironically checked with brion 3 days ago why, because of another oversight query

------------ Thatcher

2:01pm FT2-away Ive never made any edit I couldnt stand by
2:02pm FT2-away so thats easy
2:02pm FT2-away unfortunately the oversight log is down -- I ironically checked with brion 3 days ago why, because of another oversight query
2:02pm FT2-away he says until they code pagination for it, its limited to 30 days
2:02pm FT2-away so right now o/s cant be looked back before march 2008
2:03pm FT2-away (except by devs)
2:03pm FloNight I was wonder why it only went back 30 days now
2:03pm FloNight Jay asked me about it last week
2:03pm FT2-away its "going to be written"
2:03pm FT2-away why the old one's removed before the new ones coded... ah well
2:05pm FloNight I see
2:05pm FT2-away the oversight thing isnt major
2:06pm FT2-away (I dont think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2...nce_of_IRC_chat

FT2 argues as follows

Just look, will you? That discussion wasn't at all about "the oversighted edits". It's not even referring to them. It's discussing Thatcher's concern that Damian might make a spurious claim and my comment that if he did, we couldn't disprove it because the log's down.

FT2 is claiming that the discussion is about what philosophers call a 'counterfactual' - a hypothetical case that has no reference to reality. This makes little sense to me. If anything, FT2's version is more damning. Thatcher says " if his argument is you made naughty edits". Not the subjunctive " if his argument WERE you made naughty edits". But then he says "if you grant him oversight access and the edits aren't there, he'll just say a dev removed them". No subjunctive "if you WERE to grant him access". And he uses the definite article 'the edits'. This sounds entirely like they are discussing not a hypotethetical case, but an actual one. And the 'he'll just say a dev removed them'. No subjunctive, no hypothetical.


[edit] And here is FT2 further up discussing this IRC again.

In the log, Damain's campaign is discussed in general terms. I repeat roughly what was said, and this is not my words but the words of Flonight or Thatcher, or the one speaking and the other tacitly or explicitly agreeing:

Damian's campaign is referred to. It shows clear consensus (with which I agree) that nobody credible takes any of it as more than a momentary reference to a banned user's latest fantasy, one of many.
Thatcher mentions "the edits" (no detail) that were oversighted, in the context of being yet another fabrication (link). He never says much more, the nature of "the edits" is not discussed nor their mythological status questioned. Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief.
To underline this, the point is then made that whatever is said, it would be claimed evidence was removed; if not in the oversight log then clearly a developer deleted it, or it has been faked.
The dialog then moves on back to handling of the appeal and my actual concerns, the neutrality of Damian's appeal.

This makes it absolutely clear that this was not a hypothetical example, but a reference to edits that Thatcher and Flo believe have been oversighted. (Note according to Thatcher's claim, he knew about the oversights at the time they happened, because he read my blog post). "Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief" that the edits were oversighted.

The subsequent conversation makes it clear they are discussing what to do about this.

Also, this whole episode now proves what I long suspected. I was unblocked in April without appeal (to my surprise). I surmised then that they had gone through the possibilities above (as I had) and come to the conclusion that the only safe way out was to unblock me unconditionally (on 2 May actually) in the hope that I would keep quiet.

[edit] What is astounding is (1) just how bad a liar FT2 is. Liars need a very good memory. (2) The gullibility of the many people who believed him for so long.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[wikiwhistle]

Prize for the most dickish post on the RFC must go to David Gerard.

But in part of his statement DG admitted to telling FT2 after he'd done the oversight, whiihh as FT2 claimed he never knew and didn't cover it in the timeline, seems to me the most telling bit.

I'm wondering about this one, and the IRC conversation. For the e-mail part, DG claims he told FT2 when it happened, but admits to not digging around his own e-mail for a record of it...so it's DG's memory versus FT2's memory, and at least FT2 claims to have scrutinized every bit of email, IRC log, etc. that he has.

But he admits to not reading a fair few mails he gets, and not remembering some stuff.

[InkBlot]

A conversation with Thatcher that FT2 has now archived. FT2 was complaining that Thatcher had quoted him from the IRC logs out of context. So FT2 supplies 9 lines that preceded it, together with 3 lines that overlap with Thatcher's version.

FT2 is claiming that the discussion is about what philosophers call a 'counterfactual' - a hypothetical case that has no reference to reality. This makes little sense to me. If anything, FT2's version is more damning. Thatcher says " if his argument is you made naughty edits". Not the subjunctive " if his argument WERE you made naughty edits". But then he says "if you grant him oversight access and the edits aren't there, he'll just say a dev removed them". No subjunctive "if you WERE to grant him access". And he uses the definite article 'the edits'. This sounds entirely like they are discussing not a hypotethetical case, but an actual one. And the 'he'll just say a dev removed them'. No subjunctive, no hypothetical.

That's a lot to hang on a simple word choice. I read Thatcher here, and it reads pretty hypothetical to me. Or, more accurately, I can see it both ways....perhaps Thatcher knew a specific example existed and FT2 didn't, they could have been talking past each other.

What is astounding is (1) just how bad a liar FT2 is. Liars need a very good memory. (2) The gullibility of the many people who believed him for so long.

(1) is why I tend to believe him, because he does seem to have a very good memory and documents everything. So, I tend to believe he's being honest here, which doesn't necessarily excuse things, just explains them.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

hmmm, I guess Bishonen got what she desired, then. I have no opinion on FT2. I never cared to form one.

Not really. The real target was David Gerard.

Why do you think this - just a gut feeling or can you expand a bit?

[Peter Damian]

That's a lot to hang on a simple word choice. I read Thatcher here, and it reads pretty hypothetical to me. Or, more accurately, I can see it both ways....perhaps Thatcher knew a specific example existed and FT2 didn't, they could have been talking past each other.

What is astounding is (1) just how bad a liar FT2 is. Liars need a very good memory. (2) The gullibility of the many people who believed him for so long.

(1) is why I tend to believe him, because he does seem to have a very good memory and documents everything. So, I tend to believe he's being honest here, which doesn't necessarily excuse things, just explains them.

On reflection, this is impossible. FT2 himself mentions the same conversation earlier:

Thatcher mentions "the edits" (no detail) that were oversighted, in the context of being yet another fabrication (link). He never says much more, the nature of "the edits" is not discussed nor their mythological status questioned. Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief.

So FT2 has described himself as acknowledging the Damian claim that edits were oversighted. It's not that they were 'talking past each other' at all. He adds that 'no detail' was given of the edits. But that doesn't matter. He later denied any knowledge of this at all.

FT2, thanks for the elaborate explanations! While you are here can you either confirm or deny that a a few of your edits presented by [Damian] were oversighted? Can you recollect the rationale for the actions? [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] ([[User talk:Alex Bakharev|talk]]) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could tell, this being the first mention of any such to me. If this was in the last 30 days - the duration of the oversight log - I can check for myself though. Be aware there is no ability to search the oversight logs by 'name of editor of oversighted revision' though. Also note in passing this [[MediaWiki:Oversight-header|header]] for the oversight log which limits what I or any other oversighter can say in any event. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223430901

If he had said that he had heard mention of this (i.e. at IRC) or heard it ''claimed'' that there was an oversight, fair does. But he denies any mention at all.

On the claim that obsessively recording links is proof of a good memory, I suggest the reverse is true. Old people write lists of things. Why?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[InkBlot]

On reflection, this is impossible. FT2 himself mentions the same conversation earlier:

Thatcher mentions "the edits" (no detail) that were oversighted, in the context of being yet another fabrication (link). He never says much more, the nature of "the edits" is not discussed nor their mythological status questioned. Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief.

So FT2 has described himself as acknowledging the Damian claim that edits were oversighted. It's not that they were 'talking past each other' at all. He adds that 'no detail' was given of the edits. But that doesn't matter. He later denied any knowledge of this at all.

I went back to read it again, and again I have to disagree. I think FT2 is saying, the conversation was about your 'campaign' at the time lacking any credibility, so when the topic of oversight came into the conversation, he took it as writ that that too was fabricated. Thatcher and FloNight didn't seem to think it significant, and he took it to imply they felt it was fabricated.

It goes back to my earlier suggestion...I don't think he's lying, I think he's got really big blinders on where it comes to you. He was so averse to actually discussing the merits of your arguments (trying, at that time it would appear, to stick to the topic of you receiving a private or public case), he completely missed the distinction between hypothetical and real questions being asked. He thought (and still insists) it was all hypothetical discussion because he adamantly refused to engage in real discussion in any sort of private channel.

It's semantic wriggling, I suppose, because I don't think it's any better behavior as such...I just don't think it's intentional lying. But while "steadfastly missing the point" may not be a reason to step down from ArbCom, I think it's good move on his part. Bishonen stirred up plenty of drama with her block, but he hasn't been able to defuse or deescalate it and I think it comes from having become deeply entrenched in his position.

[EricBarbour]

It goes back to my earlier suggestion...I don't think he's lying, I think he's got really big blinders on where it comes to you. He was so averse to actually discussing the merits of your arguments (trying, at that time it would appear, to stick to the topic of you receiving a private or public case), he completely missed the distinction between hypothetical and real questions being asked. He thought (and still insists) it was all hypothetical discussion because he adamantly refused to engage in real discussion in any sort of private channel.

You have GOT to be kidding. Read the rest of the threads in the FT2 section.
He's got a long history of this sort of manipulation.

Damian just gets special treatment, because he's an effective critic of FT2's
activities AND still has access to WP.

[Alison]

Official statement from ArbCom is now in. Readallaboutit here.

FT2 has announced on User talk:Jimbo Wales that he is stepping down as an arbitrator. The Arbitration Committee believes that FT2's decision to leave the committee was the sensible course of action under all the circumstances, and we appreciate his having done so.

Over the past several weeks, and particularly since the new group of arbitrators arrived in late December, the committee has internally discussed various aspects of this matter. Although no arbitration case was pending against FT2, an increasing number of arbitrators had concluded that – in light of the volume of community concerns expressed – FT2's continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this. This does not represent a finding of wrongdoing.

FT2 made valuable contributions during his time on the committee. He is a long-term dedicated Wikipedian and we anticipate that he will remain one, working on other areas of the project. Now that FT2 has left the committee, the Arbitration Clerks have removed him from the list of arbitrators and will recalculate the majorities on pending cases and motions accordingly. Whether to fill the vacant committee seat at this time is a decision for Jimbo Wales.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

FT2 has announced on User talk:Jimbo Wales that he is stepping down as an arbitrator.

Hooray!

One crap artist admin down, 20-30 to go.

[Cla68]

Official statement from ArbCom is now in. Readallaboutit here.

FT2 has announced on User talk:Jimbo Wales that he is stepping down as an arbitrator. The Arbitration Committee believes that FT2's decision to leave the committee was the sensible course of action under all the circumstances, and we appreciate his having done so.

Over the past several weeks, and particularly since the new group of arbitrators arrived in late December, the committee has internally discussed various aspects of this matter. Although no arbitration case was pending against FT2, an increasing number of arbitrators had concluded that – in light of the volume of community concerns expressed – FT2's continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this. This does not represent a finding of wrongdoing.

FT2 made valuable contributions during his time on the committee. He is a long-term dedicated Wikipedian and we anticipate that he will remain one, working on other areas of the project. Now that FT2 has left the committee, the Arbitration Clerks have removed him from the list of arbitrators and will recalculate the majorities on pending cases and motions accordingly. Whether to fill the vacant committee seat at this time is a decision for Jimbo Wales.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The committee appears to be politely telling FT2 "Thanks for your service, but you haven't convinced us that you didn't do anything wrong. Thank you for resigning on your own so that we wouldn't have to ask."

Hopefully, Jimbo will appoint the next highest vote-getter in the recent election to fill FT2's seat. That would mean that SirFozzie would be the new arb.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

The committee appears to be politely telling FT2 "Thanks for your service, but you haven't convinced us that you didn't do anything wrong. Thank you for resigning on your own so that we wouldn't have to ask."

Actually, they did ask; " ... continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this ... "

[Cla68]

The committee appears to be politely telling FT2 "Thanks for your service, but you haven't convinced us that you didn't do anything wrong. Thank you for resigning on your own so that we wouldn't have to ask."

Actually, they did ask; " ... continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this ... "

I meant, "ask publicly."

[Floydsvoid]

I have a question.

Why is FT2 so verbose?

I've hardly ever been able to make it through one of his essays, including the resignation piece on Jimbo's talk page. I work on a lot of software projects, and if someone tried to turn in code with that bad of a signal to noise ratio their virtual ears would be ringing. In programming one tenet is to solve the problem in as few keystrokes as possible. (This somewhat conflicts with another tenet in that your code has to be understandable by your peers).

His lack of clarity is what I think is his most important fault as an arbcom guy.

ps. What kind of odds does SirFozzie have to be his replacement? I'm rooting for ya Foz!

[Moulton]

Why is FT2 so verbose?

Because he has so little to say.

[everyking]

Hopefully, Jimbo will appoint the next highest vote-getter in the recent election to fill FT2's seat. That would mean that SirFozzie would be the new arb.

I could do without another arbitrator who wants to see me drawn and quartered. I'd rather that Jimbo just left the seat vacant. There are enough arbitrators now anyway, considering that he appointed three more arbitrators than anticipated in December.

[Dzonatas]

Hopefully, Jimbo will appoint the next highest vote-getter in the recent election to fill FT2's seat. That would mean that SirFozzie would be the new arb.

I could do without another arbitrator who wants to see me drawn and quartered. I'd rather that Jimbo just left the seat vacant. There are enough arbitrators now anyway, considering that he appointed three more arbitrators than anticipated in December.

Concur.

SirFozzie isn't man enough to offer me and others a cup of WP:TEA.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[EricBarbour]

Why is FT2 so verbose?
Because he has so little to say.

It must be that horrible dark beer the English are so fond of.
It causes damage to the verbal centers of the brain.
"'ere's sumpin wrong wit' me mouf, innit" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Hopefully, Jimbo will appoint the next highest vote-getter in the recent election to fill FT2's seat. That would mean that SirFozzie would be the new arb.

I could do without another arbitrator who wants to see me drawn and quartered. I'd rather that Jimbo just left the seat vacant.

There are lots of WORSE people than Fozzie he could put in there....
don't complain too much.

[Obesity]

Hopefully, Jimbo will appoint the next highest vote-getter in the recent election to fill FT2's seat. That would mean that SirFozzie would be the new arb.

Yeah, right. But if Sir Fozzie should step on a rusty nail and perish, perhaps JW will really scrape the bottom of the vote-barrel and appoint the 12th-place finisher.

What's far more likely is that he'll leave the seat vacant or call a special election.

[SirFozzie]

Hopefully, Jimbo will appoint the next highest vote-getter in the recent election to fill FT2's seat. That would mean that SirFozzie would be the new arb.

I could do without another arbitrator who wants to see me drawn and quartered. I'd rather that Jimbo just left the seat vacant. There are enough arbitrators now anyway, considering that he appointed three more arbitrators than anticipated in December.

Concur.

SirFozzie isn't man enough to offer me and others a cup of WP:TEA.

*chuckles* A while back, I did, and you threw it in my face complaining it wasn't hot enough and needed lemon and cream (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

And EK, I don't want to see you drawn and quartered, I just thought the one remaining restriction wasn't that big a deal and you were making a mountain out of a molehill.

But to set minds at ease, I have not heard anything like that from Jimbo or anyone else really. If something happens and I do get offered it? Well, I think the odds are low enough that I won't speculate.

[everyking]

And EK, I don't want to see you drawn and quartered, I just thought the one remaining restriction wasn't that big a deal and you were making a mountain out of a molehill.

Which editors have you had adversarial dealings with? I don't mean just right now, I mean at any time during your wiki-career. I propose that you be permanently barred from editing any pages previously touched by those editors. I mean, it's no big deal, and if you think it is, well, frankly I'm going to have to suspect that you're secretly plotting to harass those editors. Why else would you object?

This post has been edited by everyking:

[SirFozzie]

Let's see. Filll, JB96, Mantanmoreland.. Ok, I can live with that, EK.

[everyking]

Let's see. Filll, JB96, Mantanmoreland.. Ok, I can live with that, EK.

Laughable--no one would tolerate it. Remember, the restriction is not mutual; if any of these users edit a page that is important to you, you can no longer edit it, but they are free to edit whatever they like.

[Dzonatas]

I think I remember a proposal once by ArbCom to have less active members in order to get through cases faster. It would mean a little change in how cases are accepted, but I think they wanted basically two teams of 3. The topic came up on WR too, I think.

[Peter Damian]

I went back to read it again, and again I have to disagree. I think FT2 is saying, the conversation was about your 'campaign' at the time lacking any credibility, so when the topic of oversight came into the conversation, he took it as writ that that too was fabricated.

We aren't and never were talking about whether FT2 believed the claims of oversighted edits were fabricated. We are talking about whether the issue came up at all. Whether there 'was any mention of such'. There clearly was mention of oversighted edits, there clearly was mention of the fact Damian was making claims about these, and clear evidence that FT2 was conscious of that as the issue.

You see he is still raising the issue on Thatcher's talk page, and Thatcher has now released some more logs of a conversation in early May.

It goes back to my earlier suggestion...I don't think he's lying, I think he's got really big blinders on where it comes to you. He was so averse to actually discussing the merits of your arguments (trying, at that time it would appear, to stick to the topic of you receiving a private or public case), he completely missed the distinction between hypothetical and real questions being asked. He thought (and still insists) it was all hypothetical discussion because he adamantly refused to engage in real discussion in any sort of private channel.

You have a point there. There is a strong element of denial in FT2's approach to matters, i.e. being unable to admit a fact to himself, and I think this is directly connected with his verbosity. People who are disposed to lie often talk most about the things they are lying about, but without directly addressing the epicentre of the lie.

You notice how many times FT2 mentions how 'fair' he wanted to be about the Damian case. His argument was in order to be neutral, he would ignore all Damian-related correspondence from Arbcom. The reality is he must have read all the correspondence. How could anyone who has read every single one of my edits, and every single post, fail to ignore that? To hide his own dissembling from himself, he constructed this elaborate fiction about appearing neutral.

[Somey]

The impulse towards verbosity is often closely related to the impulse towards perfectionism - a depressive characteristic. You want to ensure that there are no "holes" in your argument, so you try to cover all the bases, which takes a lot of verbiage. In many cases, it's initially borne out of the fear of failure, harsh criticism, and exposure (usually of self-perceived, but not admitted, lack of competence or expertise).

And if being verbose (particularly in writing) helps to reduce the amount of negative attention you get, simply because people tend to give up in frustration over the amount of time it takes to read your stuff, then it becomes a self-reinforcing habit.

Unfortunately, some academic disciplines reward written verbosity to such an extent that some people become habitualized to it without having such psychological inclinations at all, which makes it difficult to generalize.

I'm often guilty of it myself, of course, as this post probably demonstrates. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Giano]

This thread seems to have deviated from FT2, so perhaps now is the time to say that he was not totally 100% in the wrong - the trouble at Wikipedia was - no one knew how to help him or P Damain out of their hole without being accused of partisanship. Because of this, the problem grew, it was also hugely assisted by a complete lack of communication (please no cracks about FT's verbosity) - I only recently understood how bad that communication was - what I thought was known by the Arbs appears not to have been known at all - and yet I can't quite believe that. I have tried to help both, but there was a mind-set, an implacable mind-set on both sides - and I only now realise, I was being stuffed in trying to sort this in other areas. Once Gerard moved in, oversighting and running rampant and seemingly only conversing with Jimbo the whole thing became confused, everyone protecting each other. I doubt anyone other than Jimbo himself, who was ignorant on the matter of who was on which side, and who was on neither, could have sorted it. Ultimately, FT2 had to resign, he had confused and prevaricated for too long - and justice has to be black and white, but sometimes the truth is rather more honest but very confused. In this instance there was no one with an ounce of nouse to sort the problem and so like Topsy it just grew.

Giano

[Moulton]

The seemingly intractable problem that Giano alludes to above — bridging the chasm between two irreconcilable adversaries — is an age-old problem.

Just now, on National Public Radio, I was listening to a sound byte from Martin Luther King talking about how both Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi were slain for the crime of trying to heal the wounds of a divided nation.

Studying what divides antagonistic factions in the Wikisphere seems to me to be an important research issue for those of us who have long made a career of studying the perplexing dysfunctionality of cyberspace communities.

[dogbiscuit]

The impulse towards verbosity is often closely related to the impulse towards perfectionism - a depressive characteristic. You want to ensure that there are no "holes" in your argument, so you try to cover all the bases, which takes a lot of verbiage. In many cases, it's initially borne out of the fear of failure, harsh criticism, and exposure (usually of self-perceived, but not admitted, lack of competence or expertise).

And if being verbose (particularly in writing) helps to reduce the amount of negative attention you get, simply because people tend to give up in frustration over the amount of time it takes to read your stuff, then it becomes a self-reinforcing habit.

Unfortunately, some academic disciplines reward written verbosity to such an extent that some people become habitualized to it without having such psychological inclinations at all, which makes it difficult to generalize.

I'm often guilty of it myself, of course, as this post probably demonstrates. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

FWIW, in FT2's brief sojourn here, he PM'd me to explain that every post he made took him a long time to craft - perhaps an hour. He was obsessive about being misunderstood or misrepresented - yet the result was that he was often incomprehensible or ambiguous - the very result he was seeking to avoid.

I'd always assumed that he was very into his NLP stuff, and deluded himself that he had exceptional mental powers - therefore any failure to communicate was other people's problem.

So, my theory of mind, if you like, is that analysing FT2's behaviour as a normal, balanced person might lead to some faulty conclusions. If someone has to work that hard to try and put together posts, then perhaps he is not as bright as people might assume, and assumptions about his comprehension of matters might be misled by this.

I am especially concerned that he often makes comments about the amount of time he spends on things - that makes him sound obsessive, but he might just not be very good at stuff. It might also fit with his comments that he has read lots of stuff but didn't realise what the issue was.

My guess is he has a degree on a suspect course from a suspect university like Media Studies at Lincoln University and he thinks it means he is educated.

[Giano]

The impulse towards verbosity is often closely related to the impulse towards perfectionism - a depressive characteristic. You want to ensure that there are no "holes" in your argument, so you try to cover all the bases, which takes a lot of verbiage. In many cases, it's initially borne out of the fear of failure, harsh criticism, and exposure (usually of self-perceived, but not admitted, lack of competence or expertise).

And if being verbose (particularly in writing) helps to reduce the amount of negative attention you get, simply because people tend to give up in frustration over the amount of time it takes to read your stuff, then it becomes a self-reinforcing habit.

Unfortunately, some academic disciplines reward written verbosity to such an extent that some people become habitualized to it without having such psychological inclinations at all, which makes it difficult to generalize.

I'm often guilty of it myself, of course, as this post probably demonstrates. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

FWIW, in FT2's brief sojourn here, he PM'd me to explain that every post he made took him a long time to craft - perhaps an hour. He was obsessive about being misunderstood or misrepresented - yet the result was that he was often incomprehensible or ambiguous - the very result he was seeking to avoid.

I'd always assumed that he was very into his NLP stuff, and deluded himself that he had exceptional mental powers - therefore any failure to communicate was other people's problem.

So, my theory of mind, if you like, is that analysing FT2's behaviour as a normal, balanced person might lead to some faulty conclusions. If someone has to work that hard to try and put together posts, then perhaps he is not as bright as people might assume, and assumptions about his comprehension of matters might be misled by this.

I am especially concerned that he often makes comments about the amount of time he spends on things - that makes him sound obsessive, but he might just not be very good at stuff. It might also fit with his comments that he has read lots of stuff but didn't realise what the issue was.

My guess is he has a degree on a suspect course from a suspect university like Media Studies at Lincoln University and he thinks it means he is educated.

Oh he has his problems allright, and was totally unsuited to be an Arb, but his problems also extend to defending himself. Late in 2007 he received a threat that would have scared me shitless - the sender should have been banned for life by the Arbcom, but the sender was not. Even when I emailed Wales telling him to keep that sender banned he was allowed back- you see all is never as it seems.

Giano

[One]

This thread seems to have deviated from FT2, so perhaps now is the time to say that he was not totally 100% in the wrong - the trouble at Wikipedia was - no one knew how to help him or P Damain out of their hole without being accused of partisanship. Because of this, the problem grew, it was also hugely assisted by a complete lack of communication (please no cracks about FT's verbosity) - I only recently understood how bad that communication was - what I thought was known by the Arbs appears not to have been known at all - and yet I can't quite believe that. I have tried to help both, but there was a mind-set, an implacable mind-set on both sides - and I only now realise, I was being stuffed in trying to sort this in other areas. Once Gerard moved in, oversighting and running rampant and seemingly only conversing with Jimbo the whole thing became confused, everyone protecting each other. I doubt anyone other than Jimbo himself, who was ignorant on the matter of who was on which side, and who was on neither, could have sorted it. Ultimately, FT2 had to resign, he had confused and prevaricated for too long - and justice has to be black and white, but sometimes the truth is rather more honest but very confused. In this instance there was no one with an ounce of nouse to sort the problem and so like Topsy it just grew.

Giano

This is a good nuanced view. There's a lot of truth to it.

FT2 has been selfless in his efforts to help the ArbCom. He didn't try to cover it up. I don't doubt that for a second. The problem grew to the point where his status is not tenable.

Speaking personally, of course.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

The impulse towards verbosity is often closely related to the impulse towards perfectionism - a depressive characteristic. You want to ensure that there are no "holes" in your argument, so you try to cover all the bases, which takes a lot of verbiage. In many cases, it's initially borne out of the fear of failure, harsh criticism, and exposure (usually of self-perceived, but not admitted, lack of competence or expertise).

And if being verbose (particularly in writing) helps to reduce the amount of negative attention you get, simply because people tend to give up in frustration over the amount of time it takes to read your stuff, then it becomes a self-reinforcing habit.

Unfortunately, some academic disciplines reward written verbosity to such an extent that some people become habitualized to it without having such psychological inclinations at all, which makes it difficult to generalize.

I'm often guilty of it myself, of course, as this post probably demonstrates. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

FWIW, in FT2's brief sojourn here, he PM'd me to explain that every post he made took him a long time to craft - perhaps an hour. He was obsessive about being misunderstood or misrepresented -
...

FT2, if you're reading, the way to do that is with less words, not more. Besides the simplicity, it also means that you end up not saying some things.

NewYorkBrad is one of the few people at Wikipedia capable of the opposite.

Oh he has his problems allright, and was totally unsuited to be an Arb, but his problems also extend to defending himself. Late in 2007 he received a threat that would have scared me shitless - the sender should have been banned for life by the Arbcom, but the sender was not. Even when I emailed Wales telling him to keep that sender banned he was allowed back- you see all is never as it seems.

Giano

This is where excessive secrecy can really screw things up, even though it is sometimes needed. Now I'm wondering if I took a stand in ignorance on this editors unblocking. Any chance you can PM me the name, Giano

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

[Giano]

This thread seems to have deviated from FT2, so perhaps now is the time to say that he was not totally 100% in the wrong - the trouble at Wikipedia was - no one knew how to help him or P Damain out of their hole without being accused of partisanship. Because of this, the problem grew, it was also hugely assisted by a complete lack of communication (please no cracks about FT's verbosity) - I only recently understood how bad that communication was - what I thought was known by the Arbs appears not to have been known at all - and yet I can't quite believe that. I have tried to help both, but there was a mind-set, an implacable mind-set on both sides - and I only now realise, I was being stuffed in trying to sort this in other areas. Once Gerard moved in, oversighting and running rampant and seemingly only conversing with Jimbo the whole thing became confused, everyone protecting each other. I doubt anyone other than Jimbo himself, who was ignorant on the matter of who was on which side, and who was on neither, could have sorted it. Ultimately, FT2 had to resign, he had confused and prevaricated for too long - and justice has to be black and white, but sometimes the truth is rather more honest but very confused. In this instance there was no one with an ounce of nouse to sort the problem and so like Topsy it just grew.

Giano

This is a good nuanced view. There's a lot of truth to it.

FT2 has been selfless in his efforts to help the ArbCom. He didn't try to cover it up. I don't doubt that for a second. The problem grew to the point where his status is not tenable.

Speaking personally, of course.

Oh - he did try to cover it up, but for reasons that were confused and which made sense to him. I don't think he is a person who can be guided, his own worst enemy I suspect. He should never have been an Arb and now he has paid the price for being in the wrong position. He actually needed protection and advice on dealing with the bear pit, that is Wikipedia. Keeping order on God know's how many 1000s of editors needs a certain tough type, with a rational ruthless streak - a tough cookie. I would not be surprised if he is not happier free of the responsibility - I hope he is. The Arbcom with Jimbo could have saved themselves all this bother if they had acted over a year ago with a quick iron fist, stopping FT2's candidacy and banning Peter Damian for life. They did not - they dither and chat and worry if I am being polite. Funny place Wikipedia, nothing is ever quite what it seems, and that is what the chattering peanuts never quite grasp.

Giano

[tarantino]

FT2, if you're reading, the way to do that is with less words, not more. Besides the simplicity, it also means that you end up not saying some things.

He received the same advice from me and others but he decided not to follow it.

[EricBarbour]

The Arbcom with Jimbo could have saved themselves all this bother if they had acted over a year ago with a quick iron fist, stopping FT2's candidacy and banning Peter Damian for life. They did not - they dither and chat and worry if I am being polite.

If they suddenly came over all "decisive",
you might be the next one they ban indef.

[FT2]

I don't think he is a person who can be guided, his own worst enemy I suspect.

Keeping order on God know's how many 1000s of editors needs a certain tough type, with a rational ruthless streak - a tough cookie.

FT2, if you're reading, the way to do that is with less words, not more. Besides the simplicity, it also means that you end up not saying some things.

He received the same advice from me and others but he decided not to follow it.

FWIW, in FT2's brief sojourn here, he PM'd me to explain that every post he made took him a long time to craft - perhaps an hour. He was obsessive about being misunderstood or misrepresented - yet the result was that he was often incomprehensible or ambiguous - the very result he was seeking to avoid.
(Snip)
I am especially concerned that he often makes comments about the amount of time he spends on things - that makes him sound obsessive, but he might just not be very good at stuff.

A number of users here will be fairly bright. They say bright people can sometimes get in their own way in communication, and without great self-analysis, that's surely true. I've never figured out the line of what to assume others need telling or don't, and between saying too little (and people misunderstanding) or too much. In that, I get cautious - "one (many times) bitten, twice shy" - I figure if I am open about everything, and consider the matter completely, then some will go tl;dr, but those who really care will have the information they need to work it out. Better sensing of "what needs saying and what doesn't" is a skill I don't have and wish I did, despite advice like Tarantino's (which believe me I'd gladly take if I knew how). Consolation: I figure there's worse if you have to choose a weakness. That said, any offers of help -- yes please (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I care nothing for politics, which is a good or bad thing depending how you see it. For me I see it as a plus. YMMV. I've mostly learned to avoid drama and its hounds quite well; in this case ultimately I haven't. Its a skill I learn mainly the odd times I don't succeed; I take it philosophically. I went into Arbcom "eyes open", knowing it shreds reputations. The job needed doing; the 2007 committee was failing the community badly, and nobody else seemed very likely to try changing that in any meaningful way. Personal cost of it? Meh. Important, but less of an issue.

Other wordiness stuff - 1/ People playing games tend to gloss over the detail (old saying - "the devil's in the detail"). Spelling it out might bore some, but it's advantage is being explicit as to exactly what's being said and what's not. Case in point, people were amused at the idea a 105 K statement of evidence might be needed, but when the microscope came round it meant not one thing raised hadn't been disclosed fully and such, which would have been a huge mistake. Also, 2/ arb writings tend to get very heavy weight|reliance|examination. I don't like my words being misrepresented, as Dogbiscuit says, and there's also a responsibility to think more carefully in a role like that. Not every post is difficult, but some are (eg, responsibility to people who will be judged by what's said, of being fair to them); and those talking about myself more than most. Not unusual.

Oddly, one of the main blockers on a public discussion of OM and the oversighted edits was that I simply don't know how to write the short statement necessary. Might seem trivial or laughable to some, but not to others. I asked more than once and set about doing so three times - June 29-30 (after OM), November, and again December. The notion of "Write anything but just write something" doesn't work well with sensitive and privacy-related issues, and the advice how one might do so was itself very uncertain. I'm not that sure even now what I'd do differently second time round. Probably told the more conservative voices on Arbcom after OM "you explain what happened or I will" a bit more strongly. I was offline most of July, consensus was firmly against, I was told it would be done "eventually" but it never was, and I didn't. Meh; lessons.

Apologies for the delay in replying; of course discussion was going on here but I only just got round to checking it out.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Peter Damian]

The Arbcom with Jimbo could have saved themselves all this bother if they had acted over a year ago with a quick iron fist, stopping FT2's candidacy and banning Peter Damian for life. They did not - they dither and chat and worry if I am being polite.

And of course the net result is Damian is now the evil bastard who got FT2 cast from the Arbcom, with his vile and reprehensible accusations. Amazing how quickly the tide turns.

[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.

[Peter Damian]

[too long, though I did read as it happens]

All you have to do is to answer straight questions with straight answers. You were asked whether you knew about the oversights in July. The very long answer you gave suggests the answer 'no'. Why not just say that?

As another example of this, you were asked on this forum whether User:TBP was a sockpuppet of yours or not. You simply didn't answer the question at all. Why not just say 'no'?

any offers of help -- yes please

Use of the words 'yes' or 'no'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[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.

[Giano]

The Arbcom with Jimbo could have saved themselves all this bother if they had acted over a year ago with a quick iron fist, stopping FT2's candidacy and banning Peter Damian for life. They did not - they dither and chat and worry if I am being polite.

And of course the net result is Damian is now the evil bastard who got FT2 cast from the Arbcom, with his vile and reprehensible accusations. Amazing how quickly the tide turns.

Not at all, FT2 was totally unsuited to be an Arb and got himself cast from the Arbcom, with not a little help from David Gerard. Your mistake, in my book, was sending FT2 an unacceptable threat before the edits were oversighted. Had you not done so, you would have my respect. They either lied of were deliberately evasive concerning those oversights, and that was wrong, they attempted to cast you as a liar rather than explain the truth. However, people should remember that had you been instantaneously kicked off Wikipedia for making your threats much of what followed would have been avoided.

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.

You wanted the truth out, and now you have it; you surely don't think it should stay buried? that's the sort of thing that happens on Wikipedia - create a diversion and put the heat elsewhere, as is currently happening there - and Gerard's role has been largely forgotten as attention has been re-focused on me. Only on Wikipedia does Nemesis seem to turn a blind eye. The "FT2 affair" is over now, but it needs to be put to bed with explanation and conclusion, otherwise history repeats itself. You're a historian, you must know that. So please cut your self pity, you are far from the poor little man who was wronged - you played your part and that part needs to be clear.

Giano

[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:

[Giano]

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.

Your splitting hairs now, twisting and turning, and it befits you not. You issued a threat before the oversighting which was unacceptable. For that you should have been severely dealt with. That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Giano

[Peter Damian]

Your splitting hairs now, twisting and turning, and it befits you not. You issued a threat before the oversighting which was unacceptable. For that you should have been severely dealt with. That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Giano

See my apology just above. And remember I apologised and was unblocked two days before the oversights.

And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get. It would be impossible to get any traction at all on difficult articles like pederasty and the like, if we ignore that distinction.

I have admitted the blame for the intemperate remarks. I apologise. I retract nothing else.

That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Of course, and another reason for regretting it. Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kelly Martin]

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.

No, FT2, it doesn't play that way. Answer the question. Attacking the interrogator just demonstrates your own unwillingness to answer the question.

[Giano]

Your splitting hairs now, twisting and turning, and it befits you not. You issued a threat before the oversighting which was unacceptable. For that you should have been severely dealt with. That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Giano

See my apology just above. And remember I apologised and was unblocked two days before the oversights.

And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get. It would be impossible to get any traction at all on difficult articles like pederasty and the like, if we ignore that distinction.

I have admitted the blame for the intemperate remarks. I apologise. I retract nothing else.

That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Of course, and another reason for regretting it. Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.

Throughout this matter FT2 has received the worst possible press, his reputation has been torn to shreds and he has been villified. Now that the matter is about to be archived it seems wrong that it goes into the annals of history incomplete. Implying that you were informing the sort of people who would burn his house, dig up his dead grandmother and do God know's what to him, must have been very scary. That was not intemperate, it was pure intimidation. There is never an excuse for such behaviour no matter what the crime - real of imaginary. "Woops sorry" is for standing on someone's toe while dancing. You were fortunate it was FT2, not me, who won the election. You should have read my first emails to you a little closer at that time. I suggest now you let this story come to its final end, but please don't gloat, no one comes out of this with too much credit.

Giano

[Kelly Martin]

and Gerard's role has been largely forgotten as attention has been re-focused on me. Only on Wikipedia does Nemesis seem to turn a blind eye.

This statement reinforces my belief that David Gerard was, and remains, a primary target of the Giano-Bishonen axis.

[Peter Damian]

Throughout this matter FT2 has received the worst possible press, his reputation has been torn to shreds and he has been villified. Now that the matter is about to be archived it seems wrong that it goes into the annals of history incomplete. Implying that you were informing the sort of people who would burn his house, dig up his dead grandmother and do God know's what to him, must have been very scary. That was not intemperate, it was pure intimidation. There is never an excuse for such behaviour no matter what the crime - real of imaginary. "Woops sorry" is for standing on someone's toe while dancing. You were fortunate it was FT2, not me, who won the election. You should have read my first emails to you a little closer at that time. I suggest now you let this story come to its final end, but please don't gloat, no one comes out of this with too much credit.

Your first email to me was on 30 June 2008. They mention nothing of this. Or do you mean PM? I am genuinely confused.


Your first PM was on 26 March 2008, concerning Durova. You include the comment "Thanks for your supportive words - it is very sad I have to come to WR to be able to see things in perspective". This was in recognition of the fact that I supported your point of view then, and have continued to support you until now. To the point of breaking up a friendship with someone here because they attacked you.
Your next PM was on 17th April, as follows:

Please help me with FT2 he has me so angry I am beside myself. people tell me my English is excellent, I work in London, I have a good job there, but i just cannot understand what he says, I cannot grasp his thread and points, I just get confused, I understand the inidividual words but not the contest. I don't see my self in the things he is sayin about me. He has a crazy mind just locked into me.

When Dragonfly announced on my talk last night that the blocking admin they used was a kid with emotional problems it became my view all who defend such actions become scum. That having used a young person (he is apparently at University) with problems in such a way, and then see the Arbcom defending them has made me realise they are not the sort of people I am comfortable being around.

Not one of them ever bothered to look and see that 1=2 (Higgin BC) had been pursuing me snapping at comments for ages. It has become too much. They have transformed a project with huge potential into nothing more than a second rate chatroom. The Arbcom are pernicious, malicious and stupid, and I need a break from them.

Please don't let WR attack the kid too much, but they can take FT2 to pieces and leave him so.

I'm just so pleased to see you taking piss out of his English, it makes me feel not so bad.

I have always defended you here and on-wiki with unswerving loyalty. I will try and continue to do so. So I don't quite understand why you are suddenly given me the Rottweiler treatment. I have apologised and said I regret those things 'bitterly'. Shall I say it again? It is not quite saying 'oops' after treading on someone's toe.

[Kelly Martin]

I have always defended you here and on-wiki with unswerving loyalty. I will try and continue to do so. So I don't quite understand why you are suddenly given me the Rottweiler treatment. I have apologised and said I regret those things 'bitterly'. Shall I say it again? It is not quite saying 'oops' after treading on someone's toe.

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. They're more than willing to sacrifice you in that quest.

You will quickly discover that many of your "friends" don't actually care about you, but only aligned with you because you were against one of their enemies.

[GlassBeadGame]

I have always defended you here and on-wiki with unswerving loyalty. I will try and continue to do so. So I don't quite understand why you are suddenly given me the Rottweiler treatment. I have apologised and said I regret those things 'bitterly'. Shall I say it again? It is not quite saying 'oops' after treading on someone's toe.

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. They're more than willing to sacrifice you in that quest.

You will quickly discover that many of your "friends" don't actually care about you, but only aligned with you because you were against one of their enemies.

Which is, of course, how scholars and people of good will go about writing an encyclopedia.

[Somey]

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. They're more than willing to sacrifice you in that quest.

I'm a little curious about how you yourself feel about this, KM - you've known Dave Gerard online since before Wikipedia, going back to Usenet and all that anti-Scientology stuff, right? You probably know as well as anyone that Dave has few (if any) qualms about resorting to dirty tricks and clever deceits in the service of whatever cause he happens to be defending at the time. I myself wouldn't be here at all if it hadn't been for one of them, in fact.

Back in the Old West days, when the Rule of Law finally arrived on the former frontier, and previously lawless towns became cities with police and judges and so on, a lot of the old shoot-from-the-hip gunslingers had a difficult time adapting because their skills were no longer required. I suppose some of them may have managed to become authors and movie-script consultants, but only the literate ones. Dave is more of a bile-slinger (and sarcasm-slinger?) than a gunslinger, but IMO the same issues apply - where would he go? What would he do after Wikipedia?

It just seems to me that Dave has a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia as chaotic and drama-ridden as possible, so that he himself doesn't become obsolete.

[Bottled_Spider]

I have always defended you here and on-wiki with unswerving loyalty. I will try and continue to do so. So I don't quite understand why you are suddenly given me the Rottweiler treatment. I have apologised and said I regret those things 'bitterly'. Shall I say it again? It is not quite saying 'oops' after treading on someone's toe.

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. They're more than willing to sacrifice you in that quest.

You will quickly discover that many of your "friends" don't actually care about you, but only aligned with you because you were against one of their enemies.

She's right, you know, Pete. You were once a white knight in a really good position on the board. Now you're being set-up to be sacrificed in a gambit to "get" the Black Queen. Probably. Heh!

[maggot3]

<loads of stuff>

Wow. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) I really don't know how to see this; for the past however many months you've been complaining about FT2 and this issue and kind of defending Peter Damian, and then suddenly when FT2 resigns Peter Damian should have been banned a long time ago and he was so cruel to poor FT2??? what. If you're really saying what I think you're saying, you're a manipulative dick and I no longer have any sympathy for you.

[Dzonatas]

Question for you though. Do you really believe I've studied or been involved in most of what I edit in depth on? [...]

I worked on the Astrotheology (now deleted) article and got called, among other things, an Atheist, which further escalated into accusations to have a sole purpose to troll Wikipedia. Obviously, from your actions in ArbCom you believed it too along with the rest of the junk.

You seem to have understood, when you asked is it fair to believe that you have interest in zoophilia is because of a personal taste.

[FT2]

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.

So let's have this said formally. Am I hereby acquitted of being a criminal sexual abuser and cultist, in your most insightful and penetrative gaze? Can I go back to being "an editor who likes tough articles", who has awareness of that topic area via anti-abuse work, and who also positively salivates at the prospect of good quality information? As opposed to say, a cultist POV pusher who likes to get his leg over in weird ways? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I mean, I've lived with you saying things for a long time now. But if that's what you're saying then let's hear it properly.

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.

What seems to happen is, your "mind" doesn't seem to conceptualize "neutral" when your emotions get in the way. It tends to reason along the lines "I don't want it that way, it shouldn't be that way, so it can't be that way."

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.

Virtually every last email to me, every post, everything you alleged on Wikipedia and wrote to "activists" off Wikipedia at that time, was about "the other matter". N'est-ce-pas?

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.

Deleted, not oversighted. And no, it was about as incorrect as it gets, as many in the community told you at the time: 1/ The media didn't care, 2/ when you tried to make them care, they still didn't much care, 3/ the community still didn't care, 4/ your entire success has been to use David Gerard's mistake to get one article written by Cade Metz, and his interest was the use of Oversight - otherwise even he wouldn't have cared.

"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."

I'm sure you are, but this is still completely a "political" apology. It's worthless. You need to make good by actions, not words - and probably a lot of them over an extended period. You "apologized" every time the heat round you grew or when you wanted something, and it didn't change a thing. Crossref The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I doubt you mean a word of it now either - except the regret that you didn't do it differently and with more success, more subtlety, less backlash. Am I roughly right?

I would accept a genuine apology. My apology after Orangemarlin was to take the backlash for the committee without arguing, and spend 6 months trying hard to get Arbcom process modified so it couldn't happen again. Was that fair? No. But it was right. And not making a public deal of it to get "capital", just doing it anyway to try and ensure it could never go that way again, quietly and in private.

That's an apology to the community. That's what genuine regret looks like, Damian.

Should we not move on? (Snip)
It is Gerard and Jimbo whom the focus should be on now.

"Lets walk away from that umm.. unfortunate feedback - next slide and next hanging party!"

And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get.

I blanked the evidence page I prepared. But any user who wishes to check your actual allegations (on wiki and to third parties) to confirm they were actual allegations/implications of criminal activity, contrary to everything you have tried to claim since, can do so.

I have admitted the blame for the intemperate remarks. I apologise. I retract nothing else.

/no comment/

Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.

Which, of course, they were. You took up editing them because you believed I cared about the topic, a mere 3 days after your unban -- and you made sure to post little "Dear FT2" love-notes to my talk page about it just in case I might miss the point or not realize you were trying to "get" at me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Peter Damian]

So let's have this said formally. Am I hereby acquitted of being a criminal sexual abuser and cultist, in your most insightful and penetrative gaze? Can I go back to being "an editor who likes tough articles", who has awareness of that topic area, and who also positively salivates at the prospect of good quality information? As opposed to say, a cultist POV pusher who likes to get his leg over in weird ways? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I mean, I've lived with you saying things for a long time now. But if that's what you're saying then let's hear it properly.

[too long and boring]

No, you are a cultist POV pusher. See my entire re-write of the Neurolinguistic programming article. And see pretty much any talk page of the Zoophilia article.

I have no view on the leg-over bit, apart from what I said above - there is no evidence that I have seen of anything other than bias and promotion.

In any case, if you see my talk page, I am taking an extended Wiki vacation. The politics has got a bit too much for me.

As a legacy I leave you this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why...rth_is_not_flat

I hope it helps.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

your entire success has been to use David Gerard's mistake to get one article written by Cade Metz, and his interest was the use of Oversight - otherwise even he wouldn't have cared.

Entirely incorrect you don't know what you are talking about. A third party asked Metz to phone me from San Francisco. I said I would talk to him on the understanding he focused on the oversighting and policy aspect and I emphasised that the issue was of 'promotion' not 'practice'

I also complained to him afterwards about the lurid tone of the article. He can confirm this.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kelly Martin]

I'm a little curious about how you yourself feel about this, KM - you've known Dave Gerard online since before Wikipedia, going back to Usenet and all that anti-Scientology stuff, right? You probably know as well as anyone that Dave has few (if any) qualms about resorting to dirty tricks and clever deceits in the service of whatever cause he happens to be defending at the time. I myself wouldn't be here at all if it hadn't been for one of them, in fact.

Back in the Old West days, when the Rule of Law finally arrived on the former frontier, and previously lawless towns became cities with police and judges and so on, a lot of the old shoot-from-the-hip gunslingers had a difficult time adapting because their skills were no longer required. I suppose some of them may have managed to become authors and movie-script consultants, but only the literate ones. Dave is more of a bile-slinger (and sarcasm-slinger?) than a gunslinger, but IMO the same issues apply - where would he go? What would he do after Wikipedia?

It just seems to me that Dave has a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia as chaotic and drama-ridden as possible, so that he himself doesn't become obsolete.

David has fingers in many pies. He is, as many of us know, quite active in Uncyclopedia, and we learned recently that he was in some way involved in several shock sites (lemonparty being probably the most notable of these). I think David has a very high personal drama demand, and keeps himself engaged in multiple dramaturgies in order to satisfy that need. The effective death of USENET must have hit him hard; that's a lot of lost opportunities for drama.

He should get a ham license and hang out on 75 meters; he'd fit in well there.

[Giano]

and Gerard's role has been largely forgotten as attention has been re-focused on me. Only on Wikipedia does Nemesis seem to turn a blind eye.

This statement reinforces my belief that David Gerard was, and remains, a primary target of the Giano-Bishonen axis.

Gosh Kelly, you are so perceptive, yes it's true! Bishonen and I sit up all night plotting against David Gerard setting traps for him to perform illegal oversights, perform illegal checkusers and so on and he falls into the traps each time - you've spotted that gullible soft eager to please streak he has. Oh hell, we had not counted on your Miss Marple like razor brain seeing through us. The truth is if Bishonen had not brought the whole sorry saga to a close, by blocking FT2, it would still be dragging on - she is a daft woman, she should have allowed it to fester on damaging more and more people think of the scores she and I could have settled if she had. However, there is a plus, the arbcom are looking at Gerard's role, I am told, and as you know I have huge influence over the Arbcom so I expect he will be hung drawn, quartered and flogged naked off the site. This has been my intention since I first evilly encouraged FT2 to write about bestiality.Now you've foiled the plot - Damm you.

Giano

[GlassBeadGame]

Damm you.

Giano

Careful, Kelly. This guy damns a fig tree and it withers.

[Kelly Martin]

Damm you.

Giano

Careful, Kelly. This guy damns a fig tree and it withers.

I'll take my chances. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

This thread seems to have deviated from FT2, so perhaps now is the time to say that he was not totally 100% in the wrong - the trouble at Wikipedia was - no one knew how to help him or P Damain out of their hole without being accused of partisanship. Because of this, the problem grew, it was also hugely assisted by a complete lack of communication (please no cracks about FT's verbosity) - I only recently understood how bad that communication was - what I thought was known by the Arbs appears not to have been known at all - and yet I can't quite believe that. I have tried to help both, but there was a mind-set, an implacable mind-set on both sides - and I only now realise, I was being stuffed in trying to sort this in other areas. Once Gerard moved in, oversighting and running rampant and seemingly only conversing with Jimbo the whole thing became confused, everyone protecting each other. I doubt anyone other than Jimbo himself, who was ignorant on the matter of who was on which side, and who was on neither, could have sorted it. Ultimately, FT2 had to resign, he had confused and prevaricated for too long - and justice has to be black and white, but sometimes the truth is rather more honest but very confused. In this instance there was no one with an ounce of nouse to sort the problem and so like Topsy it just grew.

Giano

Since praise is too seldom offered here, let me say that I was taken back by the wisdom and perception of the above. I don't agree with it 100%, but nevertheless it has incite and perspective.

Thanks.

[GlassBeadGame]

This thread seems to have deviated from FT2, so perhaps now is the time to say that he was not totally 100% in the wrong - the trouble at Wikipedia was - no one knew how to help him or P Damain out of their hole without being accused of partisanship. Because of this, the problem grew, it was also hugely assisted by a complete lack of communication (please no cracks about FT's verbosity) - I only recently understood how bad that communication was - what I thought was known by the Arbs appears not to have been known at all - and yet I can't quite believe that. I have tried to help both, but there was a mind-set, an implacable mind-set on both sides - and I only now realise, I was being stuffed in trying to sort this in other areas. Once Gerard moved in, oversighting and running rampant and seemingly only conversing with Jimbo the whole thing became confused, everyone protecting each other. I doubt anyone other than Jimbo himself, who was ignorant on the matter of who was on which side, and who was on neither, could have sorted it. Ultimately, FT2 had to resign, he had confused and prevaricated for too long - and justice has to be black and white, but sometimes the truth is rather more honest but very confused. In this instance there was no one with an ounce of nouse to sort the problem and so like Topsy it just grew.

Giano

Since praise is too seldom offered here, let me say that I was taken back by the wisdom and perception of the above. I don't agree with it 100%, but nevertheless it has incite and perspective.

Thanks.

Yes Giano is often incite-ful.

[wikiwhistle]

He actually needed protection and advice on dealing with the bear pit, that is Wikipedia.

That's exactly what I think, and have told him so. He seems to think he deserves slagging off and will just sit there and take it. For instance, the comments by RHMED to his talk page mocking him, he left up for ages. I think it will make him prone to depression or something, if he just lets people walk all over him in their comments.

[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:

[Bottled_Spider]

I think it will make him prone to depression or something, if he just lets people walk all over him in their comments.

I hear your pain. What say we set up a small sanctuary for poor old FT2 on WR? A virtual soup-kitchen, as it were, where he can come in out of the cold and have a cup of tea? And a biscuit if he's good.

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.

"Chocolate Labrador"? This just keeps getting weirder. I'm scared.

[Somey]

Gosh Kelly, you are so perceptive, yes it's true! Bishonen and I sit up all night plotting against David Gerard setting traps for him to perform illegal oversights, perform illegal checkusers and so on and he falls into the traps each time - you've spotted that gullible soft eager to please streak he has.

Assuming you mean "eager to please" himself, I don't think it's so hard to spot... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Seriously, though, there are such things as "targets of opportunity." And if in the process of catching one fish you manage to get a hook into a bigger one, that's more a case of working events to your advantage. It doesn't necessarily mean you must have plotted to get the bigger fish all along...

...there is a plus, the arbcom are looking at Gerard's role, I am told, and as you know I have huge influence over the Arbcom so I expect he will be hung drawn, quartered and flogged naked off the site. This has been my intention since I first evilly encouraged FT2 to write about bestiality.Now you've foiled the plot - Damm you.

Well, her having foiled the plot (such as it is) would only be damnable if there had been plans to take lurid photographs of the hanging, drawing, quartering, and flogging, which would now tragically have to be scrapped.

Like I mentioned earlier, Dave is a very clever deceiver, manipulator, and deal-maker - to get concrete evidence of wrongdoing on his part is actually something of an achievement, given the way he operates.

[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

[Peter Damian]

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.

It is blatant propaganda. You are fooling no one either, O Giano. The oversighted edits were not the only edits I had a concern about. Shall we talk about some of those?

[edit] If you read the edit to my previous post, you will see there were two sites.

Activist, now there's nasty word

Veggie boards?

And here is someone else who feels it is all propaganda.

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Giano]

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.

It is blatant propaganda. You are fooling no one either, O Giano. The oversighted edits were not the only edits I had a concern about. Shall we talk about some of those?

[edit] If you read the edit to my previous post, you will see there were two sites.

Have a pleasant evening. Night!

Giano

[Bishonen]

(snip)

Sorry—I was trying to refresh, not post.I'm hopeless with this mysterious site, I give up. Bishonen.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[tarantino]

Sorry—I was trying to refresh, not post.I'm hopeless with this mysterious site, I give up. Bishonen.

Just click the edit button of your post, Control-a in the edit window, and replace it with something appropriate like "oops'.

[tarantino]

There is an interesting comment by JoshuaZ at RFARB#Bishzilla regarding the exposure of his deceptiveness and subsequent humiliation. He has accused someone in a position of authority of leaking secrets to Greg -

There's been some speculation that FT2 was responsible for leaking checkuser data and internal ArbCom deliberations to banned user Greg Kohs. As the individual who was the primary victim of that leak, there is as far as I am aware no evidence that FT2 had anything to do with that leak. We do know based on the details that it almost certainly had to have been an arbitrator, former arbitrator or a developer but there's no reason to think that FT2 had anything to do with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's "we" Josh?

edit: I was reminded that Josh is referring to this leak that originated from the arbcom mailing list.

The JoshuaZ sockpuppeting post

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[Bottled_Spider]

Sorry—I was trying to refresh, not post.I'm hopeless with this mysterious site, I give up. Bishonen.

Why not ask Bishzilla what to do?
Bishzilla not post while try to refresh. Mysterious site Wikipedia Review not intimidate Bishzilla. Bishzilla not hopeless and give up intimidate Tokyo, etc.

[Docknell]

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.

So let's have this said formally. Am I hereby acquitted of being a criminal sexual abuser and cultist, in your most insightful and penetrative gaze? Can I go back to being "an editor who likes tough articles", who has awareness of that topic area via anti-abuse work, and who also positively salivates at the prospect of good quality information? As opposed to say, a cultist POV pusher who likes to get his leg over in weird ways? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I mean, I've lived with you saying things for a long time now. But if that's what you're saying then let's hear it properly.

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.

What seems to happen is, your "mind" doesn't seem to conceptualize "neutral" when your emotions get in the way. It tends to reason along the lines "I don't want it that way, it shouldn't be that way, so it can't be that way."

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.

Virtually every last email to me, every post, everything you alleged on Wikipedia and wrote to "activists" off Wikipedia at that time, was about "the other matter". N'est-ce-pas?

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.

Deleted, not oversighted. And no, it was about as incorrect as it gets, as many in the community told you at the time: 1/ The media didn't care, 2/ when you tried to make them care, they still didn't much care, 3/ the community still didn't care, 4/ your entire success has been to use David Gerard's mistake to get one article written by Cade Metz, and his interest was the use of Oversight - otherwise even he wouldn't have cared.

"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."

I'm sure you are, but this is still completely a "political" apology. It's worthless. You need to make good by actions, not words - and probably a lot of them over an extended period. You "apologized" every time the heat round you grew or when you wanted something, and it didn't change a thing. Crossref The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I doubt you mean a word of it now either - except the regret that you didn't do it differently and with more success, more subtlety, less backlash. Am I roughly right?

I would accept a genuine apology. My apology after Orangemarlin was to take the backlash for the committee without arguing, and spend 6 months trying hard to get Arbcom process modified so it couldn't happen again. Was that fair? No. But it was right. And not making a public deal of it to get "capital", just doing it anyway to try and ensure it could never go that way again, quietly and in private.

That's an apology to the community. That's what genuine regret looks like, Damian.

Should we not move on? (Snip)
It is Gerard and Jimbo whom the focus should be on now.

"Lets walk away from that umm.. unfortunate feedback - next slide and next hanging party!"

And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get.

I blanked the evidence page I prepared. But any user who wishes to check your actual allegations (on wiki and to third parties) to confirm they were actual allegations/implications of criminal activity, contrary to everything you have tried to claim since, can do so.

I have admitted the blame for the intemperate remarks. I apologise. I retract nothing else.

/no comment/

Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.

Which, of course, they were. You took up editing them because you believed I cared about the topic, a mere 3 days after your unban -- and you made sure to post little "Dear FT2" love-notes to my talk page about it just in case I might miss the point or not realize you were trying to "get" at me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

FT2

It’s impossible not to see the huge discrepancies between your statements and your behaviour.

People are not calling you a dogshagger to your face. Nobody is taking you to court for abusing labradors.

What has happened is that folks have noticed you have been trying to take them for a ride. Your extreme and indirect verbosity and inclination towards the defence of the fringe psychocult of neuro linguistic programming are only indicators of your approach to your abuse of Wikipedia.

The research that people have placed in WR shows significant evidence of you promoting fringe beyond reason.

The many links in the FT2 section of WR show evidence of you trying to push fringe argument and you trying to stifle majority ethical reasoning. The evidence shows you trying to drive off editors who simply provide research to correct your obviously fringe pushing antics.

There are a lot of people who have seen what you do, and are simply sick of your abuse.

Doc

[Moulton]

I have seen scant evidence of ethical reasoning in the Wikisphere.

And ethical reasoning has never been in the majority, on Wikipedia or anywhere else on this planet, since the dawn of civilization.

[Docknell]

I have seen scant evidence of ethical reasoning in the Wikisphere.

And ethical reasoning has never been in the majority, on Wikipedia or anywhere else on this planet, since the dawn of civilization.

Hi Moulton

I am pessimistic about WP, but optimistic about the world. Legal systems the world over have their faults. However, there are intelligent and reasonable ethically based rationales that put the welfare of animals in terms of fiduciary duty (duty of care). WP should start to work towards making sure those views are presented correctly.

FT2 and others do seem to have worked hard to occlude those views, and other ethically based views against the spread of general misinformation by psychocults such as neuro linguistic programming.

People don't base their objections solely on the "yuk" scale when evaluating pro-bestiality arguments. There is a strong ethical base to many people's gag reflex.

Doc

[everyking]

Since the ArbCom is obviously not going to desysop Bishonen/Bishzilla, it ought to at least put an end to this joke account adminship nonsense. I made the following request in my statement: "I call on the ArbCom to require that Bishonen use admin powers only on her main account. The Bishzilla account has a comedic nature that is not suited to the role of adminship, and furthermore it was the Bishonen account, behaving as a serious user, that passed RfA."

Personally, I think that anyone who believes it's appropriate to exercise adminship through a secondary joke account is unsuited to adminship on any account, without even considering Bishonen's conduct in the recent incident or past events.

[wikiwhistle]

I am pessimistic about WP, but optimistic about the world. Legal systems the world over have their faults. However, there are intelligent and reasonable ethically based rationales that put the welfare of animals in terms of fiduciary duty (duty of care). WP should start to work towards making sure those views are presented correctly.

FT2 and others do seem to have worked hard to occlude those views, and other ethically based views against the spread of general misinformation by psychocults such as neuro linguistic programming.

People don't base their objections solely on the "yuk" scale when evaluating pro-bestiality arguments. There is a strong ethical base to many people's gag reflex.

Doc

My bold. Yes that is exactly it- not only the yuk factor (although that is quite intense, as animals don't even usually wash, plus it would be quite brutal) but for most of us we see our pets having a relation to us that is more like kids. Not that they think it through that much perhaps, but they are not in a position to give full consent for many reasons, not least that they are almost entirely dependent on us for their food and shelter; also, they have the reasoning powers perhaps of a young child.

[Bottled_Spider]

Since the ArbCom is obviously not going to desysop Bishonen/Bishzilla, it ought to at least put an end to this joke account adminship nonsense. I made the following request in my statement: "I call on the ArbCom to require that Bishonen use admin powers only on her main account. The Bishzilla account has a comedic nature that is not suited to the role of adminship, and furthermore it was the Bishonen account, behaving as a serious user, that passed RfA."

Personally, I think that anyone who believes it's appropriate to exercise adminship through a secondary joke account is unsuited to adminship on any account, without even considering Bishonen's conduct in the recent incident or past events.

Jesus H. Christ. How a humourless sod like you managed to get yourself de-sysopped is a complete mystery. Sounds to me like you'd fit in well there.

[tarantino]

Personally, I think that anyone who believes it's appropriate to exercise adminship through a secondary joke account is unsuited to adminship on any account, without even considering Bishonen's conduct in the recent incident or past events.

Bishzilla slightly exaggerates reality to make a statement that demonstrates the true nature of governance of Wikipedia. I believe the account is a net positive.

[Milton Roe]

I am pessimistic about WP, but optimistic about the world. Legal systems the world over have their faults. However, there are intelligent and reasonable ethically based rationales that put the welfare of animals in terms of fiduciary duty (duty of care). WP should start to work towards making sure those views are presented correctly.

FT2 and others do seem to have worked hard to occlude those views, and other ethically based views against the spread of general misinformation by psychocults such as neuro linguistic programming.

People don't base their objections solely on the "yuk" scale when evaluating pro-bestiality arguments. There is a strong ethical base to many people's gag reflex.

Doc

My bold. Yes that is exactly it- not only the yuk factor (although that is quite intense, as animals don't even usually wash, plus it would be quite brutal) but for most of us we see our pets having a relation to us that is more like kids. Not that they think it through that much perhaps, but they are not in a position to give full consent for many reasons, not least that they are almost entirely dependent on us for their food and shelter; also, they have the reasoning powers perhaps of a young child.

Quite. With that limited mentality, it's amazing that God lets any of them breed at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Moulton]

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

[wikiwhistle]

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

Disgust and ethical considerations are often one and the same. Think of one's reactions to hearing of rape, incest etc. Not saying they're necessarily the same in this case. When disgust is not aligned to ethics, it often is more akin to the feeling of something that's physically a turn-off or a feeling of being disturbed/ creeped out, perhaps.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Peter Damian]

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

Disgust and ethical considerations are often one and the same. Think of one's reactions to hearing of rape, incest etc. Not saying they're necessarily the same in this case. When disgust is not aligned to ethics, it often is more akin to the feeling of something that's physically a turn-off or a feeling of being disturbed/ creeped out, perhaps.

Not quite. Children often do things that are quite disgusting. So do mentally disturbed people. So do old people, actually. A nurse told me that old men in a ward would often masturbate in front of her.

But you don't blame them for it, at least (in the case of children) you don't blame them in a deep-down sense.

On the other side, there are things that are not disgusting in any visceral sense that people deeply disapprove of regard as deeply wrong.

Cleary Giano felt it was deeply wrong of me to send that email to FT2 December 2007. But he didn't find it disgusting in a visceral or 'yukky' kind of way.

Our sense of right and wrong is closely tied to that of responsibility and freedom of choice.

But if there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things happen which do happen. But if this be so, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted. In vain are laws enacted. In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked.

Augustine, City of God V . 14

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Giano]

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

Disgust and ethical considerations are often one and the same. Think of one's reactions to hearing of rape, incest etc. Not saying they're necessarily the same in this case. When disgust is not aligned to ethics, it often is more akin to the feeling of something that's physically a turn-off or a feeling of being disturbed/ creeped out, perhaps.

Not quite. Children often do things that are quite disgusting. So do mentally disturbed people. So do old people, actually. A nurse told me that old men in a ward would often masturbate in front of her.

But you don't blame them for it, at least (in the case of children) you don't blame them in a deep-down sense.

On the other side, there are things that are not disgusting in any visceral sense that people deeply disapprove of regard as deeply wrong.

Cleary Giano felt it was deeply wrong of me to send that email to FT2 December 2007. But he didn't find it disgusting in a visceral or 'yukky' kind of way.

How on earth do you know in what way I find things disgusting? However, let me tell you one of the things I do find disgusting: petty, prisy little Anglo-Catholics preaching second rate morality in order to hide their own failings. Your threats to FT2 were not just disgusting, they were nauseating and cowardly - like your subsequent self-justifing squeeling and shrieking here, on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you. I had some sympathy for you untill I found out just how deep you were prepared to wallow in shit - you have behaved in such a way as to make one beleive you are completely lacking in moral fibre.

Giano

This post has been edited by Giano:

[Moulton]

About 25 years ago, American Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, published Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. He takes a systems theoretic approach to the age-old philosophical question of Free Will, pointing out that if we have enough insight to anticipate the likely long-term consequences of a course of action, we can make wise and intelligent choices that lead to a more desirable future outcome.

JK Rowling repeats that wisdom through the character of Dumbledore, who mentors Harry Potter on the matter of choices that define our character.

Ethics is about crafting and employing reliable mental models that anticipate the benefit or harm that flows from a decision. Peter Senge develops that notion into The Fifth Discipline: The Theory and Practice of The Learning Organization.

The art of devising Ethical Best Practices is an essential learnable trait of any successful organization.

It perplexes me why Wikipedia has ignored and eschewed that seminal contribution to the sum of all human knowledge, wisdom, and insight.

[wikiwhistle]

on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you. I had some sympathy for you untill I found out just how deep you were prepared to wallow in shit - you have behaved in such a way as to make one believe you are completely lacking in moral fibre.

Giano

Yes that's the prob. If you are not with PD 100% you are against him. A lot of people are like that. However, the timing of you having a go at PD is interesting, in as much as you were trying to get something done over the FT issue so didn't feel able to criticize him till now.

What was in this email? I must've missed it. Was it more threats to report FT to someone?

[EricBarbour]

However, let me tell you one of the things I do find disgusting: petty, prisy little Anglo-Catholics preaching second rate morality in order to hide their own failings. Your threats to FT2 were not just disgusting, they were nauseating and cowardly - like your subsequent self-justifing squeeling and shrieking here, on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you.

This is great! I gotta get some popcorn! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

Disgust is moral reasoning played out on the time scale of evolution.

[Bottled_Spider]

How on earth do you know in what way I find things disgusting? However, let me tell you one of the things I do find disgusting: petty, prisy little Anglo-Catholics preaching second rate morality in order to hide their own failings. Your threats to FT2 were not just disgusting, they were nauseating and cowardly - like your subsequent self-justifing squeeling and shrieking here, on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you. I had some sympathy for you untill I found out just how deep you were prepared to wallow in shit - you have behaved in such a way as to make one beleive you are completely lacking in moral fibre.
Giano

Come on, Giana. Quit shilly-shallying around. It's important to get these things off your chest. Tell us how you really feel about Pete, for God's sake. No holding back, mind.

[Somey]

Personally, I think that anyone who believes it's appropriate to exercise adminship through a secondary joke account is unsuited to adminship on any account, without even considering Bishonen's conduct in the recent incident or past events.

But exercising adminship through a primary joke account is OK? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I mean, this is the site that (until recently) had an admin named Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and don't forget current admins with names like Blood Red Sandman (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Butseriouslyfolks (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cantthinkofagoodname (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (T-C-L-K-R-D) , David Gerard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Evil saltine (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Faithlessthewonderboy (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Goodnightmush (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Hamster Sandwich (T-C-L-K-R-D) ... should I go on? I'm barely into the H's.

[everyking]

Personally, I think that anyone who believes it's appropriate to exercise adminship through a secondary joke account is unsuited to adminship on any account, without even considering Bishonen's conduct in the recent incident or past events.

Bishzilla slightly exaggerates reality to make a statement that demonstrates the true nature of governance of Wikipedia. I believe the account is a net positive.

Bishonen, angrily responding to my statement, now says that she is retiring the Bishzilla account. Shouldn't she also announce that on the Bishzilla userpage and request the removal of Bishzilla's admin rights?

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Docknell]

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

Disgust and ethical considerations are often one and the same. Think of one's reactions to hearing of rape, incest etc. Not saying they're necessarily the same in this case. When disgust is not aligned to ethics, it often is more akin to the feeling of something that's physically a turn-off or a feeling of being disturbed/ creeped out, perhaps.

Not quite. Children often do things that are quite disgusting. So do mentally disturbed people. So do old people, actually. A nurse told me that old men in a ward would often masturbate in front of her.

But you don't blame them for it, at least (in the case of children) you don't blame them in a deep-down sense.

On the other side, there are things that are not disgusting in any visceral sense that people deeply disapprove of regard as deeply wrong.

Cleary Giano felt it was deeply wrong of me to send that email to FT2 December 2007. But he didn't find it disgusting in a visceral or 'yukky' kind of way.

How on earth do you know in what way I find things disgusting? However, let me tell you one of the things I do find disgusting: petty, prisy little Anglo-Catholics preaching second rate morality in order to hide their own failings. Your threats to FT2 were not just disgusting, they were nauseating and cowardly - like your subsequent self-justifing squeeling and shrieking here, on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you. I had some sympathy for you untill I found out just how deep you were prepared to wallow in shit - you have behaved in such a way as to make one beleive you are completely lacking in moral fibre.

Giano

Hi Giano

Looking at your essays on WP and comparing with the sort of statements you make here; it seems to me you are starting to sound quite "lower 6th".

The subject of this thread is interesting. Bishonen seems to have done something pretty useful about the problem of FT2. FT2 was always under self-imposed threat because FT2 made obvious promotions of fringe and harmful sexual practices, fringe pseudoscience, and obviously worked hard to find ways to wield power and continue the protection of said obvious fringe biases.

If that statement makes me a prissy anglo catholic type to you, that is just your view. In the UK we generally punish bestialists for abusing animals. It follows that people here have a serious disregard for those who promote the practice as if its some sort of erudite and fashionable lifestyle.

I make no particular claims to being popular, intelligent, or literary. But I know what scientific findings are, and I know who really needs a good clout for abusing privileges, spreading misinformation, and generally trying to lord it over the prols.

I've been following this situation pretty closely for a while. When I read FT2 had been generally discredited as an admin, and then blocked, I suddenly found myself in a very cheerful and positive state of mind. It was as if somebody somewhere had got something right for once.

Doc

[Somey]

Bishonen, angrily responding to my statement, now says that she is retiring the Bishzilla account.

That's unfortunate...

What's more, she's absolutely right - I myself am in tears at this very moment, filled with sorrow at the immense degree of boredom I feel over this non-issue.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

I've been following this situation pretty closely for a while. When I read FT2 had been generally discredited as an admin, and then blocked, I suddenly found myself in a very cheerful and positive state of mind.

You said it, man! I haven't felt this good since they invented Viagra!

[everyking]

Bishonen, angrily responding to my statement, now says that she is retiring the Bishzilla account.

That's unfortunate...

What's more, she's absolutely right - I myself am in tears at this very moment, filled with sorrow at the immense degree of boredom I feel over this non-issue.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

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

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Peter Damian]

How on earth do you know in what way I find things disgusting? However, let me tell you one of the things I do find disgusting: petty, prisy little Anglo-Catholics preaching second rate morality in order to hide their own failings. Your threats to FT2 were not just disgusting, they were nauseating and cowardly - like your subsequent self-justifing squeeling and shrieking here, on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you. I had some sympathy for you untill I found out just how deep you were prepared to wallow in shit - you have behaved in such a way as to make one beleive you are completely lacking in moral fibre.

Giano

There I am puzzled. What exactly was it that changed your opinion 180 degrees? I have supported you consistently here and on-wiki and in private also. If you felt I was wrong at the time, why didn't you say so?

The threats you refer to occurred more than a year ago. Is it that you only recently found out about them? The email in question about 'activists' was sent to WJBScribe and Glen Berry in a moment of anger. Only one outside site was actually contacted, and within a day the entire thread had been removed at my request.

They were not cowardly. No one knows who FT2 is, even now, whereas my identity could be worked out from my (then) user name. The blocking admins left blocking messages so that it would be clear to the many people using Wikipedia at my institution what was happening. I was left unable to respond to these threats, o/a of the blocks.

So, Giano, you know I have always supported you, and I always will and I will continue to speak kindly of you. But this is a little distressing.

[edit]
I checked again, and this diff, and the stuff that precedes it, suggests you knew exactly what the issue was. Why the sudded change of tone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=176137862#Help

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Doc glasgow]

There I am puzzled. What exactly was it that changed your opinion 180 degrees? I have supported you consistently here and on-wiki and in private also.

A wise man once said ""we have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies, our interests are eternal and it is those interests it is our duty to follow"

But seriously, for the second time this week, I salute Giano.

I've no idea what Peter did or didn't post. However, wikipedia has all too much of people who have a common interest/enemy clubbing together than loyally defending their allies, even when their allies are engaging in reprehensible behaviour. It's a social psychologist's dream experiment.

Just because someone has "supported you consistently on-wiki" ought to be no reason why you should support them if their behaviour falls bellow standard. The gang mentality is extremely unhelpful and extremely childish. Loyalty should extend only to me first giving my friend candid private advice - but if he fails to take it, all bets are off.

A little less loyalty would create a better working environment for all.

[Peter Damian]

Just because someone has "supported you consistently on-wiki" ought to be no reason why you should support them if their behaviour falls bellow standard.

I quite agree. I am just puzzled why this has happened just now. The event we are talking about happened more than a year ago, and he seems to have known all the details. Why this sudden u-turn?

[Moulton]

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

I couldn't fail to disagree less.

And so I am offering to let Bishonen adopt one of my own alter egos, Gastrin Bombesin.

Who can make your skin crawl? Who can wrench your gut?

Gastrin is the name of the neuropeptide that carries the message of fear from the amygdala to the gut. Upon arrival in the gut, gastrin gives rise to dyspepsia — those gut-wrenching feelings of 'butterflies in the stomach' that we experience as qualms, quease, anxiety, nausea, disgust, anger, biliousness or feeling galled.

Bombesin is the name of the neuropeptide that carries the message of fear from the amygdala to the periphery of the body. Upon arrival, bombesin causes a shutdown of the blood supply to the skin, wherupon our color blanches, we get goose bumps, and we feel 'chilled out' (white as a ghost). Creepy. Shiver me timbers.

Gastrin Bombesin has a home page with a graphic and a theme song.

[The Adversary]

Bishonen, angrily responding to my statement, now says that she is retiring the Bishzilla account.

That's unfortunate...

What's more, she's absolutely right - I myself am in tears at this very moment, filled with sorrow at the immense degree of boredom I feel over this non-issue.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

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

EK: I know you do tons of useful work on WP, and I´ll support you for admin anyday...BUT: Bishonen/Bishzilla is straight on target in that post, (both for you and for Durova), IMHO.

I really wish you took WP less seriously; two of my favorite WP-people this year have been the The Fat Man etc, and Bish. They have played WP as the MMORGP game it (partially) is. And they make me laugh!

Lighten up, EK, please? WP is only a web-site... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

[Bottled_Spider]

I am just puzzled why this has happened just now. The event we are talking about happened more than a year ago, and he seems to have known all the details. Why this sudden u-turn?

Well, in one simple word, Pete : Wiki Status. You see, you were instrumental in removing the evil FT2 from ArbCon and turning him (and it) into a laughing stock, untrusted by anyone important. Also, you are well-known, here and the other place, as the most most moral and, er, ethical editor/man in the whole world, what with all the pro-censorship/dislike of rampant sex/anti-filth posts and all that.

But what has Giana done lately? Nothing. Zippo. He feels he's been ousted by a superior Wiki-warrior, and, let's face it, he has. No more Mr. Top-Dog Wiki Critic for him. He's become a caricature of himself. I fear some of the dry rot and mildew from those rusty old barns he (unfortunately) writes about is beginning to affect him too.

Same old game, Pete. They build you up then knock you down. I'd say more, but I don't want to be seen as someone who just wants to stir up shit and/or cause trouble, or anything. There's enough of that sort of thing going on already, damn them all to hell.

[Kato]

My guess is he has a degree on a suspect course from a suspect university like Media Studies at Lincoln University and he thinks it means he is educated.

Steady there, dogbiscuit.

I'd like to see you get your head around Metz's Grand Syntagmatique or Baudrillard! Media Studies is as vital and complex as other humanities - and is as relevant as courses such as English Literature or History. In fact, few scholarly fields are more relevant to understanding Wikipedia, so anyone with a Media Studies background should be welcomed at that place. It seems that a bogus assumption of what Media Studies involves began to permeate the media itself, to fit a political notion of a society "dumbing down". Don't fall for it - it ain't true - media studies is perfectly legitimate. (I didn't get a degree in media studies by the way - It's just a bugbear of mine when I see it disparaged! Feel free to split this off)

[dogbiscuit]

My guess is he has a degree on a suspect course from a suspect university like Media Studies at Lincoln University and he thinks it means he is educated.

Steady there, dogbiscuit.

I'd like to see you get your head around Metz's Grand Syntagmatique or Baudrillard! Media Studies is as vital and complex as other humanities - and is as relevant as courses such as English Literature or History. In fact, few scholarly fields are more relevant to understanding Wikipedia, so anyone with a Media Studies background should be welcomed at that place. It seems that a bogus assumption of what Media Studies involves began to permeate the media itself, to fit a political notion of a society "dumbing down". Don't fall for it - it ain't true - media studies is perfectly legitimate. (I didn't get a degree in media studies by the way - It's just a bugbear of mine when I see it disparaged! Feel free to split this off)

Specific experience rather than a generalisation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif)

[wikiwhistle]

I've no idea what Peter did or didn't post. However, wikipedia has all too much of people who have a common interest/enemy clubbing together than loyally defending their allies, even when their allies are engaging in reprehensible behaviour. It's a social psychologist's dream experiment.

Just because someone has "supported you consistently on-wiki" ought to be no reason why you should support them if their behaviour falls bellow standard. The gang mentality is extremely unhelpful and extremely childish. Loyalty should extend only to me first giving my friend candid private advice - but if he fails to take it, all bets are off.

A little less loyalty would create a better working environment for all.

I agree with the sentiment. But Giano already knew this about Peter.

[Giano]

I've no idea what Peter did or didn't post. However, wikipedia has all too much of people who have a common interest/enemy clubbing together than loyally defending their allies, even when their allies are engaging in reprehensible behaviour. It's a social psychologist's dream experiment.

Just because someone has "supported you consistently on-wiki" ought to be no reason why you should support them if their behaviour falls bellow standard. The gang mentality is extremely unhelpful and extremely childish. Loyalty should extend only to me first giving my friend candid private advice - but if he fails to take it, all bets are off.

A little less loyalty would create a better working environment for all.

I agree with the sentiment. But Giano already knew this about Peter.

Actually, on my wiki-page (to me) Peter said :"relevant organisations" one assumes he meant the RSPCA etc; in his private email to FT2 his exact words were " I am posting at various activist sites,
and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this" So you can draw your own conclusion on how much I previously knew. However, following Peter's helpful link to my archived user page (above), I see I was awarded a "Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award" by no less a person than Merkinsmum, for my coments to Peter. I wonder what she thought Peter was referring to? Have you any idea Wiki-whistle?

Giano

[Kato]

Just because someone has "supported you consistently on-wiki" ought to be no reason why you should support them if their behaviour falls bellow standard.

I quite agree. I am just puzzled why this has happened just now. The event we are talking about happened more than a year ago, and he seems to have known all the details. Why this sudden u-turn?

Peter, re-read this exchange from a couple of months ago between the two of us - and vow not to get fooled again.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=142621

I may be missing something, but can anyone explain to me what Giano actually does to deserve this Cult Status?

Sure, he writes a few nice articles, but so did fellow sock-puppeteers Poetguy and SlimVirgin. And writing a decent article for WP isn't particularly taxing.

I just take a look at Giano's endless drama-fueled stunts and wonder why he hasn't been given the boot long ago? His relentless, hyperactive, jack-in-the-box rabble-rousing lacks any credibility to me.

This kind of thing is clearly bad for Wikipedia -- which is good for everyone else, of course. If Giano was doing this stuff as some kind of anti-Wikipedia activist, I'd be applauding him at every turn, but he and a whole load of followers seem to think these antics represent some kind of credible anti-corruption drive to improve the place.

When the red mist clears, Team Giano are generally found to be as indoctrinated, and as blind to the genuine problems of WP as the most hardline Wikipedo. Meaning that these interpersonal dramas actually obstruct reform by sapping time and energy.

That remark makes me think seriously of leaving WR. Perhaps I wouldn't be missed. Giano may not lack drama but he stands for all the maligned and abused and despised content contributors that are still there. And he sticks up for them too.

That was an appalling remark Kato. I had a very high opinion of you until I saw this.

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?

[Peter Damian]

I'm still completely confused by this.

1. Giano knew pretty much the whole story from over a year ago. He received a number of supportive emails from me when he cried that FT2 was beating him up too bad. I have always supported him 100% over here even at times when I didn't feel he was quite right (for example the recent thing with the email headers seemed obviously cooked up). He has also posted a number of emails expressing his disgust at the content of some of FT2's edits.

2. So why the extreme attack just now? Why call me 'cowardly' when I am the only one who has the guts to connect their real name with such a disgusting business. Check this Google

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=edw...2&start=10&sa=N

There you see my real name is inextricably bound up with FT2's false one, even unto an Encyclopedia Dramatica article with my real name (a rare honour, no?).

What's your real name, Giano?

[Doc glasgow]

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'm not going to judge between Peter and Giano.

But there's something important here. There are real issues with wikipedia. Issues particularly to do with BLP. Those are issues that the community really needs to focus on, and have also been of long and legitimate concern to this board. (Indeed that's why I cam here originally.)

The soap opera stuff, which is mainly about the power-politics of the Role-Playing wikipedia are just one massive distraction. I mean, who outside the bubble should care about FT2's attitude to animals, whether his edits were oversighted, or whether Lar did or didn't tell his wife about Slim's friend? It's all horseshit that concerns egos, personalties and pride of people who ultimately have the option of turning off their PCs.

It is understandable that wikipedians who feel wronged take it personally, it is not understandable why anyone else should care much.

My regret is that people with obvious tenacity and popularity like Giano, who have skills in making people listen to them, seldom or never turn their energies towards things that might matter to people outside the cult circle.


This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Peter Damian]

The soap opera stuff, which is mainly about the power-politics of the Role-Playing wikipedia are just one massive distraction. I mean, who outside the bubble should care about FT2's attitude to animals, whether his edits were oversighted, or whether Lar did or didn't tell his wife about Slim's friend? It's all horseshit that concerns egos, personalties and pride of people who ultimately have the option of turning off their PCs.

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. This group persistently bullied and tag-teamed against numerous editors who wanted an impartial view of the subject. Precisely the same issue applies to the Pederasty articles, and to [[Ayn Rand]] and Sociology, junk science and all the rest. I have been campaigning about this for a long time in case you hadn't noticed. See my articles here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FLAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TABOO

So while it also has plenty to do with power-politics, namely the fact that a person like FT2 with his advocacy for not one but two partisan fringe groups (the other being NLP), there is an issue of principle here. How does Wikipedia protect itself from fringe groups infiltrating its power structure and taking control? Any thoughts in your head, Doc. No, I thought not.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[FT2]

The email in question about 'activists' was sent to WJBScribe and Glen Berry in a moment of anger. Only one outside site was actually contacted, and within a day the entire thread had been removed at my request.

Sorry Damian, don't believe you. Not one significant thing you have said about your actions of December from then till now has been truthful.

• 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?
• 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"?
• Please reconcile this at RFAR ("I don't recall any allegations about a cult (this was another editor)") with this ("He is an adherent of the NLP cult, and a large number of the people who supported him at the election are either NLP, or other cults, or members of, er, certain fringe sexuality groups"). Then scan the list and indicate which are the "large number" of users who are "cultists" or "members of". How many do you think would be a "large number"? 40? 80?
• 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?
• Please reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your prior claim to have already contacted "organizations" plural. You were also 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 certainly multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

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.

They were not cowardly. No one knows who FT2 is, even now, whereas my identity could be worked out from my (then) user name.

You identified yourself as "Americanlinguist". A wide range of people (wiki and real-world) know who I am too, why wouldn't they? I'm not paranoid, just realistic that some people are not safe to give personal information to. A lot of others since I started editing have mine too.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Doc glasgow]

The soap opera stuff, which is mainly about the power-politics of the Role-Playing wikipedia are just one massive distraction. I mean, who outside the bubble should care about FT2's attitude to animals, whether his edits were oversighted, or whether Lar did or didn't tell his wife about Slim's friend? It's all horseshit that concerns egos, personalties and pride of people who ultimately have the option of turning off their PCs.

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. This group persistently bullied and tag-teamed against numerous editors who wanted an impartial view of the subject. Precisely the same issue applies to the Pederasty articles, and to [[Ayn Rand]] and Sociology, junk science and all the rest. I have been campaigning about this for a long time in case you hadn't noticed. See my articles here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FLAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TABOO

So while it also has plenty to do with power-politics, namely the fact that a person like FT2 with his advocacy for not one but two partisan fringe groups (the other being NLP), there is an issue of principle here. How does Wikipedia protect itself from fringe groups infiltrating its power structure and taking control? Any thoughts in your head, Doc. No, I thought not.

Ha!

There's a simple answer to your question: it doesn't, and it structurally can't. Get over it.

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.

[Moulton]

The soap opera stuff, which is mainly about the power-politics of the Role-Playing wikipedia are just one massive distraction. I mean, who outside the bubble should care about FT2's attitude to animals, whether his edits were oversighted, or whether Lar did or didn't tell his wife about Slim's friend? It's all horseshit that concerns egos, personalties and pride of people who ultimately have the option of turning off their PCs.

It is understandable that wikipedians who feel wronged take it personally, it is not understandable why anyone else should care much.

The details of any one episode of the recurring soap opera is probably of little interest to those who have never heard of the characters ensnared in that particular kerfuffle.

What's durable is the abstract structure and the recurring emotional features of the generic soap opera.

What makes sense is to factor out these invariant parameters, because that's the distilled fuel that perpetually drives the drama engine, from one block to the next.

We've mentioned this before, so it's not exactly a new pheromeme, but perhaps another random observer will awaken on this episode.

Narcissistic Wounding and Narcissistic Rage are staple elements of these banal soap operas. One can find copious examples of these bloody dramas going all the way back to Cain and Abel. And one can find modern analyses of these shreklisch dramas ever since Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote the first realistic novels to insightfully caricature these perennially dysfunctional communities.

[tarantino]

I mean, who outside the bubble should care about FT2's attitude to animals, whether his edits were oversighted, or whether Lar did or didn't tell his wife about Slim's friend? It's all horseshit that concerns egos, personalties and pride of people who ultimately have the option of turning off their PCs.

The unspoken history behind the Lar/Slim affair illustrates the failures of WMF's governors much better than this FT2 episode. It should be told some day.

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't follow these dramas with anything other than a passing interest. But it I see repeatedly the statement "I'm not saying you are..." and on the other side "...are you saying I committed some crime?" Seems the door is well opened* so I wonder, has FT2 ever said whether he has engaged in sexual activity with animals (not the human kind that is)?

* Please no puns about closing the barn door after the horse...

[dtobias]

Just say Neigh to horses!

[wikiwhistle]

I don't follow these dramas with anything other than a passing interest. But it I see repeatedly the statement "I'm not saying you are..." and on the other side "...are you saying I committed some crime?" Seems the door is well opened* so I wonder, has FT2 ever said whether he has engaged in sexual activity with animals (not the human kind that is)?

Well even if he was, he wouldn't, would he? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Not even a full time zoophiliac would come on an unrelated site and say "say it loud, I'm a sheep sh*gger and proud" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) I think it's technically a crime, for a start.

[Docknell]

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?

Hi FT2

Talking about fanatics and what they do to push their point, can you clear this one up for me? I know some may paint me as a fanatic for rooting out your dodgy editing and weird fringe arguments, but this seems relevant to a lot of your patterns of behaviour on WP and WR.


Here is a snapshot of you (using a sockpuppet), to remove negative press (BBC news in this case) about zoophilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=25718121

You moved it to zoosadism, however the actual article states very clearly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/741856.stm

"Dr Vizard says bestiality and zoophilia can also be signposts in a child's progression to other sexual crimes. "

Now I know you did not get blocked by Bishonen for adding that information to WP. But since we are on the subject of fanaticism, could you please explain why so many of your activities, edits, and proclamations follow this sort of pattern?

Docknell

This post has been edited by Docknell:

[FT2]

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

Live and learn. Unless you're a sociopathic jerk who could care less.

A few drama-dealers cut the actual pharma products with cheap toxic household chemicals of salacious innuendo, then passed them out on the wiki-street as valuable and informative to people who took their word on it. And who cares who gets hurt because drugs.... are... such... fuuuun. Yeah.

This has shown all the ethics of the entrenched narcotics dealer: "who cares as long as I get my rake-off". The morality of the mob. And the back-pedaling is about as transparent as an Enron board-room meeting...... or a fetishist's saranwrap.

I'll admit I underestimated the need to defend myself. I thought it was all too inanely stupid and chose quiet dignity instead. "Let them go and they'll let you go", or "Don't react and they'll tire of it". It was quiet on-wiki and there's no reason to import dramas into the project. I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I? It wasn't dignity, but punch-bag, that I created. But nothing that I underestimated, nothing, holds a candle to the willing urge of some to have a party on tenuous grounds at others' expense -- or to wittingly or unwittingly endorse malicious hearsay for kicks. Mock my wordiness if you must, but I tell you this, I never considered hearsay and preconceptions, and I considered every arbitration case in full recognition that it would impact real people and each had the best I could give.

[that one guy]

>_<

Drama extends over here.

[Docknell]

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

Live and learn. Unless you're a sociopathic jerk who could care less.

A few drama-dealers cut the actual pharma products with cheap toxic household chemicals of salacious innuendo, then passed them out on the wiki-street as valuable and informative to people who took their word on it. And who cares who gets hurt because drugs.... are... such... fuuuun. Yeah.

This has shown all the ethics of the entrenched narcotics dealer: "who cares as long as I get my rake-off". The morality of the mob. And the back-pedaling is about as transparent as an Enron board-room meeting...... or a fetishist's saranwrap.

I'll admit I underestimated the need to defend myself. I thought it was all too inanely stupid and chose quiet dignity instead. "Let them go and they'll let you go", or "Don't react and they'll tire of it". It was quiet on-wiki and there's no reason to import dramas into the project. I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I? It wasn't dignity, but punch-bag, that I created. But nothing that I underestimated, nothing, holds a candle to the willing urge of some to have a party on tenuous grounds at others' expense -- or to wittingly or unwittingly endorse malicious hearsay for kicks. Mock my wordiness if you must, but I tell you this, I never considered hearsay and preconceptions, and I considered every arbitration case in full recognition that it would impact real people and each had the best I could give.

OK nice bit of drama there FT2.

Could you please try to reconcile what you just said with your past actions in writing this (its mostly your piece of work) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

When you first came here, you accused me of being one of the people on that list you conflated. Anyone can access this information and check up on the diffs.

For the most part, the diffs seem to show editors working towards clarifying the NLP and the zoophilia articles with strong reference to peer reviewed studies and NOPV policies. They also seem to be avoiding defending themselves against your accusations.

They avoid defending themselves, just as you claim to have done, and at the same time they are getting blocked and banned left right and center. If you didn't "learn" from your own actions and accusations, then you would have to be utterly braindamaged. Basically, in light of your diffs, what you just wrote is utterly unbelievable.

There are also some really obvious outlandish accusations from yourself there, where you take totally unrelated personal attack accounts (different parts of the world according to the ip numbers) and try to associate them with critics of zoophilia and neurolinguistic programming.

So it seems quite odd that you now throw claims of people spreading malicious hearsay and of you being ignorant and naive of behaviour at WP. You are indeed your own worst enemy. Your little drama just backfired on itself and clearly shows how sociopathic you are as an editor and admin.

Docknell

[FT2]

Hi FT2
(Snip)
Docknell

I know why I'm not the world's most popular admin, and that's fine, it's part of Arbcom. But I seem to need a bit of a hint, why you're one of the most despised POV warriors from 2005-2007 to be banned from Wikipedia. Remind me again, will you?

Not one user back then had a single good word to say for you, even the ones who usually like drama. Epithets like "the most dishonest editor" were used more than a few times to describe your many pov war socks and personal attack socks. You rarely if ever argued except to sew divisions and dissent, or to cause pain to the users who got in the way of your games. But despite 3 years of effort, you never did find how to push my buttons, did you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Your sole interest here at WR hasn't changed from your interest at WP 2006, when I first removed you from the wiki, on guess what topics... NLP and zoophilia. And retaliation games. What a surprise. You pushed the same boring line to DPeterson (banned), Jean Mercer (rejected the invitation to edit war for you), some guy whose post is on-wiki a year or so ago, and Damian. Finally you found someone who needed a Master and off he went, "Yes Master... Must Trust Master".... Tolkein would have been proud.

You have never said anything except to stir problems for the project. You were already sanctioned at Arbcom before we met. I've kept you off your pet subjects for 3 years now, and doesn't it just gall you. If you like sadomasochism, flog Damian a bit. He likes it.

FT2

This post has been edited by FT2:

[tarantino]

I won't comment on the substance of all the arguments presented, but FT2 I think your reaction is refreshing and is something that should have happened a long time ago.

As you say, live and learn.

[FT2]

>_<

Drama extends over here.

Quite. And don't I just know it... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nuke.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

This post has been edited by FT2:

[everyking]

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

People who want to be administrators on one of the most important websites in the world need to behave like serious adults. They don't actually need to be serious adults, but they need to act like it on Wikipedia. Bishonen has always had an obnoxious predilection for this kind of junk--I still remember her "European toilet paper holder" stunt--but exercising admin powers through a joke account far exceeds the limits of what should be tolerated.

[Somey]

...exercising admin powers through a joke account far exceeds the limits of what should be tolerated.

Y'know, James, you're absolutely right - or at least, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. That is a disrespectful and arrogant thing to do. Unfortunately, on the list of things that are wrong with Wikipedia, that one's probably on Page 6 or so, along with "failing to remove AFD tags from kept articles in an expeditious manner" and "visually distracting sig templates."

I don't suppose we can all just concede the point, and maybe not worry about it quite so much for a while?

I'll admit I underestimated the need to defend myself. I thought it was all too inanely stupid and chose quiet dignity instead. "Let them go and they'll let you go", or "Don't react and they'll tire of it". It was quiet on-wiki and there's no reason to import dramas into the project. I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I? It wasn't dignity, but punch-bag, that I created.

Indeed, I'm afraid so. Another example of applying real-world standards to the interwebs, I'm afraid. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Lar]

People who want to be administrators on one of the most important websites in the world need to behave like serious adults. They don't actually need to be serious adults, but they need to act like it on Wikipedia. Bishonen has always had an obnoxious predilection for this kind of junk--I still remember her "European toilet paper holder" stunt--but exercising admin powers through a joke account far exceeds the limits of what should be tolerated.

Damn straight!
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/I_IZ_SERIUS_ADMNIM_THIZ_IZ_SERIUS_BIZNIS_lolcat.jpg/250px-I%20IZ%20SERIUS%20ADMNIM%20THIZ%20IZ%20SERIUS%20BIZNIS%20lolcat.jpg)

[Docknell]

Hi FT2
(Snip)
Docknell

I know why I'm not the world's most popular admin, and that's fine, it's part of Arbcom. But I seem to need a bit of a hint, why you're one of the most despised POV warriors from 2005-2007 to be banned from Wikipedia. Remind me again, will you?

Not one user back then had a single good word to say for you, even the ones who usually like drama. Epithets like "the most dishonest editor" were used more than a few times to describe your many pov war socks and personal attack socks. You rarely if ever argued except to sew divisions and dissent, or to cause pain to the users who got in the way of your games. But despite 3 years of effort, you never did find how to push my buttons, did you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Your sole interest here at WR hasn't changed from your interest at WP 2006, when I first removed you from the wiki, on guess what topics... NLP and zoophilia. And retaliation games. What a surprise. You pushed the same boring line to DPeterson (banned), Jean Mercer (rejected the invitation to edit war for you), some guy whose post is on-wiki a year or so ago, and Damian. Finally you found someone who needed a Master and off he went, "Yes Master... Must Trust Master".... Tolkein would have been proud.

You have never said anything except to stir problems for the project. You were already sanctioned at Arbcom before we met. I've kept you off your pet subjects for 3 years now, and doesn't it just gall you. If you like sadomasochism, flog Damian a bit. He likes it.

FT2

Come now FT2. Its a simple question (that you snipped). Please clear this up for me:


You seem to have written the most disgraceful fringe POV protection article on the face of WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

Now you try to claim ignorance on what goes on at WP.

You run a fringe POV pushing sockpuppet and then ditch it when you get close to your first request for adminship

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=27742611

Now that seems to follow a similar pattern of corruption with your fully fledged go at trying to gain power.



I'm not a despised person at all: According to your neurolinguistic programming/zoophilia protection page you seem to want to include just about anyone critical of those subjects into your fire and brimstone rant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

According to your "formal documentation" above, anyone who criticizes your belief systems (coincidence?), regardless of how much useful editing they produce, can be damned to hell and despised.

The reason you get flack and get discredited, is because you have proven yourself to be utterly discreditable. Anyone can do it. They only have to look at the diffs.

Its nice to see non-promotional editors on said fringe subjects have stopped getting summarily dismissed from WP at last or dissuaded from editing the article. Again, I'm not optimistic about WP at all, but its refreshing to see at least something getting sorted out right. e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264228694



Could you manage to actually deal with the sticky subject of your sockpuppet's fringe pushing diffs now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=25825503

Docknell

[Giano]

Bishonen has always had an obnoxious predilection for this kind of junk--I still remember her "European toilet paper holder" stunt--but exercising admin powers through a joke account far exceeds the limits of what should be tolerated.

I always thought European Toilet Paper Holder was quite funny, very funny in fact. Oh well no accounting for taste! Don't forget Bishonen was the one,who by blocking FT2, brought this matter to a head and sorted. Everyone, including FT2, should be thanking her. I'm glad FT2 is taking this opportunity (albeit slowly) to finaly give some answers. I don't see much "dignity" in remaining silent while one is pilloried as the worst kind of pervert. I've a feeling he doesn't either now.

No one will ever be happy with all his answers, or beleive them, but at least by giving them people have a choice about what to beleive - before they had no choice but to assume his silence meant it must be true. Personally, I don't think he is as bad as he's been painted, any more than a doctor interested in VD must be a syphlitic habititual user of tarts.

Giano

This post has been edited by Giano:

[Kato]

I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I?

Yes.

But a year on from Jimbo vs Rachel Marsden - and two years on from Essjay - and three years on from etc... etc... - one would have imagined that a long term editor who has reached the lofty heights of the Arbitration Committee would have figured that out by now.

When the Co-founder of the Project and the Visual Talisman is himself constantly embroiled in personal drama - you should get an idea what you have let yourself in for when you supported his hive. Wikipedia is a drama engine - a defamation machine etc etc. Most of the Drones, the Worker Bees and even the Queens that support it discover that in the end.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a drama engine - a defamation machine etc etc. Most of the Drones, the Worker Bees and even the Queens that support it discover that in the end.

One of the ironies of dramaturgy is that a characteristic reckoned as the greatest weakness is also the greatest strength.

Wikipedia excels as a drama engine. The obvious thing to do is to repurpose the site to be what it already does best.

Just advertise the site as the Internet's premier drama engine, hosting the most enthralling post-modern dramaturgy the Internet has to offer.

[Bottled_Spider]

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"?)
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?
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.
"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.
"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?

Either way it is an honor serving the community, and I bear none ill-will

Mwahaahaahaahaa!

[FT2]

before they had no choice but to assume his silence meant it must be true. Personally, I don't think he is as bad as he's been painted, any more than a doctor interested in VD must be a syphlitic habititual user of tarts.

That, Giano, is the biggest steaming pile I've ever heard you say. "They had no choice". There's always a choice. Many decided not to assume, and not to spread hearsay for kicks. Where were you in that choice? I fucked up on trusting a bit too much, and brought some of the inevitable consequences on myself, I'm not denying it. But what you actually mean is "They found it easier to defer to the crowd's mood and join in the antics". Pack instinct. Lucky there weren't any alleged witches to burn as well, right? Because they "had no choice but to believe"? Not so heroic that way, is it? A bit slimy, though undeniably all too common. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

A number here, to their credit, didn't do that. But what they did was stay silent and let others do so, even knowing it was irresponsible. Makes them as responsible as the first lot.

But a year on from Jimbo vs Rachel Marsden - and two years on from Essjay - and three years on from etc... etc... - one would have imagined that a long term editor who has reached the lofty heights of the Arbitration Committee would have figured that out by now.

I did that because nobody else was trying to sort it out. Idealistic yes. Also prepared to back that with sleeves rolled up and hard work. My choice. What wasn't my choice was a crackpot theory that owed more to a cheap well-thumbed stroke-book and gullibility than anything else -- and an entire site willing to collectively lap it up and spread it on. That's what I figured wrong, isn't it? Ignoring would have worked with Damian alone, or Damian and a couple of others. It was the mass buy-in to his wet dream that I didn't allow for, right Kato? Not Damian himself.

[Moulton]

What wasn't my choice was a crackpot theory that owed more to a cheap well-thumbed stroke-book and gullibility than anything else -- and an entire site willing to collectively lap it up and spread it on.

This is precisely where I came into this horror show. But when I came in (back in August 2007), the subject wasn't FT2. Nope, nope, nope. When I came in, the subject was a hundred sincere scientists about whom IDCab had concocted and published a notorious crackpot theory, unsupported by a shred of evidence.

The practice of concocting and propagandizing crackpot theories about living persons (be they subjects of BLPs or Wikipedia's own remarkable cast of characters) is a ubiquitous practice in the Wikisphere.

It's a practice I railed against (as Kato can attest) and it's a practice that Jimbo personally reified when he intervened to site-ban me with extreme prejudice for having the temerity to take up arms against the blood-thirsty witch-hunting cabal.

So, as they say, what goes around comes around.

I'm sorry to see it happen to anyone, friend or foe.

And now I hope FT2 will join the movement to put an end to these damnable scapegoat dramas.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[GlassBeadGame]

But a year on from Jimbo vs Rachel Marsden - and two years on from Essjay - and three years on from etc... etc... - one would have imagined that a long term editor who has reached the lofty heights of the Arbitration Committee would have figured that out by now.

I did that because nobody else was trying to sort it out. Idealistic yes. Also prepared to back that with sleeves rolled up and hard work. My choice. What wasn't my choice was a crackpot theory that owed more to a cheap well-thumbed stroke-book and gullibility than anything else -- and an entire site willing to collectively lap it up and spread it on. That's what I figured wrong, isn't it? Ignoring would have worked with Damian alone, or Damian and a couple of others. It was the mass buy-in to his wet dream that I didn't allow for, right Kato? Not Damian himself.

What is most disturbing about your advocacy for at least tolerance of the view that sex with animals is under certain circumstances non-exploitative and perhaps in some sense a normal state of affairs is that it almost exactly parallels Erick Mueller's documented views that sex with children under certain circumstances is also non-exploitative and a normal state of affairs. The "Yuck" factor alone is deserving of closer scrutiny of the nature of people in positions of high authority on Wikipedia. Add to this Wikipedia's refusal to take any reasonable steps to apply child protective features or policies to the site, which has a huge level of participation and use by children and you have a very serious criticism of the site.

Maybe you think your views about sex with animals deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia in which adults of any sexual proclivities work side by side with children but I think not.

I'm also completely at a loss to understand whatever rage you have against Peter and why you are expressing this in vague sexual terms. It certainly makes me less willing to treat you with kid gloves concerning your views about sex with animals.

[FT2]

What is most disturbing about your advocacy for at least tolerance of the view that sex with animals is under certain circumstances non-exploitative and perhaps in some sense a normal state of affairs is that it almost exactly parallels Erick Mueller's documented views that sex with children under certain circumstances is also non-exploitative and a normal state of affairs. The "Yuck" factor alone is deserving of closer scrutiny of the nature of people in positions of high authority on Wikipedia. Add to this Wikipedia's refusal to take any reasonable steps to apply child protective features or policies to the site, which has a huge level of participation and use by children and you have a very serious criticism of the site.

Maybe you think your views about sex with animals deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia in which adults of any sexual proclivities work side by side with children but I think not.

I'm also completely at a loss to understand whatever rage you have against Peter and why you are expressing this in vague sexual terms. It certainly makes me less willing to treat you with kid gloves concerning your views about sex with animals.

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller? And of course "OMG THE CHILDREN"! And that's your concern? I nearly wrote a book on this and other forms of abuse, to identify for those who care, what's accurate and what's not. It doesn't make me an expert, it doesn't mean sympathy for abusers, it does mean that inaccurate hearsay does untold harm. Here's some examples:

Suppose in your self-righteousness, you go and write an article on a form of abuse, just the way you think it should be. Damn them all, cut their nuts off, full steam ahead on all preconceptions and hide anything that's known, that challenges that view. Trouble is... people who need to know the current state of research get misled. People dealing with it for real will lack access to current knowledge. "Everyone knows" is pernicious and evil compared to actual careful checking of knowledge. In your own way, you're abusing as much as any. Imagine if we allowed the article on rape to read that all men are evil and will rape women as soon as look at them. Or the article on drug abuse read that everyone who has just one toke will graduate to heroin. What about the article on homosexuality - "everyone knows" homosexuals groom children, right? 50 years ago that was exactly the state of common belief. And you'd have been right there railing for it. Not perfect arguments, but you get the point. "If we make dope even slightly less than evil then people might try it!" "If we tell kids about homosexuality maybe they'll grow up gay!" Would that genuinely help people who might look to an encyclopedia for current knowledge?

I'm sorry that research doesn't tally with your personal preconceptions. It didn't tally with mine. You think I expected to find that? But I checked - apparently a damn sight more carefully than you choose to. Go off and complain to the researchers and authorities in the field if their view doesn't work for you. Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?). There are papers that emphasize well the connection of animal and human abuse, to a shocking standard. But the view of the field is that their research for various reasons is not authoritative, nor well informed, about the topic of zoophilia generally, as opposed to abuse. If for you those are the same, then rest assured for most of the authoritative voices on the topic within science, they usually aren't. The voices of the field are not "fringe", nor minimal, but as best I can tell, the voice of every serious research in the topic since proper research started in the mid 90's. It surprised me, and I checked that out for myself. But if that's how it stands, then that's how it stands. I dealt with it. You might have to.

Go look at the article in 2004. A bit of definitions, a bit of porn, a bit of law, a bit of myth. Information for a parent, or a person distressed at their own fantasies? For researchers? Anything at all about the human beings or (in sad cases) the victims? Any useful data at all? Not a shred. I looked at Wikipedia for information when I heard of the site, there wasn't any, so I ended up adding a bit. So shoot me. What I added was well within common knowledge on the topic (for those who have done the research), and was cited on the talk page when asked ("ref" tags didn't exist back then but the obligation to write factually only was evident). Do many newcomers meet that standard on their first edits? I then pretty much dropped the topic unless it came up on my watchlist.

My next edit was 4 months later, as a result of issues identified during an edit war. You know how that goes: "damn, this does have issues, lets fix it". I haven't touched the article in any significant way for close to 2 years or more. Other early editors included Herschelkrustofsky, Zordrac, Mindspillage, Tony Sidaway, ... some seriously, some only in passing; all obviously suspect too, I guess. You don't like the topic? Nobody asked you to. I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Peter Damian]

So let's start:

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skoppensboer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ation/Zoophilia

[GlassBeadGame]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller? And that's your concern? I nearly wrote a book on this and other forms of abuse, to identify for those who care, what's accurate and what's not. It doesn't make me an expert, it doesn't mean sympathy for abusers, it does mean that inaccurate hearsay does untold harm. Here's some examples:

Suppose in your self-righteousness, you go and write an article on a form of abuse, just the way you think it should be. Damn them all, cut their nuts off, full steam ahead on all preconceptions and hide anything that's known, that challenges that view. Trouble is... people who need to know the current state of research get misled. People dealing with it for real will lack access to current knowledge. "Everyone knows" is pernicious and evil compared to actual careful checking of knowledge. In your own way, you're abusing as much as any. Imagine if we allowed the article on rape to read that all men are evil and will rape women as soon as look at them. Or the article on drug abuse read that everyone who has just one toke will graduate to heroin. What about the article on homosexuality - "everyone knows" homosexuals groom children, right? 50 years ago that was exactly the state of common belief. And you'd have been right there railing for it. Not perfect arguments, but you get the point. "If we make dope even slightly less than evil then people might try it!" "If we tell kids about homosexuality maybe they'll grow up gay!" Would that genuinely help people who might look to an encyclopedia for current knowledge?

I'm sorry that research doesn't tally with your personal preconceptions. It didn't tally with mine. You think I expected to find that? But I checked - apparently a damn sight more carefully than you choose to. Go off and complain to the researchers and authorities in the field if their view doesn't work for you. There are papers that emphasize well the connection of animal and human abuse, to a shocking standard. But the view of the field is that their research for various reasons is not authoritative, nor well informed, about the topic of zoophilia generally, as opposed to abuse. If for you those are the same, then rest assured for most of the authoritative voices on the topic within science, they usually aren't. The voices of the field are not "fringe", nor minimal, but as best I can tell, the voice of every serious research in the topic since proper research started in the mid 90's. It surprised me, and I checked that out for myself. But if that's how it stands, then that's how it stands. I dealt with it. You might have to.

Go look at the article in 2004. A bit of definitions, a bit of porn, a bit of law, a bit of myth. Information for a parent or a person distressed at their own fantasies? For researchers? Anything at all about the human beings or (in sad cases) the victims? Any useful data at all? Not a shred. I looked at Wikipedia for information when I heard of the site, there wasn't any, so I ended up adding a bit. So shoot me. What I added was well within common knowledge on the topic (for those who have done the research), and was cited on the talk page when asked ("ref" tags didn't exist back then but the obligation to write factually only was evident). Do many newcomers meet that standard on their first edits? I then pretty much dropped the topic unless it came up on my watchlist.

My next edit was 4 months later, as a result of issues identified during an edit war. You know how that goes: "damn, this does have issues, lets fix it". I haven't touched the article in any significant way for close to 2 years or more. Other early editors included Herschelkrustofsky, Zordrac, Mindspillage, Tony Sidaway, ... some seriously, some only in passing; all obviously suspect too, I guess. You don't like the topic? Nobody asked you to. I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

The world does not need your amateur "scholarship" on the matter of sex with animals nor certainly not "Zordrac's" for that matter. I don't ask you to "improve" it. I don't wish to dialog with you about the content. You are not the giver of enlightenment on this matter. I am most concerned about the article, noted by Peter, that you linked from your user space. It is a direct parallel to "Muellerism" in respect to his views on sex with children. It ignores any notion of "position of trust" and says "no pain no foul." At least provide, and advocate for the use of parental controls to put your nonsense beyond the reach of at least some children.

Better still get off the internet until you can learn some editorial restraint.


Note: I refer above to this link, which was provided by wikiwhistle not Peter.

[wikiwhistle]

before they had no choice but to assume his silence meant it must be true. Personally, I don't think he is as bad as he's been painted, any more than a doctor interested in VD must be a syphlitic habititual user of tarts.

Not quite, IMHO. A professional interest doesn't look like this. How many people would have this 'zoophilia is romantic or harmless' POV?

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Peter Damian]

You [FT2] make numerous comments with no published proof to back you up, or you use the lack of research as proof that no problem exists, which is nonsense. Many of your comments are simply your own feelings or intuitive insights, as you see them, into this subject. Without wishing to be unkind, I do find your arguments mostly lack merit scientifically and even logically. Please don't take it personally. But if your main contribution to this effort is to plead for as little as possible to be said on the grounds of your convictions that there is minimal risk, you are wasting your time. And I really don't want to waste any more of my valuable time going over the issue of risk (is there? isn't there?) with you any further. Skoppensboer 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[...]
As I said, FT2, you really are not well versed in this area and perhaps you should get a medical person or epidemiologist to debate this with me. The simple fact is that many humans illnesses can and do originate in other animals, and are therefore zoonoses, and these zoonoses are far more likely to infect people who are sexually intimate with infected animals than people who have no contact with infected animals, and their risk is at least as high as the known-to-be-elevated risk of those who own, farm, breed, kennel, slaughter or otherwise deal with infected animals. Skoppensboer 07:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032

[FT2]

The world does not need your amateur "scholarship" on the matter of sex with animals nor certainly not "Zordrac's" for that matter.

Well there goes Wikipedia... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I don't ask you to "improve" it. I don't wish to dialog with you about the content.

Then don't raise the topic.

At least provide, and advocate for the use of parental controls to put your nonsense [emphasis added] beyond the reach of at least some children.

Better still get off the internet until you can learn some editorial restraint.

You love personalizing it. That's your current tack. "Your" views, "your" nonsense". You're entitled to your view on what's valid content. My view (as a 2004 newcomer) was if we have an encyclopedia, and it has an article, and the public are invited to add missing knowledge, let that article be useful to researchers seeking information. My 2009 view is that "not censored" is right, for many reasons.

Presumably you'll edit conservapedia then, or encarta, and we'll put all the dangerous knowledge on a separate website with age verification only. Sex education to start at 16, and no mention of anything except missionary position and heterosexuality, to upset them. Are you living in the real world here?

[Moulton]

How about some education on due process, civil rights, scholarly ethics, and the scientific method?

[GlassBeadGame]

The world does not need your amateur "scholarship" on the matter of sex with animals nor certainly not "Zordrac's" for that matter.

Well there goes Wikipedia... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I don't ask you to "improve" it. I don't wish to dialog with you about the content.

Then don't raise the topic.

At least provide, and advocate for the use of parental controls to put your nonsense [emphasis added] beyond the reach of at least some children.

Better still get off the internet until you can learn some editorial restraint.

You love personalizing it. That's your current tack. "Your" views, "your" nonsense". You're entitled to your view on what's valid content. My view (as a 2004 newcomer) was if we have an encyclopedia, and it has an article, and the public are invited to add missing knowledge, let that article be useful to researchers seeking information. My 2009 view is that "not censored" is right, for many reasons.

Presumably you'll edit conservapedia then, or encarta, and we'll put all the dangerous knowledge on a separate website with age verification only. Sex education to start at 16, and no mention of anything except missionary position and heterosexuality, to upset them. Are you living in the real world here?

I am not surprised you cannot imagine positions outside libertarian Wikipedia and right wing Conservapedia. You are narrow and arrogant in your world view. You are not capable of doing a suitable job of providing information to children. You have no sense of limits or boundaries. You are usurping parental, even medical roles with wanton disregard and irresponsibility.

This material is on one of your own user pages. That seems like an endorsement of the content to me. Go back and hide in the drivel of atomized and annon content creation if you want.

[FT2]

(Snip) Skoppensboer (Snip)

You read rather selectively didn't you. This was the guy who tried to exaggerate statistics, his dialog repeatedly needing to be corrected due to "shock" wording and original research, whose editing was influenced by personal views enough to have invented facts without checking them, and who was so far removed from practical concerns to write that "The fact that animals do not carry human STDs is not worthy of mention". Tell that to some poor fool who tries, and can't ask anyone else about their fears. Still, we got a good informational article from it, that I haven't edited since, and which seems to be fairly balanced, so it worked out okay. The user you're citing stated of our combined work (1 2):

"If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic... exclusively and in such depth. I believe it may be unique. That is surely an achievement. Article now submitted for peer review, and comments received" - Skoppensboer

He finally concluded:

"I see you've been busy, and I like the solution... In the light of our co-operation on this page, it may be best to drop the dispute...."

Complaints? Or job well done?

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Cedric]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller?

[ . . . yada, yada, yada . . . ]

I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

Keep digging. There's got to be a pony in there somewhere!

[Moulton]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller?

[ . . . yada, yada, yada . . . ]

I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

Keep digging. There's got to be a pony in there somewhere!

That beast looks more like a goat to me...

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/TheScapegoat-WilliamHolmanHunt.jpg)

The Scapegoat - William Holman Hunt

[Peter Damian]

(Snip) Skoppensboer (Snip)

You read rather selectively didn't you. This was the guy who tried to exaggerate statistics, his dialog repeatedly needing to be corrected due to "shock" wording and original research,

Still, we got a good informational article from it, that I haven't edited since, and which seems to be fairly balanced, so it worked out okay. The user you're citing stated of our combined work (1 2):

"If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic... exclusively and in such depth. I believe it may be unique. That is surely an achievement. Article now submitted for peer review, and comments received" - Skoppensboer

He finally concluded:

"I see you've been busy, and I like the solution... In the light of our co-operation on this page, it may be best to drop the dispute...."

Complaints? Or job well done?

Not 'finally'. Do you really believe all this crap you write? The edit you link to is dated Dec 2006. But in June 2007 you edit war with him again. Perhaps you 'forgot' about that?

FT2, the points you make do not refute the point I made. If you disagree with me, I suggest you ask someone who is a true medical or psychological expert for comment. In the last decade, there has been a big swing towards evidence-based medicine (please read that wikipage). Under the new regime, much of the preceding research is inadequate, and not only in this area -- far from it! The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant. Much higher standards now apply for the publication of research, especially in august and pre-eminent journals. I think your understanding of this point is seriously flawed, especially when you point to journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology. This is not a recognised journal. It is not indexed by Medline and is not formally recognized in the fields of medicine or psychology. And lastly, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. From the journal's own website [1] we see they state: "Each issue contains (non-refereed) articles on topics related to the human-animal relationship, interviews with key figures in the field, book announcements, conference news and so forth." Skopp (Talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141138027

On your claim that he tried to exaggerate statistics, I have read his work and I know whose version I prefer.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[FT2]

I am not surprised you cannot imagine positions outside libertarian Wikipedia and right wing Conservapedia. You are narrow and arrogant in your world view. You are not capable of doing a suitable job of providing information to children. You have no sense of limits or boundaries. You are usurping parental, even medical roles with wanton disregard and irresponsibility.

This material is on one of your own user pages. That seems like an endorsement of the content to me. Go back and hide in the drivel of atomized and annon content creation if you want.

It's always good to be told what I can imagine, by someone who's themself unable to imagine much beyond what the pulp media feeds them. Restores one's faith in human nature. It's easier to criticize than do anything about it, right?

That narrowness has written articles on everything from technology to history, movie plots to politics, human rights to law. It's been the one arbitrator to share and take so seriously the concerns many here had on BLP and spidering of "bad content on living people" when the chance arose. It's been a punchbag in order to avoid importing drama to the wiki, a decision I now see was well intentioned but completely mistaken. Bad mistake, eh?

As to the draft you mention, untouched since mid-2006, it's still in userspace - I got bored of it, moved on to other topics, or wasn't satisfied with it. Your "seems like" carries little weight; you've not been capable of distinguishing "writing about" from advocacy. Two short posts above; you couldn't avoid completely gratuitous personal assumption and OMG CHILDREN in either. "OH NOES!" I may go back to it some day, but I don't seem to like lingering in any given topic area too long. While you're waiting, consider the article on absorbent cotton (UK:"cotton wool"), which you can use either to block your ears -- or to smother provide protection for your children. While you watch "nice" tv, play games on the internets where children never go to sites other than disney, and share KM's popcorn. Your bleating "OMG KIDS!" and arguing for pulp belief, and explicitly objecting to having "scholarly encyclopedic coverage" (as you put it) is a bad idea that rarely works. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Peter Damian]

Flavius (NLP but illustrates my point that FT2 fails to understand the concept of reliable sources).

I've noticed also that FT2 is automatically accusing everyone that offers a critical view of being Headley Down. I've no intention of editing the NLP article (even though I could easily do so with the abundance of closed/private HTTP proxy servers around the world) and I ask only that this post remain in the discussion page to offset the self-righteous propaganda that FT2 has been spreading.

On reflection it was a case of "too many cooks" and this did not serve the interests of producing a good article. The problem now is that in the absence of any critical opinion (or its relgation to the sidelines) the article risks becoming a promotional "puff piece" for the NLP industry. I'm not offering myself as the antidote nor am I campaigning for the return of Headley Down. That notwithstanding both I and Headley and his/her many personas helped to "keep the bastards honest" (to quote the late Don Chipp). In my view Comaze and GregA were the best of the pro-NLP editors even though I feel that their commercial interests in NLP are skewing some of their views (but this is normal, we all have biases). Having Comaze and GregA edit the article doesn't alarm me. In my experience both had some understanding and appreciation of the notion of evidence and were quite clear thinkers. I don't feel I can extend the same assessment to FT2. FT2 carries an idelogical stench whereever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage.
[...]
64.46.47.242 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC) The editor formerly known an Flavius ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=94631169

And this one is perfect:

And BTW yes, this IS pertinent to zoophilia, for just as "bestiality" redirects to this page, so do these acts fall under the "zoophilia" rubric. To deny this shows that you have a political agenda on this page and you should therefore resile from further editorship for the sake of Wikipedia. Skopp (Talk) 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It took a while.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

I am not surprised you cannot imagine positions outside libertarian Wikipedia and right wing Conservapedia. You are narrow and arrogant in your world view. You are not capable of doing a suitable job of providing information to children. You have no sense of limits or boundaries. You are usurping parental, even medical roles with wanton disregard and irresponsibility.

This material is on one of your own user pages. That seems like an endorsement of the content to me. Go back and hide in the drivel of atomized and annon content creation if you want.

It's always good to be told what I can imagine, by someone who's themself unable to imagine much beyond what the pulp media feeds them. Restores one's faith in human nature. It's easier to criticize than do anything about it, right?

That narrowness has written articles on everything from technology to history, movie plots to politics, human rights to law. It's been the one arbitrator to share and take so seriously the concerns many here had on BLP and spidering of "bad content on living people" when the chance arose. It's been a punchbag in order to avoid importing drama to the wiki, a decision I now see was well intentioned but completely mistaken. Bad mistake, eh?

As to the draft you mention, untouched since mid-2006, it's still in userspace - I got bored of it, moved on to other topics, or wasn't satisfied with it. Your "seems like" carries little weight; you've not been capable of distinguishing "writing about" from advocacy. Two short posts above; you couldn't avoid completely gratuitous personal assumption and OMG CHILDREN in either. "OH NOES!" I may go back to it some day, but I don't seem to like lingering in any given topic area too long. While you're waiting, consider the article on absorbent cotton (UK:"cotton wool"), which you can use either to block your ears -- or to smother provide protection for your children. While you watch "nice" tv, play games on the internets where children never go to sites other than disney, and share KM's popcorn. Your bleating "OMG KIDS!" and arguing for pulp belief, and explicitly objecting to having "scholarly encyclopedic coverage" (as you put it) is a bad idea that rarely works. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Self pity and orthodox Wikipedian non-sense. The world doesn't owe you an "encyclopedia."

[FT2]

Flavius...

That's this guy, right?

(Note: Woohoo and Katefan were appointed mentors on Feb 6; neither had any prior involvement. I had taken a break from NLP long before: Dec 1, 2005 - June 5, 2006 with 1 edit in that time.)

It's telling that the only cites you have are Headley and (possibly) editors banned with Headley.

(Snip) Skopp (Talk) 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think how you could make more of a fool of yourself, but it's hard, Damian. The background to this was Skopp's own OR and pov warring - specifically his response to being told to pack in his alarmist exaggerated-style editing, to which he stated "this conversation is about whether or not readers need to know that the expert opinions frequently referenced on the zoophilia page (and related pages) are not published in peer-reviewed journals..." Unfortunately this was a borderline pov warrior with a penchant for exaggeration and fabrication or OR which often had to be corrected.

Really, "poor old Skopp" was roughly the same as "Poor old Seus". Borderline pov warrior with a penchant for exaggeration, fabrication or non-checking for the first; SPA canvasser and open pov warrior for the second. And your third cite, a (banned) crony of Docknell's with a block log as long as your arm by two uninvolved mentors. At least Skopp's strong views contributed to one article and with effort he could collaborate; that's something the other two never did.


Your comment on me at arb election was "Very well-mannered, never rude, always civil. I avoid types like this in real life..." I trust you have an improved view now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Peter Damian]

Flavius...

That's this guy, right?

(Note: Woohoo and Katefan were appointed mentors on Feb 6; neither had any prior involvement. I had taken a break from NLP long before: Dec 1, 2005 - June 5, 2006 with 1 edit in that time.)

It's telling that the only cites you have are Headley and (possibly) editors banned with Headley.

I don't look first at whether someone was banned by you or by a cadre of yours. I look for clear and lucid argument, care with sourcing, a sound and robust understanding of WP:DUE, and (finally) whether they are qualified or not. You look for evidence of rudeness or previous blocks.

Flavius was a fine editor. I have been through practically all his edits, including the ones prompting the blocks that you reference.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

I believe tl;dr is the appropriate modern riposte is it not?

It seems though that FT2 has admitted what we all knew all along - that he wasn't being honest in his time on ArbCom, he was playing a character. All his public pronouncements were examples of exceptionally well-honed linguistic skills of someone trying to act a role of a careful thinker - when all along he's just some bloke with the same foibles (let's assume (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) ) as everyone else.

The trouble is that it always showed - it was an unconvincing act that nobody believed - perhaps not even FT2 himself, as he could never trust himself to talk freely about - well - anything. It doesn't seem the right way to build an encyclopaedia to me.

[FT2]

I don't look first at whether someone was banned by you or by a cadre of yours.
(Snip)
Flavius was a fine editor. I have been through practically all his edits, including the ones prompting the blocks that you reference.

"Mussttt... please.... Masterrr!" goes Damian (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The idea of WooHoo and Katefan (whom you probably never knew) being a "cadre" of any kind, much less of an unknown non-admin, is ludicrous. That, and Flavius being this sort of user.... that refrain of yours is sounding eerily familiar:

"I have made a careful study of all "Headley's" edits and I have made my own independent conclusions"

Yes, and they usually seem to involve allegations of fetishism and scanty clad males with whips and string vests, don't they? I to have serious doubts whenever you try and say you have "thoroughly studied" someone's edits. I doubt your "independent conclusions" took into account that every other editor who "looked" at Headley in depth -- even those strongly into "science" -- decided he was dishonest in the extreme. As indeed you yourself are. Dishonest apologies, dishonest self-defense, dishonest hiding that you knew Headley was your co-editor, dishonest representation of the extent of your defamation, dishonest description how many sites and bodies you contacted, dishonest denial of your allegations, and dishonesty in claiming you'd stopped making them and now regretted it. Your "evidence" when challenged is a post or two by a banned proxy of Docknells and two POV warriors.

Go back to Docknell. This thread's become mental masturbation, and at least in Master's hands you'll be safe - he knows how to spank a monkey properly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nuke.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)


And biscuit - calm is my norm. I'm calm now, and I'll be calm after this thread's done. I just don't usually feel obligated to respond to off-site drama. I prefer a quiet backwater life. I'm annoyed about having to do so now. A year of salacious idiocy and watching it being lapped up by others for kicks, will try any man's patience though. Just "ignoring" had turned out to be a really bad mistake, and it's had more than a fair chance (as has Damian); forget it.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a double bind, FT2. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

And I don't just mean you, personally, FT2.

Wikipedia generally puts everyone in an outrageous, crazy-making double bind.

The outcome, unsurprisingly, is lunatic social drama.

[tarantino]

Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?).

There is a great deal non-scholastic coverage of sexuality, poorly written bios of porn stars, and material that is seemingly there only to pander. For example is it really necessary for an encyclopedia any child can read have an illustrated article on Gokkun, "a genre of Japanese adult video in which a woman consumes copious amounts of semen"? (The illustration was removed just today after being in place for nearly 5 months, but the related article Bukkake (T-H-L-K-D) is still adorned.)

Do you think there should be no age limit on viewing any article or image currently available on Wikipedia? How about editing or administering (and I've seen editors as young as 8 and twelve year old administers) those articles?

The having a no age limit opinion must be the popular one, but I find it untenable. If WP and WMF doesn't change itself, I predict it will be forced to change.

[Bottled_Spider]

This thread's become mental masturbation, and at least in Master's hands you'll be safe - he knows how to spank a monkey properly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nuke.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Oh. Bloody hell. He said ............ he said .............. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?).

There is a great deal non-scholastic coverage of sexuality, poorly written bios of porn stars, and material that is seemingly there only to pander. For example is it really necessary for an encyclopedia any child can read have an illustrated article on Gokkun, "a genre of Japanese adult video in which a woman consumes copious amounts of semen"? (The illustration was removed just today after being in place for nearly 5 months, but the related article Bukkake (T-H-L-K-D) is still adorned.)

Do you think there should be no age limit on viewing any article or image currently available on Wikipedia? How about editing or administering (and I've seen editors as young as 8 and twelve year old administers) those articles?

The having a no age limit opinion must be the popular one, but I find it untenable. If WP and WMF doesn't change itself, I predict it will be forced to change.

What FT2 is incapable of understanding in the concept of editorial restraint. I have never looked up "sex with animal" articles on Britannica, but I am certain if I did I would find either nothing or short definitional pieces without advocacy of any position whatsoever. This is because Britannica is capable of decorum and editorial restraint. Wikipedia would open the floodgates to fringe editors and admins incapable of evaluating the sources that underlie the articles. It then invites children into the discussion. FT2 is comfortable that young people with issues relating to these matters can now turn to his sound scholarship for answers. That is the most outrageous claim of all.

FT2 disengenously, and completely inaccurately lumps me into the ilk of "Conservapedia" and repressive right wing attitudes toward sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he, and many "libertarians" of Wikipedia fail to understand is that there exists a wide social consensus in which they are simply have no part. Right-wingers might at election time mis-characterize liberals as wanting to usurp parents in their relationships with their children. But it is simply not true. Respect for the parental role in providing guidance to children in matters of education, sexuality, individual relationships and community participation cut across such a wide spectrum it cannot be characterized "right" nor "left" but belong what can be better described as the sane and caring adult community. Liberals might be more willing to provide assistance from qualified educators under the guidance of community oversight of school boards but this is meant to help not usurp. A nut job encyclopedia is not better positioned to provide this guidance.

[wikiwhistle]

What FT2 is incapable of understanding in the concept of editorial restraint. I have never looked up "sex with animal" articles on Britannica, but I am certain if I did I would find either nothing or short definitional pieces without advocacy of any position whatsoever. This is because Britannica is capable of decorum and editorial restraint. Wikipedia would open the floodgates to fringe editors and admins incapable of evaluating the sources that underlie the articles. It then invites children into the discussion. FT2 is comfortable that young people with issues relating to these matters can now turn to his sound scholarship for answers. That is the most outrageous claim of all.

FT2 disengenously, and completely inaccurately lumps me into the ilk of "Conservapedia" and repressive right wing attitudes toward sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he, and many "libertarians" of Wikipedia fail to understand is that there exists a wide social consensus in which they are simply have no part. Right-wingers might at election time mis-characterize liberals as wanting to usurp parents in their relationships with their children. But it is simply not true. Respect for the parental role in providing guidance to children in matters of education, sexuality, individual relationships and community participation cut across such a wide spectrum it cannot be characterized "right" nor "left" but belong what can be better described as the sane and caring adult community. Liberals might be more willing to provide assistance from qualified educators under the guidance of community oversight of school boards but this is meant to help not usurp. A nut job encyclopedia is not better positioned to provide this guidance.

The thing is that wikipedia is supposed to represent consensus reality, as you say. The medium of an encyclopedia should be intrinsically conservative in the sense of not a polemic trying to encourage people to believe things they currently don't. Describe the reality that there are fringe views, but not overemphasize their validity/ prevalence. It's not about right or left wing, but consensus reality vs people who chat too much solely within their own subculture, or read things that confirms their view so much that they think those views are the standard ones. And people are being intimidated into not NPOVing those articles due to others having been blocked.

If both Headley Down and Peter Damian have seen a problem with the zoophilia and NLP articles, and so are most of us here, could it be that instead of us or even PD following the lead of Headley Down for reasons of stupidity, desire to pick on FT, or psychological need for a Master, there actually is a problem? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Seems the likeliest thing to me, PD is not thick after all.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Kato]

I prefer a quiet backwater life.

Clearly not.

You worked your way into a leading political position on one of the biggest sites on the internet - and self styled "sum of all human knowledge".

Wikipedios that prefer a quiet backwater life tend to poke around on articles creating content - without incident for the most part.

That doesn't mean you deserve to be accused of things you didn't do or didn't intend to do, but it means you bit off way more than you could chew.

The best course of action is to come to terms with the unsavory beast that is Wikipedia, and stay well away in future. Go away and lead a genuinely quiet backwater life, one that doesn't find you facing accusations published in the Tech Media for starters.

[FT2]

Wikipedia is a double bind, FT2. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And I don't just mean you, personally, FT2.
(Snip)

I don't think it's Wikipedia so much as human nature. It mirrors society, and we can easily imagine if you brought representatives of all society into one confined area with requirements to co-exist. Racists and idealists, capitalists and communists, Tutsis and Hutus, Gazans and Israel military, Muslim extremists and Neocon extremists, ... and a lot of people who belong to no extreme and just have their own stuff, ideals, altruism, or fantasies.

It's society, Moulton. No mystery about it at all.

(Snip)
Do you think there should be no age limit on viewing any article or image currently available on Wikipedia? How about editing or administering (and I've seen editors as young as 8 and twelve year old administers) those articles?
(Snip)

I can see in future, some kind of "age tagging" of articles, possibly linked to parental advisory or net limitation services. That might be sensible, people could have the choice. I'd hate to see that extend to the point where just because a child could read Wikipedia, topics must be deleted or dumbed down. I can think of a few good reasons, and some I find compelling.

The easy reason is the argument from some principle, such as "People should have access to knowledge" or "It's being presented in an adult factual way". It's valid but I'd go for a more pragmatic reason.

20 years ago, people grew up and either didn't hear of adult topics, or their hearing was limited to hearsay from other children or instruction from parents, for the most part anyhow. A topic like sexual fetishes would be a bedroom fantasy, a rumor, a few magazines, or whatever. Not so today. Now the geni's well out of the bottle. I don't believe we'll see censorship on the scale to put it in. That kid who gets told something will go home (or a friends) and look it up, find others, and talk about it. In that environment a different response is needed -- genuine information. Take that away and all they'll find is porn sites, misinformation, others who do it, and polemic "for/against" sites of varying weight and credibility. These days honest openness on knowledge is better.

In the opposite context, a kid who does have some sexual fantasy or private-life crisis and looks it up online may be desperate for actual knowledge. What they will do with it nobody knows (there's probably been people who went on gun rampages after seeing "Bambi"!) but I'm guessing the good done by having valid information is more often than not better than festering self-hate caused through misinformation or censored information. Most teenagers and adults won't go to Bukkake for their anxieties. But they might go to bondage, transvestitism, and any number of other "philias".

For those reasons, Tarantino, I'd say the times have changed. The geni's out of the bottle. If it's not on Wikipedia they won't go back to MTV. They'll click the next Google hit instead... whatever that might be.


Last, Wikipedia's admin standard is simple and egalitarian. I'm broadly happy. If an age limit was introduced and the whole thing tightened up, thats a possibility too. Perennial debate; the acid test is can they do the task responsibly. Obviously some can, most can't. Embarrassed about being told to behave by a competent 12 year old? If they're competent then fine. RFA is a hell of a barrier to pass these days.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a double bind, FT2. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And I don't just mean you, personally, FT2.

I don't think it's Wikipedia so much as human nature. It mirrors society, and we can easily imagine if you brought representatives of all society into one confined area with requirements to co-exist. Racists and idealists, capitalists and communists, Tutsis and Hutus, Gazans and Israel military, Muslim extremists and Neocon extremists, ... and a lot of people who belong to no extreme and just have their own stuff, ideals, altruism, or fantasies.

It's society, Moulton. No mystery about it at all.

It's a dysfunctional society, to be sure.

But it's not inevitable in an organization with visionary leadership.

I had proposed that WMF-sponsored projects operate under the umbrella of a 21st Century Social Contract, adopting Ethical Best Practices as outlined, for example, by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline: The Theory and Practice of the Learning Organiztion.

Other large Open Systems Projects have operated under the Social Contract Model with remarkable success.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller? And of course "OMG THE CHILDREN"! And that's your concern?

Hi FT2, I'd decided not to comment on your resignation here, because you deserve to be allowed to get on with your life, but I'm concerned that you're describing the situation as though none of it was your fault.

First, it's worth stressing that you weren't asked to resign because people believe you have sex with animals, but because you lied twice onwiki about when you first learned about the oversighting, then obfuscated for weeks when people asked you to clarify. The backdrop to it was the OM case, your desire to be finance director of Wikimedia UK without telling the membership anything about yourself, including that you were FT2, and some of the other issues you've been criticized for.

That aside, as you're raising the zoophilia issue yourself, look at the edit of yours that Peter Damian first highlighted, replacing "zoophile" with "pedophile," "animal" with "child," and "human" with "adult." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=4555850

"Lifestyle pedophiles often share some or all of the following common traits: ... Belief that children and adults are not so different in many ways ...</li><li>A sense that adults can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect children and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.</li><li>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 adults, as adult partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)</li><li>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 children because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with children. Either way, pedophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.</li><li>Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find. ..."

And so on.

This is close to the way a pedophile might describe his attraction to children. It's not how a researcher would describe it. There's a degree of empathy or sympathy there, it seems. There's no mention of the human-animal relationship being almost necessarily abusive; no mention of mental illness, personality disturbness, or problems in childhood, issues that (so far as I know) researchers into bestiality would agree (rightly or wrongly) are traits that zoophiles might be expected to exhibit.

I'm not saying this means you're engaged in anything yourself, and maybe you did make those points in other edits. All I'm saying that you can surely understand why someone might be concerned, especially given that these were your very first edits to WP, and that you went on to make 753 edits to the article, and 574 to the talk page. This is more than a passing interest, and it's therefore a legitimate issue to raise when the writer stands for ArbCom. It's unlikely that someone who made that kind of edit to [[Pedophilia]] would be elected. To respond with comments like "OMG, THE CHILDREN!", as you did above, suggests you don't realize just how far outside the norm bestiality is, and why. That's not Peter Damian's fault.

[Kato]

To respond with comments like "OMG, THE CHILDREN!", as you did above, suggests you don't realize just how far outside the norm bestiality is, and why. That's not Peter Damian's fault.

"OMG, THE CHILDREN" is the stock response when a Wikipedio gets called on any matter of social responsibility.

FT2 says that "Wikipedia mirrors society" - show me the society where leading elected figures - when questioned about the publication of gross illegal sexual acts - sarcastically reply "OMG, THE CHILDREN"?

[Cedric]

I don't think it's Wikipedia so much as human nature. It mirrors society, and we can easily imagine if you brought representatives of all society into one confined area with requirements to co-exist. Racists and idealists, capitalists and communists, Tutsis and Hutus, Gazans and Israel military, Muslim extremists and Neocon extremists, ... and a lot of people who belong to no extreme and just have their own stuff, ideals, altruism, or fantasies.

(IMG:http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9963/repoman1267313fc5.png)

" . . . and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am today."

Yeah, right. Whatever, dude.

[Docknell]

I don't look first at whether someone was banned by you or by a cadre of yours.
(Snip)
Flavius was a fine editor. I have been through practically all his edits, including the ones prompting the blocks that you reference.

"Mussttt... please.... Masterrr!" goes Damian (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The idea of WooHoo and Katefan (whom you probably never knew) being a "cadre" of any kind, much less of an unknown non-admin, is ludicrous. That, and Flavius being this sort of user.... that refrain of yours is sounding eerily familiar:

"I have made a careful study of all "Headley's" edits and I have made my own independent conclusions"

Yes, and they usually seem to involve allegations of fetishism and scanty clad males with whips and string vests, don't they? I to have serious doubts whenever you try and say you have "thoroughly studied" someone's edits. I doubt your "independent conclusions" took into account that every other editor who "looked" at Headley in depth -- even those strongly into "science" -- decided he was dishonest in the extreme. As indeed you yourself are. Dishonest apologies, dishonest self-defense, dishonest hiding that you knew Headley was your co-editor, dishonest representation of the extent of your defamation, dishonest description how many sites and bodies you contacted, dishonest denial of your allegations, and dishonesty in claiming you'd stopped making them and now regretted it. Your "evidence" when challenged is a post or two by a banned proxy of Docknells and two POV warriors.

Go back to Docknell. This thread's become mental masturbation, and at least in Master's hands you'll be safe - he knows how to spank a monkey properly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nuke.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

......

Excuse me FT2!

I presented you with some diffs showing your use of sockpuppetry to POV push zoophilia and the psychocult of neuro linguistic programming.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=151955

You have evaded the question again.

I know it must make you very upset and angry that you have been found out, especially in the light of you being identified as incompetent, discredited, and untrustworthy, in the eyes of so many wikipedians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil.../ACFeedback#FT2

But spanking the monkey? I'm not the one writing promotional things about the "lifestyle" of bestiality.

I am just asking you to clarify some of your diffs. The reason you are so discredited is likely due to people seeing through the sort of self-serving manipulations you presented before you were on arbcom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

And I repeat, I could be any one of the people on that list you conflated, or I could be none of them. You wrote the above list as globally encompassing and vague as possible so that you could protect your own POV interests. I am certainly a skeptic; a skeptic of anything you say or do.

One reason some editors (including sockchecker related editors) seem to have distanced themselves from you is probably because they feel you have tried to con them and they see through your nonsense. They know they can expect more of the same from you because it seems to be a very stable trait you cannot seem to shift. A more pseudoscientific view would say you jinx or have bad spirits that make this your fate.

I find it incredible that some people still involve themselves with you in your current sockpuppetry whitewash effort here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=265151566

In light of your own obvious sockpuppetry, your self-serving abuse of the sockpuppetry recommendations, and your repeated use of “virulent sockpuppet” in arguing against people you don’t like, it would seem that you will likely bring discredit to any genuine long term anti-sockpuppetry work.

Some would say you bring general discredit to Wikipedia. If some say you curse it, I'd be inclined to agree.

Docknell

This post has been edited by Docknell:

[Somey]

This strikes me as being the crux of the issue:

I'm sorry that research doesn't tally with your personal preconceptions. It didn't tally with mine. You think I expected to find that? But I checked - apparently a damn sight more carefully than you choose to. Go off and complain to the researchers and authorities in the field if their view doesn't work for you. Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?). There are papers that emphasize well the connection of animal and human abuse, to a shocking standard. But the view of the field is that their research for various reasons is not authoritative, nor well informed, about the topic of zoophilia generally, as opposed to abuse. If for you those are the same, then rest assured for most of the authoritative voices on the topic within science, they usually aren't. The voices of the field are not "fringe", nor minimal, but as best I can tell, the voice of every serious research in the topic since proper research started in the mid 90's. It surprised me, and I checked that out for myself. But if that's how it stands, then that's how it stands. I dealt with it. You might have to.

The question is, are you, and indeed are any of us, really qualified to determine if reputable scientific research on the subject is genuinely sympathetic towards the view that zoophilia can be (in some cases) a reasonably healthy practice, or is it just possible that you're mistaking the fundamentally non-moralizing and "aloof" nature of most scientific writing as a form of sympathy?

Bear in mind that "sexology" isn't something that people would put on a par with, say, chemistry and biology, either.

[FT2]

It's not how a researcher would describe it... There's no mention of the human-animal relationship being almost necessarily abusive; no mention of mental illness, personality disturbness, or problems in childhood, issues that (so far as I know) researchers into bestiality would agree (rightly or wrongly) are traits that zoophiles might be expected to exhibit.

That's exactly the problem. Your "so far as I know" is about 180 degrees from the consistent mainstream of research. Which wasn't what I had expected either. Mainstream researchers into zoophilia itself (as opposed to studies on pre-selected criminal, delinquent or known abuser populations) do not seem to generally conclude it is necessarily or even mostly abusive; they do not tend to conclude it shows illness or mental health issues (though it often does). Go do some research, if you care to. Here's a quote for you:

"It's important to make the distinction [between animal sexual abusers and zoophiles]... There is no evidence yet that zoophilia leads to sexual deviation, but that's not to say that's not the case... I would go on to say that someone who is sexually violent [emphasis added] with an animal ... is a predator and might very well do that toward people."

Who was it, who said that zoophilia doesn't necessarily imply sexual abuse, and emphasized the importance of distinguishing the two? It was the ASPCA's Director of Counseling. Also involved with the NY correctional system. And for what it's worth, female. Can you think of anyone less likely to be a gooshy apologist? That quote's still on the internet, for what it's worth. Your credentials, Hell? Apart from assumption and ignorance?

Here's another:

"Zoophiles appear to be extremely caring and concerned for their animal(s) and people who know them would be hard put to claim abuse. Implicit in [the bill] is that sex with an animal in itself constitutes abuse."

That's a fairly renowned professor of 30 years standing at the Kinsey Institute, presenting to the Missouri House. Think these are cherry-picked exceptions? Think again. This is the mainstream view of serious research in the field, best I can tell. There's many more of the same, from people of high authority and standing in the field of sexology (human sexuality), ethology (animal behavior), and similar. I dropped this topic ages ago, in wiki-terms, but the research on it is still as it was.

Both quotes I noted as seeming to be authoritative voices, and cited as a result. I wish you would for once, get off your ass, do the legwork, and speak to professionals on a complex and controversial topic before telling the world how you, John Q. Pulpreader, are "sure" it has to be. I'm not sure at all, so I asked, and what came up is what came up.

All I'm saying that you can surely understand why someone might be concerned, especially given that these were your very first edits to WP, and that you went on to make 753 edits to the article, and 574 to the talk page. This is more than a passing interest, and it's therefore a legitimate issue to raise when the writer stands for ArbCom.

Understandable yes. Legitimate to raise yes. But it was raised in full, the community took a hard look -- and decided not an issue. Want to see the communal view? They rejected it almost completely, and continued to do so while Damian's blog was up (including the oversighted edits), before it was up, and after Damian himself removed it. Even Damian (according to Thatcher) now concedes this was unlikely to have affected the election. Communal responses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Some childish, some perceptive. Either way Damian couldn't handle lack of traction, and began offsite defamation instead. That's what was not legitimate. You agree?

This post has been edited by FT2:

[GlassBeadGame]

Some childish, some perceptive. Either way Damian couldn't handle lack of traction, and began offsite defamation instead. That's what was not legitimate. You agree?

If you feel discussion on this forum is somehow beneath the dignity of Wikipedians I assume you can find the door.

...and the horse you rode in on for that matter.

[Somey]

Well, let's not be so hasty...

Understandable yes. Legitimate to raise yes. But it was raised in full, the community took a hard look -- and decided not an issue. Want to see the communal view? They rejected it almost completely, and continued to do so while Damian's blog was up (including the oversighted edits), before it was up, and after Damian himself removed it. Even Damian (according to Thatcher) now concedes this was unlikely to have affected the election. Communal responses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Some childish, some perceptive....

Is it fair to your fellow Wikipedians to suggest that their support for you in the 2007 ArbCom election was tantamount to "community" acceptance of the content you added to the NLP and Zoophilia articles? (I'm not saying it wasn't, but well, let's face it...)

The specific Oppose-vote statement by Dbuckner (T-C-L-K-R-D) , aka Mr. Damian, as referenced in many of the numbered links above, was this:

Strongly oppose Contributions to WP mostly content-free and pseudo-scientific, and some are very strange indeed. Has shown himself incapable of dealing with obvious trolls by his mistaken conception of 'even handedness'. edward (buckner) 08:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement doesn't include a word about those two subjects... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[FT2]

The question is, are you, and indeed are any of us, really qualified to determine if reputable scientific research on the subject is genuinely sympathetic towards the view that zoophilia can be (in some cases) a reasonably healthy practice, or is it just possible that you're mistaking the fundamentally non-moralizing and "aloof" nature of most scientific writing as a form of sympathy?

When anyone on a few hours research and phone conversations (much less a few months and the intent of a book) can identify all major researchers in the field and their works within a couple of days, and read their writings and others' views on them, and yet on a hugely controversial subject historically linked closely to abuse, they all say very similar, then I'd say so.

Is it fair to your fellow Wikipedians to suggest that their support for you in the 2007 ArbCom election was tantamount to "community" acceptance of the content you added to the NLP and Zoophilia articles? (I'm not saying it wasn't, but well, let's face it...)

It wasn't a vote on edits but on editors. The question was raised "does this person edit war on a topic? Weirdly? Obsessively? In a way that someone on Arbcom shouldn't?" Damian posted a long coat-rack (one film from many, one clinical article from many etc) to try and make his case, cited the number of edits, one person agreed with him, the rest - nobody really cared.

Was it seen? Very much so. It was linked, it was discussed, it was on the talk page where all voters check if there is a question, it was in my questions page (in full), I had listed it on my "articles worked on" and linked to that... and nobody is scrutinized as much as the leading candidates (of which Newyorkbrad was #1 and I was #2 with everyone else some way behind).

Was it checked out by the community in light of arbcom suitability/candidacy? Hell yes it was. Could anyone have voted against? Hell yes. Did they find it a problem. Go check (=no, only a tiniest minority).

NLP is Docknell's hobby-horse; Damian never mentioned it outside a couple of questions on the Q&A page, so the election couldn't have been a comment on it.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[dtobias]

To respond with comments like "OMG, THE CHILDREN!", as you did above, suggests you don't realize just how far outside the norm bestiality is, and why. That's not Peter Damian's fault.

"OMG, THE CHILDREN" is the stock response when a Wikipedio gets called on any matter of social responsibility.

FT2 says that "Wikipedia mirrors society" - show me the society where leading elected figures - when questioned about the publication of gross illegal sexual acts - sarcastically reply "OMG, THE CHILDREN"?

For the children (politics)

The phrase "for the children", or "think of the children," is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. The phrase may also be seen as a valid appeal to a moral value that may be the basis for logical argument or action.

[FT2]

(quoted:) The phrase "for the children", or "think of the children," is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. The phrase may also be seen as a valid appeal to a moral value that may be the basis for logical argument or action.

Thinking of children, or any vulnerable group, is extremely important. But using it as an excuse to hide "scholastic encyclopedic material" as Glass Bead was urging is very serious and I answered to Tarantino, why I feel it would be a very bad idea in this instance.

[Hell Freezes Over]

That's exactly the problem. Your "so far as I know" is about 180 degrees from the consistent mainstream of research. Which wasn't what I had expected either. Mainstream researchers into zoophilia itself (as opposed to studies on pre-selected criminal, delinquent or known abuser populations) do not seem to generally conclude it is necessarily or even mostly abusive; they do not tend to conclude it shows illness or mental health issues (though it often does).

I think you misunderstood me. I wrote that it was almost "necessarily" abusive, which simply means "by definition." I wasn't referring to the use of violence, but to the fact that an animal's not able to give consent, and that the human being might not be able to tell to what extent the animal is enjoying it, if at all.

To give an example, when this issue of your edits to Zoophilia first came up, I took a look at the article and at some of the sources. A couple of them were written by people who'd engaged in it, and they talked about ways of persuading a dog to engage in oral sex. One of them suggested smearing the genitals with food, and this was part of a long tract about the subject written by someone who was clearly very familiar with it. Now, that doesn't sound to me as though the dog wants oral sex. It wants to eat, and it is being tricked.

The point here is not that the dog is being hurt -- it probably doesn't care -- but that it's an unequal and bizarre relationship, which for a variety of very good reasons is regarded as an absolute taboo. WP is not there to present things that people find abhorrent as though they're just a little unusual.

Do you have a professional source, preferably online, that writes about zoophilia without mentioning the preponderance of mental illness and personality issues?

Understandable yes. Legitimate to raise yes. But it was raised in full, the community took a hard look -- and decided not an issue. Want to see the communal view? They rejected it almost completely, and continued to do so while Damian's blog was up (including the oversighted edits), before it was up, and after Damian himself removed it. Even Damian (according to Thatcher) now concedes this was unlikely to have affected the election. Communal responses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Some childish, some perceptive. Either way Damian couldn't handle lack of traction, and began offsite defamation instead. That's what was not legitimate. You agree?

I didn't see Peter's blog, or if I did I don't recall what it said, so I can't comment on whether it was defamation. I do agree that it wasn't legitimate to threaten to contact animal advocacy groups, though you would know, given that you've done research into zoophilia, that animal rights groups (e.g. ALF) would have little interest, because they don't necessarily object to it, and animal welfare groups (e.g. RSPCA) would be unlikely to try to cause you a problem, because they operate entirely within the law. And no one has your name anyway. So while I agree that Peter was wrong to threaten it, it was a threat that was never going to deliver much.

[dtobias]

Instead of "think of the children," in this case we should say to "think of the animals!"

[wikiwhistle]

Seems this kitten would rather gnaw off the hand that feeds him, than let it type to the interesting characters on WP.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[FT2]

The point here is not that the dog is being hurt -- it probably doesn't care -- but that it's an unequal and bizarre relationship, which for a variety of very good reasons is regarded as an absolute taboo. WP is not there to present things that people find abhorrent as though they're just a little unusual.

I'm not really rehashing (on wiki or here) arguments of either side. I do however care about abuse and reliable information is to me, part of any effort to reduce and target abuse appropriately.

I disagree with your other comment. Huge numbers of topics (on or off wiki) may be considered "abhorrent"; you can pick your own or advocate for some universal "everyone thinks". But both science's norm and any reliable researcher's approach where genuine research exists, is to report faithfully rather than the reporter distorting or improvizing the information to meet stereotype lay-beliefs.

Do you have a professional source, preferably online, that writes about zoophilia without mentioning the preponderance of mental illness and personality issues?

A technical question, it's years since I looked it up. I can't think of a specific source that wouldn't somewhere discuss mental illnesses, but bear in mind those may easily be isolating conditions such as pathological shyness and insecurity, social phobias, relational issues such as aspergers, a feeling of "being in the wrong body"(whatever that's called, a bit like serious transgender issues) ... and quite probably many may have no known or visible diagnostic issue at all.

Caveat - that's off the top of my head from memory and general recollection though - it's been years since I checked this subject. I was going to write a wiki article or list covering research in the field but haven't . However, for now it's a fair bit of research to answer that exact question if I understand you right. If you can be more specific what you're looking for, go ahead and if it's easy to find some notes on it, sure.

I didn't see Peter's blog, or if I did I don't recall what it said, so I can't comment on whether it was defamation. I do agree that it wasn't legitimate to threaten to contact animal advocacy groups, though you would know, given that you've done research into zoophilia, that animal rights groups (e.g. ALF) would have little interest, because they don't necessarily object to it, and animal welfare groups (e.g. RSPCA) would be unlikely to try to cause you a problem, because they operate entirely within the law. And no one has your name anyway. So while I agree that Peter was wrong to threaten it, it was a threat that was never going to deliver much.

Damian's blog (relevant part) read:

"Its a bit like paedophilia... you should take it seriously, believe me. I've been subjected to a very nasty hate campaign in Wikipedia for this, hence the post here... It's split mostly between people who think animal abuse is disgusting and wrong, hence it is evil of me to make allegations against the editor in question. The others think it's harmless, and why am I taking an editor to task for this innocent lifestyle activity."
"Here is the user's first ever edit in Wikipedia, in that article. I make no apologies for posting this...."

So the effective intent to a reader would be

1. "This person is probably a child abuser or like that anyway" (gee thanks Damian!),
2. It should be taken "seriously",
3. The person who tried to argue against animal abuse suffered a "very nasty hate campaign" (fabrication),
4. The dispute was about admins opining on the issue (fabrication),
5. Some admins were defending someone who actually has this "(innocent) lifestyle activity" because they thought it "harmless" (fabrication; also alleged/implied criminal activity, thanks again!),
6. This (link) is the user who needs targeting by you or your organization,
7. Non, "Je Ne Regrette Rien".

Blasted out to any and everyone from SPCA to ALF, because Damian still hasn't decided which statement was a lie, the place he says he's already told "organizations" plural, or the place he later tries to claim he told one site only. What we do know is, he claimed multiple, and said he'd both already contacted and would be contacting multiple, that these included "activists", and "expect to hear MUCH more".

Bluntly, if an idiot shouts "Bomb!" in an airport, and that he's got other activists on the way, then he's guilty either way, of the crime, or of supreme foolishness. Usually such idiocy is of the 2 shots to the thoracic cage and free trip to the mortuary type.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Somey]

Caveat - that's off the top of my head from memory and general recollection though - it's been years since I checked this subject. I was going to write a wiki article or list covering research in the field but haven't . However, for now it's a fair bit of research to answer that exact question if I understand you right. If you can be more specific what you're looking for, go ahead and if it's easy to find some notes on it, sure.

I did a couple of quick searches just now (I sure hope my mom isn't monitoring my web-browsing activity), and found that though the more recent book by Andrea M. Beetz is currently out of print at amazon.com, there's apparently a more recent (and readily available) work by someone named Gaston Dubois-Desaulle, specifically this one. Both are listed in the WP article, of course... I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I couldn't help but remark on the "Editorial Reviews" section of the latter book's Amazon page.

Dubois-Desaulle was evidently a diligent young scholar; information and entertainment run riot through his pages. Other treatments of bestiality exist, but they are quite special in nature, being confined largely to mere reports of observed cases with perhaps a brief analysis of them. Other works of a more general nature are usually largely taken up with the matter of satyrs, a favorite problem of the more bawdy of the old theologians. And almost all these books of whatever nature are usually largely taken up with the matter of satyrs, a favorite problem of the more bawdy of the old theologians. And almost all these books of whatever nature are so occupied with crying Horror! and Shame! that the actual data presented is minimized. Our author is calm, unhysterical, painstaking, exact, and complete.

Here we find bestiality examined in all its aspects: historical, theological, legal, scientific, and, to cap the climax, literary, something of a new departure.

Aside from the (no doubt mistakenly) repeated reference to "satyrs" and "the more bawdy of the old theologians," the tone of this blurb struck me as rather odd, to say the least! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I just have to say, the Ick Factor™ trumps almost everything else in a case like this - including any notions regarding scientific method or academic impartiality. Almost any scientific approach to the subject is probably going to be considered suspect by one side or the other, no matter how "fairly" it attempts to treat it. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people just don't even want to think about it, and for good reason.

[FT2]

I did a couple of quick searches just now (I sure hope my mom isn't monitoring my web-browsing activity), and found that though the more recent book by Andrea M. Beetz is currently out of print at amazon.com, there's apparently a more recent (and readily available) work by someone named Gaston Dubois-Desaulle....

It's a reprint of a 1905 book.

I just have to say, the Ick Factor™ trumps almost everything else in a case like this - including any notions regarding scientific method or academic impartiality. Almost any scientific approach to the subject is probably going to be considered suspect by one side or the other, no matter how "fairly" it attempts to treat it. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people just don't even want to think about it, and for good reason.

The "Ick" factor's remarkably variable, but for sure it's far from the worlds most savory topic. That means for the few who genuinely may have need or work in related areas, good informational sources (such as "scholastic encyclopedic material") are very inaccessible and hard to find; bad sources abound. Too many people prefer to turn on the tv and power up the next talk show. Poverty? Genocide? Rape? Animal abuse? (Who cares, as long as the paycheck's on time and you get to take the kids to Florida this year!) In that mindset, anything else is either Ick, funny pages, "tut tut isn't it awful", or someone else's job. Sad but realistic (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Milton Roe]

Last, Wikipedia's admin standard is simple and egalitarian. I'm broadly happy. If an age limit was introduced and the whole thing tightened up, thats a possibility too. Perennial debate; the acid test is can they do the task responsibly. Obviously some can, most can't. Embarrassed about being told to behave by a competent 12 year old? If they're competent then fine. RFA is a hell of a barrier to pass these days.

Indeed. Which means the admin standard is actually neither simple nor egalitarian. It's a barrier which is fuzzy, and increases with difficulty as the years pass.

If that weren't so, present administrators wouldn't mind term limits, and the necessity of submitting themselves to re-RfA's, just to prove they "still have it," now that we're out of the age when dinosaurs ruled the Earth (and Wikipedia, too). But they'll never submit to that. And they'll give you a bunch of reasons why not, but none of them will stand up to close scrutiny. Basically, they won't because they know what would happen to most of them if they did. They'd never get back in.

Example: SlimVirgin was de-tooled as a punishment for defiance of the system, for a fixed time, not so long ago (just to prove the lie behind the idea that de-sysopping somebody IS ever a punishment), but with the promise that the tools will be given back, without making her do-over a new RfA. IOW, they were nicer to her than they ever were, to Everyking. And why? Because we all know that Hell Would Freeze Over before she ever passed a new RfA under her old username. Everyking, maybe; SlimVirgin, never.

Nor did they simply desysop her without a ban, and invite her to vanish and start over, under some other new username. Which would actually be possible before Hell Froze Over, but significantly difficult. More than it used to be. The person who does that, of course, loses all work they did as a "vested contributor" (more than just a "highly valued member" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)). Along with the bad-history and rap-sheet. Aye, there's the rub.

You know--- that "vested contributor" stuff, which isn't supposed to count for anything, and which administratorship is officially NOT supposed to be any kind of reward for? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Ah, the many bare-faced hypocrisies of Wikipedia. They never fail to astound. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Milton

P.S. On the question of mere content contribution, as separated from any other function of an editor or sysop (wisdom, a feeling for fairness, a capacity for dispute resolution etc.), how would the present fearless leaders of WP do, if they all had to start off from a zero-rep stance? My own guess if that if you, FT2, had to take a Journalism 101 class, you'd be lucky to get by with a D. But keep at it. SlimVirgin is actually one of the better technicians on Wikipedia, and in a journalism class, I personally would give her a flat A. Somewhere, she learned to write. As for Jimbo, I think he'd be caught trying to get by with somebody else's essay passed off as his own, and earn an F, and the boot. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Damian's blog (relevant part) read:
"Its a bit like paedophilia... you should take it seriously, believe me. I've been subjected to a very nasty hate campaign in Wikipedia for this, hence the post here... It's split mostly between people who think animal abuse is disgusting and wrong, hence it is evil of me to make allegations against the editor in question. The others think it's harmless, and why am I taking an editor to task for this innocent lifestyle activity."
"Here is the user's first ever edit in Wikipedia, in that article. I make no apologies for posting this...."

"This innocent lifestyle activity" is clearly to be read de dicto and not de re I am reporting the thoughts and beliefs of others, not of myself. I was describing a very real problem in Wikipedia. If you raise any issue about a taboo subject like this, the complaints against you really do divide into those who have such a big problem with the practice, that they regard any criticism of content as a nasty personal attack. The other half have no problem with the practice, and immediately accuse one of being a Conservapedian or 'prissy Anglo-Catholic' or whatever.

Regarding the enormous debate raging above, no time to comment. Except to say the thing I most resent is that Headley is my 'Master'. I am more highly qualified than Headley, not just a PhD but publications in linguistics-related area, currently working on a translation of a work in Medieval semantics. I have an excellent reputation for careful research. I worked carefully through the Neurolinguistics part of FT2's contributions and they were poorly written, poorly-sourced, many were misattributed. The consensus view in academia as well as Wikipedia (indeed) is that NLP is a pseudoscience and should be treated as such. I sought advice on the NLP articles from experts outside Wikipedia, who agreed with my view. I sought advice on the Zoophilia article from independent academic experts, and got similar opinion ("by its very nature a collection of internet links").

On the 'POV warrior' that FT2 cites, User:Skopp is a medical expert and a member of the Smithsonian institution. Though I am not a medical expert, on balance, and given my expert view of FT2's contributions to the NLP articles, I would vastly prefer Skopp's view over FT2.

There are some subjects that simply should not be dealt with on Wikipedia without expert advice. I have nothing more to say.

Blasted out to any and everyone from SPCA to ALF, because Damian still hasn't decided which statement was a lie, the place he says he's already told "organizations" plural, or the place he later tries to claim he told one site only. What we do know is, he claimed multiple, and said he'd both already contacted and would be contacting multiple, that these included "activists", and "expect to hear MUCH more".

I have already said, I 'made contact' with exactly one site. I did not lie, please stop saying these misleading things. Making contact is receiving a reply. I sent exactly three messages, I think. On the 'contact made' I discussed the content of the Zoophilia article, not any individual Wikipedia user. The entire (short) thread was deleted at my request within 24 hours, and was on Veggie boards which is hardly the ALF.

Please stop these misrepresentations or I shall ask the mods to try and sort it out.

The "Ick" factor's remarkably variable, but for sure it's far from the worlds most savory topic. That means for the few who genuinely may have need or work in related areas, good informational sources (such as "scholastic encyclopedic material") are very inaccessible and hard to find; bad sources abound. Too many people prefer to turn on the tv and power up the next talk show. Poverty? Genocide? Rape? Animal abuse? (Who cares, as long as the paycheck's on time and you get to take the kids to Florida this year!) In that mindset, anything else is either Ick, funny pages, "tut tut isn't it awful", or someone else's job. Sad but realistic (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

That is very true, and I have no objection to a genuinely scholastic and careful treatment of such subjects. It's very important. I do object to untutored amateurs such as yourself having anything to do with it. End of story.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Doc glasgow]

That aside, as you're raising the zoophilia issue yourself, look at the edit of yours that Peter Damian first highlighted, replacing "zoophile" with "pedophile," "animal" with "child," and "human" with "adult." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=4555850

"Lifestyle pedophiles often share some or all of the following common traits: ... Belief that children and adults...

I'm not about to defend zoophilia, which transgresses my moral yuck factor by 600 miles (but then since I've defended the rights of various scumbag fascists in the name of BLP, why not?).

However, the above strikes me as a "reductio ad hitlerum". Pedos are vile self-deceiving liars, this sounds like something they might say, ergo it is lies. That's not really good enough for a neutral encyclopedia, it is at best original reasoning, and my response would be, {citation need}}.

It's a very valid debating argument, but a very poor objective one.

I think you misunderstood me. I wrote that it was almost "necessarily" abusive, which simply means "by definition." I wasn't referring to the use of violence, but to the fact that an animal's not able to give consent, and that the human being might not be able to tell to what extent the animal is enjoying it, if at all.

That argument, whilst a truism, doesn't get very far.

Animals can't "consent" to anything mucg - so any comparison with human choices is an invalid anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphic arguments are sentimental appeals to the emotion, which have no basis in logic.

Animals can't consent to live in hutches, to be sterilised, to have a stone removed from their foot, or even to be inoculated against deadly disease. A decision on whether these things are harmful, cruel, neutral or beneficial needs to be taken on welfare grounds other than consensual choice.

Indeed one might say, that the animal /can/ communicate consent in this particular sphere of "human contact", since it can resist or remove itself, if allowed to do so - whereas it will never consent to medical assistance. How far does that get you?

The consent argument for welfare is always a crap one anyway. To return to your analogy of children, children can (actually, even if not legally) consent to a variety of things from a young age. The question is not consent, but whether the child is able to make a valid judgement of its own welfare. Since we generally believe that a child cannot, we thus make a judgement for it, and we (nearly) universally decide that sex is not in the child's welfare interests but invasive surgery, blood transfusions and confining them to their room at times are. The issue is not consent - which the inability of the child to give is merely a legal fiction used as shorthand for a decision that is (rightly) taken for other reasons - but rational decisions taken by adults in the belief that we are better placed to reason.

Now, having partly defended these ghastly people, I will go shower and curse them to hell.

(Another thought. A moral comparison with children is also invalid because it assumes we care, or should care, about the welfare of animals in the same way. Actually, globally and historically most of us don't - and even those who say they do mainly don't either. The concept of "using" animals for human benefit is accepted by the vast majority - whilst no one would accept the concept of "using" children (although arguably some do use them). I eat animals, I wear leather shoes, and I accept scientific experimentation on them in some limited cases. That doesn't mean I don't have any concern for their welfare (I eat free-range and don't buy foie gras) but it does mean that human satisfaction at animal expense is not anathema to me. If one keeps tropical fish (as I do) or poodles (?) one can care for them well and not-maltreat them, indeed one can be emotionally attached, but ultimately we keep them because WE derive satisfaction from that, and not for the benefit of the animal. Whilst I also derive satisfaction from my children too, their welfare and happiness comes before mine).



This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[FT2]

"This innocent lifestyle activity" is clearly to be read de dicto and not de re (Snip)...

Regarding the enormous debate raging above, no time to comment. Except to say the thing I most resent is that Headley is my 'Master'. I have more highly qualified than Headley, not just a PhD but publications in linguistics-related area, currently working on a translation of a work in Medievals semantics. I have an excellent reputation for careful research. [...] I sought advice on the Zoophilia article from independent academic experts, and got similar opinion ("by its very nature a collection of internet links").

On the 'POV warrior' that FT2 cites, User:Skopp is a medical expert and a member of the Smithsonian institution. Though I am not a medical expert, on balance, and given my expert linguistics-related view of the NLP articles, I would prefert Skopp's view over FT2.

I have already said, I 'made contact' with exactly one site. I did not lie, please stop saying these misleading things. (Snip...)

1) It's not "to be read" de dicto. It's not "de re" either. This one was rather clearly either "de famation", or "de dickhead", wasn't it? It's either wilfully libelous and malicious (most likely), or was deliberately intended to be taken that way by any normal person (ie ones who don't name themselves after monks famous for obssessive anti-wank campaigns). I mean, you are aware outside your kennel there's a real world where implying things like that is kinda, you know.... like, not okay? Even for Superheroes and Protectors of Truth like yourself? Bluntly, I have no doubt it was malicious; i.e., you knew exactly what you were doing but you did it anyway. Too many other lies told to others about it, right?

2) Yeah, you're the boss, of course you are. Whatever you say. "None so blind as those...". Except when you just have to lick those boots.

3) Skopp may be the Grand Emperor of the Houyhnhnms, maybe the Secret Inheritor of the Chinese Throne or even a Nobel Laureate, but as far as this topic was concerned he was just another borderline edit warrior who recklessly or deliberately invented or exaggerated facts, needed correction, and habitually used hyperbole rather than reason in discussions, for its rhetorical effect (same diff). As a scientist and "expert" he clearly knew what "careful research" meant, yet it seems he deliberately avoided it, since he can have zero excuse of "ignorance"... right?

4) Your "always said" is incredibly expedient. Usually this means something like "since realizing rapid backpedaling from the other things you always said". Just like your "bitter regrets" are crocodilian and only for your own pathetic self.


So let's get the truth about that, finally. You're now saying you contacted exactly one site, right? Does that mean that when you said you had already contacted organizations (plural), was a lie? And the emails where you said you are posting (present tense) at various activist sites (all plural), were those all lies too? You've got a Ph.D. in language but you can't recognize and correctly use a plural form of a word? You've got an "excellent reputation for careful research"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) No wonder you're idea proxy meat for a manipulator like Docknell and a topic like NLP (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)


Damian, if you had been an honest adversary I'd have sympathy. You were a self-centered slime, and you're rapidly coming to a slime's end. Even Headley despises you. You think he'll pick you up? He saddled you up, put a leash on your dick, and rode you into a ban, and didn't lift a finger to get you out of it. And you? You bleated indignantly that there was no way he could be manipulating you...... because you're God. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

This post has been edited by FT2:

[EricBarbour]

1) It's not "to be read" de dicto. It's not "de re" either. This one was rather clearly either "de famation", or "de dickhead", wasn't it? It's either wilfully libelous and malicious (most likely), or was deliberately intended to be taken that way by any normal person (ie ones who don't name themselves after monks famous for obssessive anti-wank campaigns).

(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/drooling_homer-712749.png)

[FT2]

[...] Which means the admin standard is actually neither simple nor egalitarian. It's a barrier which is fuzzy, and increases with difficulty as the years pass.

The standard's broadly equal and equally tough for any two users at roughly the same time. That's what "egalitarian" means here. If it rises over time so be it.

(SlimVirgin snippery...)

Without getting off topic too much, yes, it's a reputation economy, and once you have one, it pays to take care of it. In that environment, repeatedly breaching norms is akin to playing chicken with trucks... good luck and have insurance.

[...] how would the present fearless leaders of WP do, if they all had to start off from a zero-rep stance? My own guess if that if you, FT2, had to take a Journalism 101 class, you'd be lucky to get by with a D. [...]

But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[victim of censorship]

I don't think he is a person who can be guided, his own worst enemy I suspect.

Keeping order on God know's how many 1000s of editors needs a certain tough type, with a rational ruthless streak - a tough cookie.

FT2, if you're reading, the way to do that is with less words, not more. Besides the simplicity, it also means that you end up not saying some things.

He received the same advice from me and others but he decided not to follow it.

FWIW, in FT2's brief sojourn here, he PM'd me to explain that every post he made took him a long time to craft - perhaps an hour. He was obsessive about being misunderstood or misrepresented - yet the result was that he was often incomprehensible or ambiguous - the very result he was seeking to avoid.
(Snip)
I am especially concerned that he often makes comments about the amount of time he spends on things - that makes him sound obsessive, but he might just not be very good at stuff.

A number of users here will be fairly bright. They say bright people can sometimes get in their own way in communication, and without great self-analysis, that's surely true. I've never figured out the line of what to assume others need telling or don't, and between saying too little (and people misunderstanding) or too much. In that, I get cautious - "one (many times) bitten, twice shy" - I figure if I am open about everything, and consider the matter completely, then some will go tl;dr, but those who really care will have the information they need to work it out. Better sensing of "what needs saying and what doesn't" is a skill I don't have and wish I did, despite advice like Tarantino's (which believe me I'd gladly take if I knew how). Consolation: I figure there's worse if you have to choose a weakness. That said, any offers of help -- yes please (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I care nothing for politics, which is a good or bad thing depending how you see it. For me I see it as a plus. YMMV. I've mostly learned to avoid drama and its hounds quite well; in this case ultimately I haven't. Its a skill I learn mainly the odd times I don't succeed; I take it philosophically. I went into Arbcom "eyes open", knowing it shreds reputations. The job needed doing; the 2007 committee was failing the community badly, and nobody else seemed very likely to try changing that in any meaningful way. Personal cost of it? Meh. Important, but less of an issue.

Other wordiness stuff - 1/ People playing games tend to gloss over the detail (old saying - "the devil's in the detail"). Spelling it out might bore some, but it's advantage is being explicit as to exactly what's being said and what's not. Case in point, people were amused at the idea a 105 K statement of evidence might be needed, but when the microscope came round it meant not one thing raised hadn't been disclosed fully and such, which would have been a huge mistake. Also, 2/ arb writings tend to get very heavy weight|reliance|examination. I don't like my words being misrepresented, as Dogbiscuit says, and there's also a responsibility to think more carefully in a role like that. Not every post is difficult, but some are (eg, responsibility to people who will be judged by what's said, of being fair to them); and those talking about myself more than most. Not unusual.

Oddly, one of the main blockers on a public discussion of OM and the oversighted edits was that I simply don't know how to write the short statement necessary. Might seem trivial or laughable to some, but not to others. I asked more than once and set about doing so three times - June 29-30 (after OM), November, and again December. The notion of "Write anything but just write something" doesn't work well with sensitive and privacy-related issues, and the advice how one might do so was itself very uncertain. I'm not that sure even now what I'd do differently second time round. Probably told the more conservative voices on Arbcom after OM "you explain what happened or I will" a bit more strongly. I was offline most of July, consensus was firmly against, I was told it would be done "eventually" but it never was, and I didn't. Meh; lessons.

Apologies for the delay in replying; of course discussion was going on here but I only just got round to checking it out.

My first reaction is to lay my spurs in to you (FT2). You have been the epitemy of what Wikipedia is all about. The enabling of lies, hate, misinformation; The distribution of porn, the lack of governance, the enabling the gangs of POV pushers, Slander/liable and other malfeasances in how you regulated Wikipedia.

You, and your kind, have created a perfect on line simulation of Kafka and Orwell. You have diminished the value of human knowledge and enable the vast parasitic nature of Wikipedia.
I'm not the only one with opinions about wikipedia and MR FT2.
It make me happy now that wikipedia has turn on you and consumed you like a kid playing with fire and now the fire burns up and kills the kid.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Peter Damian]

"This innocent lifestyle activity" is clearly to be read de dicto and not de re (Snip)...

Regarding the enormous debate raging above, no time to comment. Except to say the thing I most resent is that Headley is my 'Master'. I have more highly qualified than Headley, not just a PhD but publications in linguistics-related area, currently working on a translation of a work in Medievals semantics. I have an excellent reputation for careful research. [...] I sought advice on the Zoophilia article from independent academic experts, and got similar opinion ("by its very nature a collection of internet links").

On the 'POV warrior' that FT2 cites, User:Skopp is a medical expert and a member of the Smithsonian institution. Though I am not a medical expert, on balance, and given my expert linguistics-related view of the NLP articles, I would prefert Skopp's view over FT2.

I have already said, I 'made contact' with exactly one site. I did not lie, please stop saying these misleading things. (Snip...)

1) It's not "to be read" de dicto. It's not "de re" either. This one was rather clearly either "de famation", or "de dickhead", wasn't it? It's either wilfully libelous and malicious (most likely), or was deliberately intended to be taken that way by any normal person (ie ones who don't name themselves after monks famous for obssessive anti-wank campaigns). I mean, you are aware outside your kennel there's a real world where implying things like that is kinda, you know.... like, not okay? Even for Superheroes and Protectors of Truth like yourself? Bluntly, I have no doubt it was malicious; i.e., you knew exactly what you were doing but you did it anyway. Too many other lies told to others about it, right?

2) Yeah, you're the boss, of course you are. Whatever you say. "None so blind as those...". Except when you just have to lick those boots.

3) Skopp may be the Grand Emperor of the Houyhnhnms, maybe the Secret Inheritor of the Chinese Throne or even a Nobel Laureate, but as far as this topic was concerned he was just another borderline edit warrior who recklessly or deliberately invented or exaggerated facts, needed correction, and habitually used hyperbole rather than reason in discussions, for its rhetorical effect (same diff). As a scientist and "expert" he clearly knew what "careful research" meant, yet it seems he deliberately avoided it, since he can have zero excuse of "ignorance"... right?

4) Your "always said" is incredibly expedient. Usually this means something like "since realizing rapid backpedaling from the other things you always said". Just like your "bitter regrets" are crocodilian and only for your own pathetic self.


So let's get the truth about that, finally. You're now saying you contacted exactly one site, right? Does that mean that when you said you had already contacted organizations (plural), was a lie? And the emails where you said you are posting (present tense) at various activist sites (all plural), were those all lies too? You've got a Ph.D. in language but you can't recognize and correctly use a plural form of a word? You've got an "excellent reputation for careful research"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) No wonder you're idea proxy meat for a manipulator like Docknell and a topic like NLP (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)


Damian, if you had been an honest adversary I'd have sympathy. You were a self-centered slime, and you're rapidly coming to a slime's end. Even Headley despises you. You think he'll pick you up? He saddled you up, put a leash on your dick, and rode you into a ban, and didn't lift a finger to get you out of it. And you? You bleated indignantly that there was no way he could be manipulating you...... because you're God. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

I asked you before to stop these misrepresentations.

Encyclopedia writing suits me fine

Possibly not.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

...snip of rant...

Still calm I see.

Thought Doc G had a very sound post.

The issue of consent as a red herring is very important. It is interesting that this diversion from the real world consensus pervades Wikipedia: the idea of 12 year old admins being in some way appropriate to the function of admins is based on a very strange reframing of the task list of administrators (essentially cherry picking). Even the idea of consent between adults depends upon context: if you have been defrauded, that you consented to a deal is irrelevant; if you sign a contract which is unfair, it is deemed that you have not consented after all. The law understands that consent is a concept that depends on context, and even then does not necessarily make an action appropriate.

The problem with the zoophilia article in that context is the Lifestyle section which appears to be written uncritically accepting various premises of anthropomorphism - "being open about their relationships" is using terminology that only really makes sense in human terms yet it is in the article itself, rather than in any indirection. Very insidious.

Why anyone who knows about dog training should be in any doubt of the dubiousness of any anthropomorphism based on the perceived willingness of an animal to do something is beyond me (in the world is round obviousness sense). I guide dog puppy walk, and training is simple manipulation - repetition and reward.

The first thing we do with a guide dog is, in true Pavlov style, blow a whistle every time we feed them. Dog then returns in park when whistle is blown, and we need it drummed in as a fundamental instinctive response as a guide dog owner can't go looking in the bushes to find where Rex has toddled off to. It is not consenting to anything, it is a classic substitution, which together with reinforcement of a nice treat and warm words does to a dog whatever it is that makes it better to respond than ignore. A Labrador will do ANYTHING for a biscuit with patience (and ours only eats two things, its puppy food which is also what we use as treats, and wallpaper). Something as common as getting a dog to do "down" is going against their instincts in forcing them to adopt a subservient position, and a dog that rolls on its back to have its tummy tickled is as likely to be trying to demonstrate abject submission to the alpha dog (the owner) rather than enjoying the experience in its own right.

[Bottled_Spider]

I mean, you are aware outside your kennel there's a real world......

He saddled you up, put a leash on your dick, and rode you into a ban......

Jesus. Can't you keep your mind off dogs and horses for just one moment? Disgraceful.

[FT2]

My first reaction is to lay my spurs in to you (FT2). You have been the epitemy of what Wikipedia is all about. The enabling of lies, hate, misinformation; The distribution of porn, the lack of governance, the enabling the gangs of POV pushers, Slander/liable and other malfeasances in how you regulated Wikipedia.

You, and your kind, have created a perfect on line simulation of Kafka and Orwell. You have diminished the value of human knowledge and enable the vast parasitic nature of Wikipedia.
I'm not the only one with opinions about wikipedia and MR FT2.
It make me happy now that wikipedia has turn on you and consumed you like a kid playing with fire and now the fire burns up and kills the kid.

Um. Yeah. "The distribution of porn" says it all. Another advocate of sex education being limited to the over 16s? Join Glass Bead in the corner with the ostriches, because it doesn't work that way any more. Censor it and they won't go back to MTV, they'll click the next Google link instead. You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you? You see, there's a difference between us. I'm not "happy" when others suffer. You are, even if they aren't suffering, provided you can believe they might be.

(Snip)
I asked you before to stop these misrepresentations.

I once heard urban hearsay of an annual review that read "having previously got himself up to his neck, (employee name) has unfortunately now reached bedrock, and continues to dig..."

I'm all for non-misrepresentation. Do you notice that funny symbol that looks like a hook? The kind you catch fishy things with? It's called a 'question mark' and it's part of your Ph.D. in language, I believe. If you look up you'll see some of those, signifying a 'question', and a link to other places you appear rather blatantly to have done the same. If I can explain my editing, you can explain yours, right? So stop bleating like a neutered ninja turtle, take your eyes off Docknell's whip for a few seconds, and be a man for once -- assuming you remember how.

Still calm I see.

I am, completely. Unfortunately I also decided I'd had enough of being played. Damian's made clear he doesn't trust calm and well-mannered styles. I am hopeful he prefers this one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Thought Doc G had a very sound post. [...] [although] training is simple manipulation - repetition and reward.

He did. And yet you're only partly and in some basic areas right. If you cannot tell by sight a creature that is coerced, forced and unwilling, then re-read any basic book on body language. If there isn't to you a difference between a creature that races to the door eager for a walk, and one that needs to be dragged into the vets or shows over-passive or aggressive traits to its owner, then you're missing something. Deception as to feelings or mood doesn't come easy to most common mammalian species. But as said, I'm not advocating either side, so I'll cut short there.

One thought on the training thing though. An owner takes an animal for a walk daily; after a while the animal becomes active and jumps avidly at the door if he/she approaches it. Is this response trained or conditioned? If so, does it speak to whether the activity is desired or undesired, enjoyed or pressured? No advocacy, more a philosophical question almost, but just to indicate I also had to ponder such questions in the past.

[Moulton]

But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

As it happens, I did "go to a journalism school" where I signed on, not as a student, but as an Adjunct Faculty to assist with the technical aspects of Online Journalism. Over the past 14 years in that role, I've absorbed a substantial education in Mass Media Ethics (that being one of three undergraduate courses that I lent a hand in supporting). It's not enough to learn how to not write abysmal yellow journalism. Learning to be an ethical journalist is a serious requirement for any mass media producer. It occurs to me that anyone (and I'm not singling you out here, FT2) who undertakes to craft a high-profile online encyclopedia has an obligation to muster more than a D in Mass Media Ethics.

[wikiwhistle]

That aside, as you're raising the zoophilia issue yourself, look at the edit of yours that Peter Damian first highlighted, replacing "zoophile" with "pedophile," "animal" with "child," and "human" with "adult." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=4555850

"Lifestyle pedophiles often share some or all of the following common traits: ... Belief that children and adults...

I'm not about to defend zoophilia, which transgresses my moral yuck factor by 600 miles {...} ultimately we keep them because WE derive satisfaction from that, and not for the benefit of the animal.

I was wondering, if you accept that most of us use animals in various ways, and all the other stuff you say, can you think what it is that gives zoophilia that moral yuck factor for you?

I think for myself it would have to be the taking advantage of their innocence. And probably the customary use. Ok most of us eat meat, but that seems a bit different to shagging an animal. That seems more like using it for our gratification while it's alive than having it pull a cart or something.

Animals can be affectionate, that doesn't mean we are given a license to take advantage of that affection in such a way. I know animals shag each other (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) but when it comes to their relationship with us, they have a certain innocence (when they're not being destructive and manipulative themselves lol, usually in attempts to get food.) We keep a pet for innocent fun, if we were to shag it we would be removing one of the last dregs of innocence within ourselves. Social taboos are there to preserve that a little, for those normal people that want to keep it. The rest can all move to London. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

For a woman, at some point in life it usually becomes obvious that something doesn't always have to be physically violent to be abusive, even physically abusive.

[FT2]

As it happens, I did "go to a journalism school" where I signed on, not as a student, but as an Adjunct Faculty to assist with the technical aspects of Online Journalism. Over the past 14 years in that role, I've absorbed a substantial education in Mass Media Ethics (that being one of three undergraduate courses that I lent a hand in supporting). It's not enough to learn how to not write abysmal yellow journalism. Learning to be an ethical journalist is a serious requirement for any mass media producer. It occurs to me that anyone (and I'm not singling you out here, FT2) who undertakes to craft a high-profile online encyclopedia has an obligation to muster more than a D in Mass Media Ethics.

Uh uh -- no moving goalposts. Your original comment was "if you had to take a Journalism 101 class" and explicitly in the context of SlimVirgin being a grade A "technician" in her writing, an area you conclude many users and myself would get a "D". You're now "bait and switching" or recasting this (itself a non-ethical action) to be instead about "mass media ethics". May I respectfully point out that my response was as your question, about writing style?

[Peter Damian]

You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Milton Roe]

Now, having partly defended these ghastly people, I will go shower and curse them to hell.

You're thinking clearly and logically, despite not really enjoying your conclusions. Still, a pleasure to read. In fact, drawing the conclusions you don't really like, adds something. We don't see that enough.

[Milton Roe]

But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

Oh, journalism is more than just learning to write formalized 1500 word 25 paragraph newspaper articles. Though even doing that helped Twain, Kipling, Churchill, Hemingway,and many, many others a lot.

I could have as easily recommended a course in technical writing. Anything to help you be more modular and concise.

And as for me, I promise to use the spellchecker more. But that reminds me of the woman who insulted Churchill by saying he was disgustingly drunk, and his reply that perhaps so, but she was disgustingly fat, yet in the morning, he would be sober. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[dtobias]

Learning to be an ethical journalist is a serious requirement for any mass media producer.

Has our friend Don Murphy ever learned this?

[Giano]

You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

What a ridiculous and silly coment - are you including your owm work in that statement? If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all.

Giano

[GlassBeadGame]

But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

Oh, journalism is more than just learning to write formalized 1500 word 25 paragraph newspaper articles. Though even doing that helped Twain, Kipling, Churchill, Hemingway,and many, many others a lot.

I could have as easily recommended a course in technical writing. Anything to help you be more modular and concise.

And as for me, I promise to use the spellchecker more. But that reminds me of the woman who insulted Churchill by saying he was disgustingly drunk, and his reply that perhaps so, but she was disgustingly fat, yet in the morning, he would be sober. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Can FT2 possible be that oblivious to the limits of his ability to write in an effective manner? The only "skill" he has demonstrated in this thread is to repeatedly come back for more after failing to expressing himself a manner that "conveys useful information." I understand that being being the last one standing is useful in the drive-by environment of Wikipedia where matters are often settled by having the influence to get someone blocked or banned if they persist to oppose him but it does nothing for him here.

He also seems disoriented by his inability to command the needed influence to prevail here and appears to be searching desperately for a voice.

[Kato]

You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

What a ridiculous and silly coment - are you including your owm work in that statement? If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all.

Giano

Wikipedia Ironic Quote No.3429

Giano

"If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all."

[Dzonatas]

You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

What a ridiculous and silly coment - are you including your owm work in that statement? If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all.

Giano

In the case of Virgin Killer, your comment, Giano, is overruled by Damian's tact.

Wikipedia Ironic Quote No.3429

Giano

"If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all."

The 12 year old wikipedia admin just sent a tweet, "/facepalm"

[Bottled_Spider]

He also seems disoriented by his inability to command the needed influence to prevail here and appears to be searching desperately for a voice.

His search is over. The ever-more-desperate and rapidly declining Giana seems to be fulfilling that role nicely now that Wikiwhistle seems to have given up. Meh!

[Kelly Martin]

FT2 and Giano are doing a phenomenal job of demonstrating Wikipedia's finest virtues in this thread. Please, both of you, do continue.

[Random832]

What FT2 seems to be trying to say - rather ineptly - is that there exist people to whom the word "zoophilia" can be legitimately applied who have never, in fact, had sex with an animal.

I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

[Kelly Martin]

I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

Yes, but the difference, Random, is that now you are on record as saying that and will have a hard time disavowing it, whereas FT2's verbal effluvia is so convoluted and jumbled that he can effectively deny anything he might have said later on, on the double grounds that it's unlikely that anyone actually read it all the way through in the first place and anyone who did probably got such a headache that they'll refuse to admit having read it if asked.

FT2's purpose is not and has never been to communicate; his purpose is to baffle and misdirect. You should direct your attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Random832]

Uh uh -- no moving goalposts. Your original comment

Whose original comment? You seem to have confused "Moulton" with "Milton Roe".

[GlassBeadGame]

You should direct your attention to the man behind the curtain.

Well that's a horse of a different color.

[FT2]

I could have as easily recommended a course in technical writing. Anything to help you be more modular and concise.

And as for me, I promise to use the spellchecker more. But that reminds me of the woman who insulted Churchill by saying he was disgustingly drunk, and his reply that perhaps so, but she was disgustingly fat, yet in the morning, he would be sober. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

A well known incident, often cited (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Trouble is that brevity often conflicts with informativeness. I don't have sufficient trust that soundbites are honest, or sufficient skill to know what's readily skipped, so I avoid using it. I know my limits, and summing up a complex matter plus evidence in 2 sentences or paragraphs isn't it. There's worse.

What FT2 seems to be trying to say - rather ineptly - is that there exist people to whom the word "zoophilia" can be legitimately applied who have never, in fact, had sex with an animal. I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

What I'm saying is a bit harder to handle than that. I'm saying that a range of fairly authoritative sources seem to consider it uncontroversial in their field to state that even those who do such things, are not all abusive or to be classed as abusers.

That said... in your example, you haven't given any evidence whatsoever; which means its a mere assertion. Evidence it for a skeptical but openminded reasoning person, or explain how you got there so someone else can check your reasoning, and see how many words you need. That's why it gets wordy. I'd obviously be interested if there's a way to cover that and also keep it short.

Can FT2 possible be that oblivious to the limits of his ability to write in an effective manner? The only "skill" he has demonstrated in this thread is (blah...)

We're going to disagree Glass Bead. You don't want scholarly material shown to anyone under 16? 18?, regardless of harm its lack may cause. You seem to feel that providing scholarly information on difficult subjects is more harmful than clicking round whatever random links comes up... you're much more in the "hide it away, people shouldn't be able to know adult stuff" where conservatives hang out, regardless of need, value, or value of avoiding misinformation. We just don't have common ground on this.

FT2 and Giano are doing a phenomenal job of demonstrating Wikipedia's finest virtues in this thread. Please, both of you, do continue.

This would be a lot more compelling and the style less necessary if you and some others weren't egging it on for the year up till now, of course.

Popcorn still good, hun? Want a soda to go?

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Random832]

Yes, but the difference, Random, is that now you are on record as saying that

I'm actually only on record as having attributed it to someone else, but I see your point. I prefer to think that he's completely incompetent at communicating rather than deliberately being dishonest (don't look at me like that, FT2 - it really is down to those two options at this point, and incompetence is in line with AGF)

That said... you haven't given any evidence whatsoever; which means its a mere assertion. Evidence it for a skeptical but openminded reasoning person, or explain how you got there so someone else can check your reasoning, and see how many words you need. That's why it gets wordy. But if you can see how to shortcut it, then yes I'd obviously be interested.

You could try answering simple questions with simple answers and then providing your evidence separately, rather than having it all in one unintelligible mass of words.

[GlassBeadGame]

Can FT2 possible be that oblivious to the limits of his ability to write in an effective manner? The only "skill" he has demonstrated in this thread is (blah...)

We're going to disagree Glass Bead. You don't want scholarly material shown to anyone under 16? 18?, regardless of harm its lack may cause. You seem to feel that providing scholarly information on difficult subjects is more harmful than clicking round whatever random links comes up... you're much more in the "hide it away, people shouldn't be able to know adult stuff" where conservatives hang out, regardless of need, value, or value of avoiding misinformation. We just don't have common ground on this.

I never sought to persuade you of anything. I will also add complete inability to discern irony if not signaled by an emoticon to your list of pervasive communication deficits. Did you really think that I ever used the word "scholarly" in relation to your work intending anything other than mockery? Also did you notice that your pandering to the kiddies to come in and shout me down as "ageist" has not panned out? That argument has been settled for sometime on this site.

[FT2]

I'm actually only on record as having attributed it to someone else, but I see your point. I prefer to think that he's completely incompetent at communicating rather than deliberately being dishonest (don't look at me like that, FT2 - it really is down to those two options at this point, and incompetence is in line with AGF)
(Snip)
You could try answering simple questions with simple answers and then providing your evidence separately, rather than having it all in one unintelligible mass of words.

No need for defensiveness. It's an accurate comment in certain areas and obviously intended for good cause. I asked because I know it's a skill I lack and can get in the way, and in some cases it will make me an incompetent communicator. Concur and not shied away from. Something I've asked others to advise on before, and will again.

Someone has once mentioned something like that before, a couple or so months back (maybe more?), for wiki use - post a short version, plus link to the detail on a backing page (usually userspace) for those who would want it. Seems somewhat similar - does that work?

[wikiwhistle]

He also seems disoriented by his inability to command the needed influence to prevail here and appears to be searching desperately for a voice.

His search is over. The ever-more-desperate and rapidly declining Giana seems to be fulfilling that role nicely now that Wikiwhistle seems to have given up. Meh!

FT has been giving me tips on how to get my house warm via correct use of the clingfilm (not in a sex way lol) double-glazing technique. If it gets warm enough for me to live here, I shall be very pleased. I think I'll draw the line at converting to Bestialism or anything though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

What I'm saying is a bit harder to handle than that. I'm saying that a range of fairly authoritative sources seem to consider it uncontroversial in their field to state that even those who do such things, are not all abusive or to be classed as abusers.

What about the probably thousands more sources that would say the opposite?

[Moulton]

One of the keys to good writing (and I have long struggled with this one) is finding the right metaphor. An entire picture can be conveyed in a well-chosen metaphor.

If a good metaphor doesn't come to mind, downgrade to an analogy.

If a good analogy doesn't come to mind, downgrade to evidence-based reasoning and analysis.

If all else fails (and it often does), downgrade to a joke, personal anecdote, or atrocious song parody.

But whatever you do, avoid preaching by means of Jesuistic Parables. That practice will get you crucified faster than you can sing, "We will, we will BLOCK YOU!"

[dogbiscuit]

What I'm saying is a bit harder to handle than that. I'm saying that a range of fairly authoritative sources seem to consider it uncontroversial in their field to state that even those who do such things, are not all abusive or to be classed as abusers.

That, I think is the point where you leave the real world and end up in Wikipedialand. To come to such a statement relies on several basic issues: what definition of zoophilia are those sources using (given that at its most literal it can be taken to be as simple as someone who likes animals in the most general sense), the "fairly authoritative", the context of the quote, the biases of the sources and so on, all sourcing 101. You can provide all the sourcing you like, but The Reasonable Person would struggle to agree with the statement that you seek to justify, cutting the FT2 crap, that says "Having sex with animals is not abnormal or abusive." You no doubt will say that is not in any way the statement you are making, but by the time you add in redirects, obfuscation and whatever, that is what the reasonable person will think you are saying. In typical Wikipedian fashion, you will then argue that it is the reader's fault for failing to understand what is written than the writer's fault for failing to communicate in a manner a reasonable person can understand.

That's the problem with Wikipedia - it reserves the right to switch off common sense on a whim and you end up with illogical stances where starting from a reasonable position of wanting to insulate yourself from editors bias you end up instead with another bias "verifiability not truth" where the verifiability is based on a flawed set of rules that allow Wikipedians to argue for incorrect information without batting an eyelid.

We're going to disagree Glass Bead. You don't want scholarly material shown to anyone under 16? 18?, regardless of harm its lack may cause. You seem to feel that providing scholarly information on difficult subjects is more harmful than clicking round whatever random links comes up... you're much more in the "hide it away, people shouldn't be able to know adult stuff" where conservatives hang out, regardless of need, value, or value of avoiding misinformation. We just don't have common ground on this.

Classic FT2 misdirection. You know full well that the consensus here is that Wikipedia articles do not pass the test of scholarly information, and that there are other criteria than academic standards that dictate what are appropriate subjects for children. If you really believe that total mis-statement of GBG's obvious and rational statement of what most reasonable people would think then I think you really have confirmed you are not a fit and proper person to have any influence at all in the development of a resource used by minors, scholarly or otherwise.

To be frank, of all your odd outbursts here, that one is the one that makes me think that either your are stupid or are so irrationally convinced of your own intellectual superiority that you cannot conceive how our tiny minds will see how you have abused GBG's comments (which would then pretty much confirm the first premise).

[InkBlot]

I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

Yes, but the difference, Random, is that now you are on record as saying that and will have a hard time disavowing it, whereas FT2's verbal effluvia is so convoluted and jumbled that he can effectively deny anything he might have said later on, on the double grounds that it's unlikely that anyone actually read it all the way through in the first place and anyone who did probably got such a headache that they'll refuse to admit having read it if asked.

FT2's purpose is not and has never been to communicate; his purpose is to baffle and misdirect. You should direct your attention to the man behind the curtain.

Funny thing is, as long winded as he gets I can usually comprehend FT2 just fine. Now, when Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) really gets going on a rant, I get completely lost. Excellent command of language, that threatens to overwhelm him sometimes.

[wikiwhistle]

I've said I don't have a problem with FT2's writing style, but then I think he's generally improved over the months. Not many people agree with me though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[FT2]

I never sought to persuade you of anything. I will also add complete inability to discern irony if not signaled by an emoticon to your list of pervasive communication deficits. Did you really think that I ever used the word "scholarly" in relation to your work intending anything other than mockery?
(Snip...)

Right. Let's look at your sense of irony. Your actual statement read: "Maybe you think your views about X deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia... but I think not."

First off, notice the misattribution as before (whose views? "Your advocacy.. your views.." both misattributed)

Second... irony? This sentence was not ironic at all. It was a statement of what you yourself believe, in the context of a post on your beliefs about censorship features, and at the middle of a discussion about scholarly information on difficult and heated topics, right? And you blew a fuze about providing it. So let's recheck: "Should Wikipedia provide scholarly encyclopedic coverage of topics like this? If so, should they be provided to young people?"

Anyhow, I think we aren't going to agree.

That, I think is the point where you leave the real world and end up in Wikipedialand. To come to such a statement relies on several basic issues: what definition of zoophilia are those sources using (given that at its most literal it can be taken to be as simple as someone who likes animals in the most general sense), the "fairly authoritative", the context of the quote, the biases of the sources and so on, all sourcing 101. You can provide all the sourcing you like, but The Reasonable Person would struggle to agree...

The research is solid; the cites given for openness, the definitions broadly the commonplace usual ones in the field and both popular and clinical dictionaries. The fact that The Reasonable Person is your criterion for "what should be written" is the problem, because The Reasonable Person has believed every last myth and rumor going on every last topic in existence, at some time or other. On this one, the man in the street isn't informed. Media are uninformed. The weight in an article where science speaks, is given to science, and science is fairly precise about this. If you look at the branches of science that deal with this, you'll find very close agreement between the key researchers. I did, and I hadn't looked for it either, believe me. You'll also find the major researchers all seem to concur about the methodological errors of most studies, that build in what they aim to test.

And dogbiscuit, be careful not to conflate a person's personal feelings with the data they report from others.

Anyhow. If you don't like what the authoritative researchers in the field say, then go talk to them. I've given two links, you can find the rest easily enough. If you haven't done the work, don't prate about what "the reasonable but ignorant tv-watching man" would think. You've got a thousand website reporting "what different lay-people think". But it's almost entirely not good quality information.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[dogbiscuit]

The Reasonable Person has believed every last myth and rumor going on every last topic in existence, at some time or other. On this one, the man in the street isn't informed.

The man in the street is not The Reasonable Person. You do understand the concept, don't you, it is well understood, in English Law for example. Rummage - interestingly enough, Wikipedia has a reasonable stab at explaining it.

[Kato]

To be frank, of all your odd outbursts here, that one is the one that makes me think that either your are stupid or are so irrationally convinced of your own intellectual superiority that you cannot conceive how our tiny minds will see how you have abused GBG's comments (which would then pretty much confirm the first premise).

Indeed.

Some way up the thread, it became clear that FT2 was arguing from a position entirely cocooned within Wikipedia's absurd practices - and no amount of real-life revelation was going to penetrate his delusions.

The idea that Wikipedia - with all its turmoil, its lack of accountability, and perpetual revisionism is the most sensible venue to provide a "scholarly" account of bestiality for kids is ridiculous.

[FT2]

The man in the street is not The Reasonable Person. You do understand the concept, don't you, it is well understood, in English Law for example.

They're all too often the same. Sadly, the dispassion and wigs of the English Courtroom, and the completely understandable (and often deeply felt) visceral reaction of many, don't always co-exist easily. Human nature.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Moulton]

Boa Constrictor
By Shel Silverstein

Oh, I'm being eaten
By a boa constrictor,
A boa constrictor,
A boa constrictor,
I'm being eaten by a boa constrictor,
And I don't like it--one bit.

Well, what do you know?
It's nibblin' my toe.
Oh, gee,
It's up to my knee.
Oh my,
It's up to my thigh.
Oh, fiddle,
It's up to my middle.
Oh, heck,
It's up to my neck.

Oh, dread,
It's upmmmmmmmmmmffffffffff . . .

[Kelly Martin]

Funny thing is, as long winded as he gets I can usually comprehend FT2 just fine. Now, when Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) really gets going on a rant, I get completely lost. Excellent command of language, that threatens to overwhelm him sometimes.

Geogre is almost the antipode of FT2, though. Geogre mostly wants to write an encyclopedia (well, actually, he wants to write stuff and bask in the glory of knowing that other people are reading it, which is a pretty common motivation in the "authors first" coalition of Wikipedia), but he lacks enough emotional self-control to be an effective advocate for his own cause. He gets too easily lathered, and once lathered he tends to blather. George does not seem to particularly want to engage in community manipulation, but only does so when the community's actions interfere with his goals, or annoy him in some other way.

FT2, on the other hand, has no evident skill at actual writing, but instead is well-practiced at generate large quantities of verbiage that fails to commit to anything at all, much like a marketer, public relations expert, or postmodern philosopher. He is also very obviously far more interested in manipulating interpersonal relationships within the Wikipedia community (and in the periphery of that community, as evidenced by his dedicated efforts here) than he is in furthering the dissemination of knowledge generally. I do believe that he also has an interest in disseminating specific bits of so-called knowledge, which is to say that he appears to be attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to favor his particular points of view.

[FT2]

Some way up the thread, it became clear that FT2 was arguing from a position entirely cocooned within Wikipedia's absurd practices - and no amount of real-life revelation was going to penetrate his delusions.

The idea that Wikipedia - with all its turmoil, its lack of accountability, and perpetual revisionism is the most sensible venue to provide a "scholarly" account of bestiality for kids is ridiculous.

Kato, you're doing a grand job of reinventing GWB. "There were so weapons of mass destruction, honest!"

I believe I've explained myself quite amply; if you can't handle it, then be glad you and nobody you know has to. If you're happy and normative, be glad you didn't grow up spending your teens in some agony of worry with nobody to ask, nowhere to read. If you're an adult, which is questionable based on your lack of comprehension of the actuality of the real world where Bad And Difficult Stuff Happens To Real People, then your statement of "a scholarly account for kids" is a trivial idiocy -- that's Glass Bead's issue, not mine.

I'm fine if it were Net Nannied or CyberPatroled, and fine if we mark it as an "article for adults only". I'm not fine about censoring tough subjects from counselors, legal workers, concerned parents, concerned adults, desperate people who need that knowledge and can't ask anyone else, or the world at large, any more than I'd remove the books on them from libraries and online resellers. The rest of your post is your own interpretation of that.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[victim of censorship]

Um. Yeah. "The distribution of porn" says it all. Another advocate of sex education being limited to the over 16s? Join Glass Bead in the corner with the ostriches, because it doesn't work that way any more. Censor it and they won't go back to MTV, they'll click the next Google link instead. You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you? You see, there's a difference between us. I'm not "happy" when others suffer. You are, even if they aren't suffering, provided you can believe they might be.

There you go again, like the typical Wikipediot who loves to assume and put words and deeds on other people. I'm a father of two young children and I would rather that I teach them about the nature of Sex and it's place in the social fabric of our lives and culture, at a time and place, appropriate then have you ( who I don't know even your name or if you not some kind a pervert or worst a pedifile)
See some proof

And here too
Wikipedia is not were I would want to see my children to learn sex from. I consider Wikipedia worst then learning in the back alley from some Nambla editors/admins (predators) pushing their point of view.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[LaraLove]

Funny thing is, as long winded as he gets I can usually comprehend FT2 just fine.

I've said I don't have a problem with FT2's writing style, but then I think he's generally improved over the months. Not many people agree with me though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Past the tl;dr aspect, I don't find it difficult to follow what FT2 is saying.

[Peter Damian]

Some more quotes from the excellent Skopp from the 2006 Zoo page. FT2 has argued that Skopp (as well as numerous other people whose only common characteristic is that they have attempted to challenge FT2's ownership of the article) is a 'POV warrior'. Well, it is always difficult to tell which of two people who claim to be an expert is the real expert (perhaps neither are). Here are some arguments against it being FT2.

1. Skopp claims to be a medical expert on his talk page
2. Skopp claims to be a member of the Smithsonian
3. Of course he may be lying, but having read all of his edits he comes across as a literate, logical person who is capable of arguing clearly and succintly (unlike FT2)
4. My other test for expertise is to look at an area which I understand well, and see if the person is talking complete bollocks about it. If he (or she) is, it is highly probably they are talking bollocks about any subject they claim to be expert in. That is a rule that has served me well in life. As I have said, I have some expertise, a great deal more than FT2 I suspect, in the area of linguistics. Everything that FT2 has said about linguistics in his NLP articles is complete bollocks. Ergo &c.
5. Now I may be lying about my own area of expertise (linguistics). I leave you to be the judges of that.
6. (As also mentioned above) I also did ask one expert in the field of Zoophilia about the Zoo article. He said that as you would expect, the article was little more than a collection of stuff culled from the internet. Furthermore, while some of the research cited was valid, it was selectively cited, i.e. papers generally favouring the FT2 line were given prominence, and the unfavourable ones given little space and (in the case of one important paper) entirely omitted. He also said that very little evidence-based research had been done in this area and that it was very dangerous to draw conclusions, particularly in an encyclopedia used by the general public.

I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages (Skopp)

There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other.
Skopp http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032

[FT2]

I'm a father of two young children and I would rather that I teach them about the nature of Sex and it's place in the social fabric of our lives and culture, at a time and place, appropriate then have you ( who I don't know even your name.......

And I agree. They should learn healthy wise knowledge in its right time from their parents, not random strangers. They should probably at some point be taught formally by society, which is why most schools have sex education regardless.

But answer me this. You are the father of two young children. How sure are you that neither of them will have some weird sexual fantasy or repeating or extreme sexual thought in their teens? That can start quite young: 10, 12, 14 (11 - 13 is fairly usual, as young as 8 not unheard of). How sure are you that they won't be disturbed by it, or else, try to look up information on it? How much confidence do you have in your ability to stop them looking it up at home, or at friends when they go there, at school or on their cellphones, or someplace else? Are you sure they'd look to you for all wisdom, to explain all the bits they aren't sure of, and lay all their most secret concerns at your feet? Or find it elsewhere?

You're a confident parent if so, because that's probably not the most common answer. Is it appropriately confident though? And if you are, what about your neighbors' teenagers?

So you see, there are reasons why it may not be that you teach them everything. There's good reason why others less fortunate may be glad for accessible encyclopedic information on all kinds of difficult and unusual topics.

[Doc glasgow]

The man in the street is not The Reasonable Person. You do understand the concept, don't you, it is well understood, in English Law for example.

They're all too often the same. Sadly, the dispassion and wigs of the English Courtroom, and the completely understandable (and often deeply felt) visceral reaction of many, don't always co-exist easily. Human nature.

Unless, of course, one is fortunate enough to believe in natural law.

[Peter Damian]

So you see, there are reasons why it may not be that you teach them everything. There's good reason why others less fortunate may be glad for accessible encyclopedic information on all kinds of difficult and unusual topics.

The main thing, as I have repeatedly pointed out above, is that the information is in fact correct. I have reasonable confidence in the science and maths articles, because, apart from the fact I know many of the editors, there is also the fact that they have no vested interest in changing their account of Cantor's Theorem e.g. to suit their own purpose. By contrast, there are other very strange articles which most people would approach with trepidation both because they are embarrassed about the subject matter, and because they find some very determined people there who are determined to rationalise their own inclinations in a way that normalises the subject. E.g. the pederasty-related articles.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

The man in the street is not The Reasonable Person. You do understand the concept, don't you, it is well understood, in English Law for example.

They're all too often the same. Sadly, the dispassion and wigs of the English Courtroom, and the completely understandable (and often deeply felt) visceral reaction of many, don't always co-exist easily. Human nature.

In other words, you do not understand what is meant by The Reasonable Person.

[Moulton]

But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

As it happens, I did "go to a journalism school" where I signed on, not as a student, but as an Adjunct Faculty to assist with the technical aspects of Online Journalism. Over the past 14 years in that role, I've absorbed a substantial education in Mass Media Ethics (that being one of three undergraduate courses that I lent a hand in supporting). It's not enough to learn how to not write abysmal yellow journalism. Learning to be an ethical journalist is a serious requirement for any mass media producer. It occurs to me that anyone (and I'm not singling you out here, FT2) who undertakes to craft a high-profile online encyclopedia has an obligation to muster more than a D in Mass Media Ethics.

Uh uh -- no moving goalposts. Your original comment was "if you had to take a Journalism 101 class" and explicitly in the context of SlimVirgin being a grade A "technician" in her writing, an area you conclude many users and myself would get a "D". You're now "bait and switching" or recasting this (itself a non-ethical action) to be instead about "mass media ethics". May I respectfully point out that my response was as your question, about writing style?

Whose original comment? You seem to have confused "Moulton" with "Milton Roe".

Indeed. FT2 has attributed to me the remarks of Milton Roe.

Milton Roe and I may occasionally sound alike, I suppose, but we don't always echo each other's views or underscore each other's remarks.

It would be helpful if FT2 would refactor his quoted remarks, above, to distinguish between Milton and Moulton, each of whom maintain distinct sets of elusive goal posts.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Cedric]

Instead of "think of the children," in this case we should say to "think of the animals!"

No kidding. If there ever was a thread for this classic lolcat, this one has got to be it:

(IMG:http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6189/scaredkittyzk0.jpg)

I also noted the D-word (defamation) flying between Peter D and FT2. As I understand that both of them are English, this might be expected to devolve into some major legal drama, as English law on the subject is more plaintiff-friendly. Given how implacable they both appear to be, one can see it taking the House o' Lords to sort this one out.

(IMG:http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5158/rulingclass1785287et9.png)

"May it please your lordships . . . . "

However, this seems far less likely when one considers that defamation suits are horribly expensive (even more than in the US, or so I understand), and are not covered by the Legal Aid. I cannot say whether or not FT2 views WR as providing some sort of alternate "court of appeal" now that it appears that WP has finally revoked his cabal pass. While he can have a reasonable expectation of a "fair hearing" due to our fairly liberal posting rules, I cannot see his case prospering here. Frankly, bestiality apologia are rather beyond the tastes of even our more libertarian membership.

[GlassBeadGame]

I never sought to persuade you of anything. I will also add complete inability to discern irony if not signaled by an emoticon to your list of pervasive communication deficits. Did you really think that I ever used the word "scholarly" in relation to your work intending anything other than mockery?
(Snip...)

Right. Let's look at your sense of irony. Your actual statement read: "Maybe you think your views about X deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia... but I think not."

Right. No emoticon. No irony. I had begun this discussion believing that you were a scholar and a gentlemen and that Wikipedia was the last best hope of mankind. But I have been so shaken by the power of your skillful use of language that now I must resort to the ruse that you are dog fucker ensnaring children in order to take their puppies. You have me.

[Doc glasgow]

As I understand that both of them are English, this might be expected to devolve into some major legal drama, as English law on the subject is more plaintiff-friendly.

This is an oft-repeated myth.

Whilst it is perhaps easier for a plaintiff to win in English law, there are other problems.

1) It is incredibly expensive to bring an action in the UK. 2) There is no legal aid available on defamation. 3) Payouts tend to be a very small percentage of US payouts. 3) "No win no fee" is very rare.

The result is that English law is only more plaintiff friendlily if you have lots of money, and if wining a moral victory is more important than financial inducement. You may win the case, but find yourself worse off financially.

It is only friendly if you are a celebrity whose bank balance is only outstripped by his ego.

[Cedric]

This is an oft-repeated myth.

It ain't a myth if it just happens to be true.

1) It is incredibly expensive to bring an action in the UK.

Uh, I said that already (see above).

2) There is no legal aid available on defamation.

Yep. Said that already, too.

3) Payouts tend to be a very small percentage of US payouts.

I wasn't aware of that. If true, it doesn't surprise me.

3) [sic] "No win no fee" is very rare.

I didn't mention that, but was aware of it. You could have also mentioned the significant differences between fee-shifting rules in England and the US.

The result is that English law is only more plaintiff friendlily if you have lots of money, and if wining a moral victory is more important than financial inducement. You may win the case, but find yourself worse off financially.

It is only friendly if you are a celebrity whose bank balance is only outstripped by his ego.

English law on the surface (i.e., substantively) is indeed more friendly to defamation plaintiffs. But as to the practical aspects of pursuing such a case in the English courts, I have no argument with what you say here.

[FT2]

[quote name='Peter Damian' date='Wed 21st January 2009, 11:40am' post='152179'

[Kelly Martin]

[quote name='Peter Damian' date='Wed 21st January 2009, 11:40am' post='152179'

Perhaps the most concise and sensible thing you've ever said, FT2.

[FT2]

The main thing, as I have repeatedly pointed out above, is that the information is in fact correct. I have reasonable confidence in the science and maths articles, because, apart from the fact I know many of the editors, there is also the fact that they have no vested interest in changing their account of Cantor's Theorem e.g. to suit their own purpose. By contrast, there are other very strange articles which most people would approach with trepidation both because they are embarrassed about the subject matter, and because they find some very determined people there who are determined to rationalise their own inclinations in a way that normalises the subject. E.g. the pederasty-related articles.

The main thing from here is you lie incessantly and without compunction (please no more crap about being Poor Misunderstood And Needing Mommy). Two posts; you evaded the one, and avoided the other. If you need a "join the dots" or it wasn't quite clear enough before... well, you've got a Ph.D. in a linguistics field, haven't you. For most of 2008 that meant little more than "Peter habitually Deceives".

When your "I know" covers Headley and Flavius... your "knowing" is that Seus was a "poor" decent person instead of an SPA offsite canvasser, when Skopp becomes a pillar of the Smithsonian rather than someone who exaggerates, believes in hyperbole and inserts completely unchecked OR which coincidentally 1/ agrees with his personal pov and 2/ is 180 degrees incorrect, ...

You do actually have a degree don't you? I mean, you're not just some 15 year old behind a monitor are you? The degree exists doesn't it?


Glass Bead, as said, you and I are unlikely to agree.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Kelly Martin]

It amuses me when we have one anonymous idiot accusing another anonymous idiot of concealing the truth about his identity. FT2, why hasn't your head exploded from an excess of irony?

[CharlotteWebb]

FT2 has announced on User talk:Jimbo Wales that he is stepping down as an arbitrator. The Arbitration Committee believes that FT2's decision to leave the committee was the sensible course of action under all the circumstances, and we appreciate his having done so.

Over the past several weeks, and particularly since the new group of arbitrators arrived in late December, the committee has internally discussed various aspects of this matter. Although no arbitration case was pending against FT2, an increasing number of arbitrators had concluded that – in light of the volume of community concerns expressed – FT2's continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this. This does not represent a finding of wrongdoing.

Sorry I've been out of the loop, but this sounds a little weaselised to me. Were these views voted on by the committee or did they pass nem con? Could just be par for the course.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[dogbiscuit]

The main thing, as I have repeatedly pointed out above, is that the information is in fact correct. I have reasonable confidence in the science and maths articles, because, apart from the fact I know many of the editors, there is also the fact that they have no vested interest in changing their account of Cantor's Theorem e.g. to suit their own purpose. By contrast, there are other very strange articles which most people would approach with trepidation both because they are embarrassed about the subject matter, and because they find some very determined people there who are determined to rationalise their own inclinations in a way that normalises the subject. E.g. the pederasty-related articles.

The main thing from here is you lie incessantly and without compunction (please no more crap about being Poor Misunderstood And Needing Mommy). Two posts; you evaded the one, and avoided the other. If you need a "join the dots" or it wasn't quite clear enough before... well, you've got a Ph.D. in a linguistics field, haven't you. For most of 2008 that meant little more than "Peter habitually Deceives".

When your "I know" covers Headley and Flavius... your "knowing" is that Seus was a "poor" decent person instead of an SPA offsite canvasser, when Skopp becomes a pillar of the Smithsonian rather than someone who exaggerates, believes in hyperbole and inserts completely unchecked OR which coincidentally 1/ agrees with his personal pov and 2/ is 180 degrees incorrect, ...

You do actually have a degree don't you? I mean, you're not just some 15 year old behind a monitor are you? The degree exists doesn't it?


Glass Bead, as said, you and I are unlikely to agree.

FT2, what was the point of quoting something to ignore it and continue your insults?

It is pretty clear what Peter has said, and there is a gap between his presentation and the exact detail of what was done - but it is a small one, and a gap that to The Reasonable Person is not one that would be covered by "lying incessantly and without compunction." In the same way that you have failed to respond to a simple and basic observation as you have incessantly and without compunction for a year, but you perceive this as somehow acting honestly.

I'd suggest that an independent Reasonable Person reading the screeds of outpourings from you both would be more inclined to believe Peter than yourself simply because you are an unconvincing witness. If you went to court over this hypothetical defamation action, you would lose, because the judge and jury simply would not ever understand your case, and would not be inclined to give someone who never ever answers a question at all any benefit of the doubt.

Talking of honest answers, given that you claimed sole responsibility for sorting out the PoetGuy controversy in your resignation waffle, are you saying you were responsible for the illegal hacking of his email?

[wikiwhistle]

Some more quotes from the excellent Skopp from the 2006 Zoo page. FT2 has argued that Skopp (as well as numerous other people whose only common characteristic is that they have attempted to challenge FT2's ownership of the article) is a 'POV warrior'. Well, it is always difficult to tell which of two people who claim to be an expert is the real expert (perhaps neither are). Here are some arguments against it being FT2. {...}

He said that as you would expect, the article was little more than a collection of stuff culled from the internet. Furthermore, while some of the research cited was valid, it was selectively cited, i.e. papers generally favouring the FT2 line were given prominence, and the unfavourable ones given little space and (in the case of one important paper) entirely omitted.

Exactly. I know it's not as easy, but it is relatively easy to discern which are reliable sources, e.g. I tend to skip the general fan websites you find on a normal google search, and look at google books for those published by reputable presses, or google scholar for papers which are not for journals by fans of the subject and not peer reviewed much by outsiders. Then as someone quite new to the subject of the article, you can get the gist of which are the major works and what the main consensus view is.

As for the other point- yes, it's complete cherry-picking if the few papers which support zoophilia being harmless to the animal or a discriminated-against sexual minority are used as refs for pro-zoo statements, and a violation of the guidelines on coverage of fringe views, if these are given undue weight compared to the prevailing view of those discussing the subject in reliable sources.

[Bottled_Spider]

Milton Roe and I may occasionally sound alike, I suppose......

Heh. That's fighting talk, that is.

[FT2]

It would be helpful if FT2 would refactor hist quoted remarks, above, to distinguish between Milton and Moulton, each of whom maintain distinct sets of elusive goal posts.

I can't edit it myself, but can some moderator edit the above post and the original post it's linked to, as follows:

...Milton's original comment was...
...an area Milton concludes many users and myself...
...recasting his point to be instead about...
...my response was as Milton asked, about writing style?

Thanks

(Snip)

Neither Damian nor I are anonymous. Damian self-outed a couple of months ago, and for me there's a whole real world of colleagues and friends out there who know, plus quite a few editors. The fact you don't have a clue is not unexpected nor atypical; self-proclaimed trolls aren't a concern. Have some more popcorn, and enjoy the shiny lights, right?


To be honest I think this thread might be mostly done.

[EricBarbour]

Neither Damian nor I are anonymous. Damian self-outed a couple of months ago, and for me there's a whole real world of colleagues and friends out there who know, plus quite a few editors. The fact you don't have a clue is not unexpected nor atypical; self-proclaimed trolls aren't a concern. Have some more popcorn, and enjoy the shiny lights, right? To be honest I think this thread might be mostly done.

Not until you tell us why the world should take your maunderings seriously.

It might help if you identified yourself IRL, as some kind of degreed "expert" or other.
Because that neuro-linguistic programming business doesn't speak well for your "expertise".

[Basil]

Oh dear. Suppressing all this anger and resentment under threat of WP:CIVIL for so long was really very unhealthy. Thank goodness WR is here to facilitate catharsis.

[EricBarbour]

Oh dear. Suppressing all this anger and resentment under threat of WP:CIVIL for so long was really very unhealthy.

What makes you think it was "suppressed"?? It was simply redirected, into edit wars and other WP drama crap. I welcome an outright bitch session, because there aren't any good ones on WP. It's all backstabbing and deceit over there.

Thank goodness WR is here to facilitate catharsis.

Good, effective catharsis might involve a hot branding iron
to the fleshy bits of certain WP admins. This thread is just
amusement.

[Random832]

It would be helpful if FT2 would refactor hist quoted remarks, above, to distinguish between Milton and Moulton, each of whom maintain distinct sets of elusive goal posts.

I can't edit it myself,

Huh - I remember restrictions on editing were put in place after the PoetGuy stuff, but I thought there was a two-day grace period? Is that limited to people with 300 posts?

[wikiwhistle]

(Snip)

Neither Damian nor I are anonymous. Damian self-outed a couple of months ago, and for me there's a whole real world of colleagues and friends out there who know, plus quite a few editors.

You say that but if your name is what we've been lead to believe it is, there are thousands of people with the same name so unless you tell an individual which particular one you are, you're not fully outed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Moulton]

Hysteria

Histrionic Personality Disorder is also called Conversion Disorder.

Note that the word hysteria refers both to a psychological disturbance and variety of comedic drama.

We see a lot of "acting out" in the WikiCulture, for reasons that I could write a long dry scholarly essay exploring.

But I know better than to inflict academic material on this popcorn-loving audience.

[Floydsvoid]

But I know better than to inflict academic material on this popcorn-loving audience.

Hear! Hear!

I wonder what goal FT2 is trying to achieve here.

By the meta-MMORPG rules he is not allowed to win in this venue. Maybe his goal is to sow some FUD about some of the local participants.

[FT2]

Talking of honest answers, given that you claimed sole responsibility for sorting out the PoetGuy controversy in your resignation waffle, are you saying you were responsible for the illegal hacking of his email?

The case was transparent and needed no "hacking". Poetlister claimed belatedly it was, but this appears to be in relation to images circulated by one or more users here, and frankly I have no evidence where those images may have come from - I was working with his textual material which was transparent as to identity anyhow, not the pictures of girls (or himself).

That said, claims of hacking were made, but so were claims of many things; nothing I worked on utilized such material or anything more than bona fide third party information within the public domain, or verifiably and voluntarily provided during discussions with others who knew the man or his victims.

It might help if you identified yourself IRL, as some kind of degreed "expert" or other.
Because that neuro-linguistic programming business doesn't speak well for your "expertise".

If I had qualifications or such in a matter I would disclose it. I've disclosed awareness or such on other matters on the rare occasions I edit topics I may have COI with and have done so since early days. Good practice for researchers, hence automatic. Generally though I don't tend to edit in the areas I'm formally qualified, because they don't much interest me as encyclopedic topics. One exception here.

If you still believe Docknell or Damian then you may also want to consider a really great operation they can do, where they can remove your gullibility gland. I'm told it works wonders.

Oh dear. Suppressing all this anger and resentment under threat of WP:CIVIL for so long was really very unhealthy. Thank goodness WR is here to facilitate catharsis.

The reverse -- civility policy showed its worth here. The whole point is, people will fall out, sometimes badly. It should remain off-site as much as possible, because all that is a distraction for the project. The requirement of the project is that people find ways to work collaboratively for a common aim, not that they share common views or friendships.

The reality is, that had Damian not found willing sleaze to listen and embellish his sordid words, and to hear him uncritically instead of probe for reality, no drama would have happened in the first place. Far from catharsis, those broad failings created it in the first place by lapping them up. Then again, we've almost come full circle - 3 sentence summaries are easy when one doesn't have to check both sides and all evidence.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[dogbiscuit]

Talking of honest answers, given that you claimed sole responsibility for sorting out the PoetGuy controversy in your resignation waffle, are you saying you were responsible for the illegal hacking of his email?

The case was transparent and needed no "hacking". Poetlister claimed belatedly it was, but this appears to be in relation to images circulated by one or more users here, and frankly I have no evidence where those images may have come from - I was working with his textual material which was transparent as to identity anyhow, not the pictures of girls.

That said, claims of hacking were made, but so were claims of many things; nothing I worked on utilized such material or anything more than bona fide third party information within the public domain.

Back to your normal self. Your alter ego was more entertaining.

I take it that the dissembling answer means that you admit you used the contents of the email account directly ("his textual material") rather than bothering with the screen shots. You suggest it needed no hacking (odd that it was not solved so many months sooner in that case), but that does not deny that hacking took place. As ever, there is nothing in the words that can be read as a denial of your involvement in the hacking.

If there is one thing you should have learnt in the past month is that your silly pseudo-intellectual phrasing is meaningless. What is so difficult in saying "No Mr Biscuit, you may not believe me, but I did not hack the email account. I do/do not know who did hack it. I have/have not seen the contents of that email account."

[GlassBeadGame]

Talking of honest answers, given that you claimed sole responsibility for sorting out the PoetGuy controversy in your resignation waffle, are you saying you were responsible for the illegal hacking of his email?

The case was transparent and needed no "hacking". Poetlister claimed belatedly it was, but this appears to be in relation to images circulated by one or more users here, and frankly I have no evidence where those images may have come from - I was working with his textual material which was transparent as to identity anyhow, not the pictures of girls.

That said, claims of hacking were made, but so were claims of many things; nothing I worked on utilized such material or anything more than bona fide third party information within the public domain.

Back to your normal self. Your alter ego was more entertaining.

I take it that the dissembling answer means that you admit you used the contents of the email account directly ("his textual material") rather than bothering with the screen shots. You suggest it needed no hacking (odd that it was not solved so many months sooner in that case), but that does not deny that hacking took place. As ever, there is nothing in the words that can be read as a denial of your involvement in the hacking.

If there is one thing you should have learnt in the past month is that your silly pseudo-intellectual phrasing is meaningless. What is so difficult in saying "No Mr Biscuit, you may not believe me, but I did not hack the email account. I do/do not know who did hack it. I have/have not seen the contents of that email account."

Thank you dogbiscuit for following up by indicating the unacceptable nature of FT2 response to your important question. I was about to reply in similar fashion but you did a better job of it than I would have.

[Dzonatas]

"...those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent — know that you are on the wrong side of history." -- President Obama

I might make that my new sig quote.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Milton Roe]

"...those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent — know that you are on the wrong side of history." -- President Obama

I might make that my new sig quote.

Except I'm not so sure the man is right. Not as I read history. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

But I suppose it's in the job-description to say some thing optimistic at such times.

Milton Roe and I may occasionally sound alike, I suppose......

Heh. That's fighting talk, that is.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Cedric]

"...those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent — know that you are on the wrong side of history." -- President Obama

I might make that my new sig quote.

A great quote, despite the instant "considered" opinion that this speech would have no great quotes that would live on. My initial thought when I heard this was of Robert Mugabe, but it soon occurred to me it really has much broader application. Much broader.

[Milton Roe]

FT2 and Giano are doing a phenomenal job of demonstrating Wikipedia's finest virtues in this thread. Please, both of you, do continue.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) Indeed. Somewhere, there must yet be chains still un-yanked. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Arachnophilia.jpg)

[Casliber]

FT2 has announced on User talk:Jimbo Wales that he is stepping down as an arbitrator. The Arbitration Committee believes that FT2's decision to leave the committee was the sensible course of action under all the circumstances, and we appreciate his having done so.

Over the past several weeks, and particularly since the new group of arbitrators arrived in late December, the committee has internally discussed various aspects of this matter. Although no arbitration case was pending against FT2, an increasing number of arbitrators had concluded that – in light of the volume of community concerns expressed – FT2's continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this. This does not represent a finding of wrongdoing.

Sorry I've been out of the loop, but this sounds a little weaselised to me. Were these views voted on by the committee or did they pass nem con? Could just be par for the course.

can't really say more - it's called trying to strike a delicate balance in communication betwixt privacy and transparency...

Hysteria

Histrionic Personality Disorder is also called Conversion Disorder.

Note that the word hysteria refers both to a psychological disturbance and variety of comedic drama.

We see a lot of "acting out" in the WikiCulture, for reasons that I could write a long dry scholarly essay exploring.

But I know better than to inflict academic material on this popcorn-loving audience.

Huh?? No it isn't, and the old hysteria got split - part became borderline personality and part more like non-epileptic seizures and conversion...

[groody]

Back to your normal self. Your alter ego was more entertaining.

I take it that the dissembling answer means that you admit you used the contents of the email account directly ("his textual material") rather than bothering with the screen shots. You suggest it needed no hacking (odd that it was not solved so many months sooner in that case), but that does not deny that hacking took place. As ever, there is nothing in the words that can be read as a denial of your involvement in the hacking.

If there is one thing you should have learnt in the past month is that your silly pseudo-intellectual phrasing is meaningless. What is so difficult in saying "No Mr Biscuit, you may not believe me, but I did not hack the email account. I do/do not know who did hack it. I have/have not seen the contents of that email account."

Thank you dogbiscuit for following up by indicating the unacceptable nature of FT2 response to your important question. I was about to reply in similar fashion but you did a better job of it than I would have.

Indeed. Once again, our friend FT2 demonstrates his fine grip on the distinction between "lying" and "not telling the truth". I'd WR:AGF and assume he's just an incompetent writer, but, hey, it's FT2 we're talking about here.

In case you haven't got it yet, FT2, this seeming inability to answer a straight question in an unambiguous way (if at all) is why people don't trust you any further than they could throw you, while they simultaneously take Peter Damian seriously. That's why the farmsex edits don't matter, the oversighting doesn't matter much, but the dissembling after the oversighting matters enormously.

That said, as a parent, I would suggest that the majority of the *philia set of articles on WP are at best irresponsible and at worst (including the stuff you tried to put into zoophilia) a glamourisation and attempt at normalisation of the various 'philias being discussed; as such, they are the very last place I would want my children looking were they to have issues they could not discuss with me. I find your continued defence of those edits as somehow "responsible" despicable. I wouldn't trust you to bring up a goldfish, let alone a child.

f.

This post has been edited by groody:

[dogbiscuit]

Indeed. Once again, our friend FT2 demonstrates his fine grip on the distinction between "lying" and "not telling the truth". I'd WR:AGF and assume he's just an incompetent writer, but, hey, it's FT2 we're talking about here.

In case you haven't got it yet, FT2, this seeming inability to answer a straight question in an unambiguous way (if at all) is why people don't trust you any further than they could throw you, while they simultaneously take Peter Damian seriously. That's why the farmsex edits don't matter, the oversighting doesn't matter much, but the dissembling after the oversighting matters enormously.

That said, as a parent, I would suggest that the majority of the *philia set of articles on WP are at best irresponsible and at worst (including the stuff you tried to put into zoophilia) a glamourisation and attempt at normalisation of the various 'philias being discussed; as such, they are the very last place I would want my children looking were they to have issues they could not discuss with me. I find your continued defence of those edits as somehow "responsible" despicable. I wouldn't trust you to bring up a goldfish, let alone a child.

f.

To be clear, I do not have knowledge where the truth lies, and actually my response probably overstates the case as, with a fair wind, FT2's second paragraph comes close to being a denial that I could accept - if it were not for the fact that FT2 himself claims to spend a long time crafting his words - which opens up the question, why did he use that construction and does he really mean what I think it says?

To put this in perspective, I'm sure Proab could indicate how much he knows FT2 knows. Those who have seen the screen shots will recognise that there are some oddities in how FT2 described the information. If Pro confirmed that FT2 was involved in the Wikipedian circle that had been given sight of the screen shots, then I'd be able to say pretty certainly whether FT2's response is simply an appallingly worded denial or a very deliberate attempt to rewrite history (how tactful!).

I'm sure he thinks he was instrumental in bringing PoetGuy down, but in fact he was pushing at a very open door where very many people had already concluded there was something wrong. His possible suggestion that he never saw the hacked emails is simply at odds with the information we were given here.

[Peter Damian]

It is pretty clear what Peter has said, and there is a gap between his presentation and the exact detail of what was done - but it is a small one, and a gap that to The Reasonable Person is not one that would be covered by "lying incessantly and without compunction." In the same way that you have failed to respond to a simple and basic observation as you have incessantly and without compunction for a year, but you perceive this as somehow acting honestly.

Not even a small gap.

(1) I claimed over a year ago that I had contacted various websites. Meaning, messages were sent. At the time I was claiming this, I had no idea whether the messages had been received.

(2) On this thread above I said that 'contact had been made' with one site. Meaning, message receipt acknowledged. To this day I have no idea whether the other messages had even been seen by another person or not.

I don't see there is any gap or inconsistency between claims (1) and (2). Certainly not to justify the appalling claim that I was "lying incessantly and without compunction." since that date.

Furthermore there is another claim that FT2 makes incessantly and without compunction throughout this thread, that since Dec 21 2007 I have been using WR to defame him by making 'fantastical allegations'. But he ought to look through the threads in this section. The earliest threads I began here were not about Zoo , but Neurolinguistic programming. Later I added a thread about the oversighted edits, and I disclosed the content of the edits. But disclosing the contents of edits legitimately made to Wikipedia do not constitute defamation. I have always been pretty careful about getting into the same trouble here as I did on Wikipedia Dec 2007. Indeed, look through the whole thread here, where a number of people have made all kinds of crude insinuations. Compare them with the remarks I have made - which mostly consist of diffs to Wikipedia talk pages, by other people.

If anyone can find any serious allegations I have made on this website here, let me know.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

It is pretty clear what Peter has said, and there is a gap between his presentation and the exact detail of what was done...

Not even a small gap.

(1) I claimed over a year ago that I had contacted various websites. Meaning, messages were sent. At the time I was claiming this, I had no idea whether the messages had been received.

(2) On this thread above I said that 'contact had been made' with one site. Meaning, message receipt acknowledged. To this day I have no idea whether the other messages had even been seen by another person or not.

I don't see there is any gap or inconsistency between claims (1) and (2). Certainly not to justify the appalling claim that I was "lying incessantly and without compunction." since that date.

I'll clarify that I am talking about my perception of what went on. I don't take issue with your statement there.

I think the gap in my mind is that in discussing this you have settled on a formulation that you successfully contacted a single site, but initially it was clear that your original intent was to contact wide and far before the red mist faded. I don't think my perception is at odds with your comments - and as I say, it is not a major issue - I understand that you are not proud of that little episode. With that perception, there is clearly a grain of truth in FT2 suggesting you sought to minimise what went on which can be considered to be deceptive - but to extrapolate it into a year long campaign of deception is in itself a deceptive exaggeration. I may not be 100% accurate, but that seems a reasonable view to have formed.

It strikes me that this is a very Wikipedian condition - there is an alternative logic that abounds, seemingly based in AGF, where "bold" statements can be made unchallenged because to challenge them is to break the rule of assuming honesty, but as soon as you can pierce the veil of AGF through some evidence of lack of candour or whatever, then AGF is entirely withdrawn and is replaced with ABF, where all statements can be taken as false, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Worse, statements made under AGF are assumed to be permanently unchallengeable truths and statements made under ABF can be assumed to be unchallengeable falsehoods until a Wikipedian deems that AGF can no longer be applied (bloodbath ensues).

WAB - Wikipedia Addles the Brain.

[dtobias]

It strikes me that this is a very Wikipedian condition - there is an alternative logic that abounds, seemingly based in AGF, where "bold" statements can be made unchallenged because to challenge them is to break the rule of assuming honesty, but as soon as you can pierce the veil of AGF through some evidence of lack of candour or whatever, then AGF is entirely withdrawn and is replaced with ABF, where all statements can be taken as false, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Worse, statements made under AGF are assumed to be permanently unchallengeable truths and statements made under ABF can be assumed to be unchallengeable falsehoods until a Wikipedian deems that AGF can no longer be applied (bloodbath ensues).

Could be some variant of the game-theory strategy "Tit for Tat", where players trust everybody until they betray them, after which they're distrusted. Unlike in the artificial games where such strategies are generally described and tested, there aren't clear, objective standards for determining whether somebody has "cooperated" or "defected", so this is judged in a highly subjective, biased way, but once somebody judges that somebody else is a "defector", the distrustfulness is right out of that strategy. However, in strict "tit for tat" I believe the players are forgiving in that they'll start trusting again if the other player starts cooperating again, so maybe the Wikipedia strategy is more like an alternative game theory strategy (I'm not sure the name) where defectors are shunned permanently.

----------------
Now playing: Kelly Clarkson - Because Of You
via FoxyTunes

[victim of censorship]

"...those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent — know that you are on the wrong side of history." -- President Obama

I might make that my new sig quote.

Then how does "THE ONE" resolves these inconvenient turths...
The Obama Truth squad

More about Obama's Turth squad

You think Obama may use the power of the goverment now to stop this kind of reporting?
an inconvenient truth

OR THIS?

May be there will be Hope and Change camps filling up with those daring to question "THE ONE".

Hysteria

Histrionic Personality Disorder is also called Conversion Disorder.

Note that the word hysteria refers both to a psychological disturbance and variety of comedic drama.

We see a lot of "acting out" in the WikiCulture, for reasons that I could write a long dry scholarly essay exploring.

But I know better than to inflict academic material on this popcorn-loving audience.

Huh?? No it isn't, and the old hysteria got split - part became borderline personality and part more like non-epileptic seizures and conversion...

Yes, DSM IV has long since teased apart variants that Freud, Jung, and Bleuler once subsumed under the generic diagnosis of Hysteria.

But did you know that Aspergers Syndrome (also teased apart from Autism) was also studied by Freud, Jung, and Bleuler? Bleuler proposed that Kraepelin's diagnosis of Dementia Praecox be reclassified as Schizophrenia. At the same time, Sabina Spielrein (whom Jung had diagnosed with Hysteria) began her own independent analysis leading to her teaming up with Jean Piaget to describe "Autistic and Symbolic Thought" as characteristic of those whom Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger would study and characterize more extensively some 20 years later.

Oh sorry. I'm afraid your popcorn has gone stale.

The main problem with those with Aspergers is mind blindness as well as a "faulty executive function " in person with Aspergers.


(my 13 year old boy has this and I have lived for the last 13 years).

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Kelly Martin]

It strikes me that this is a very Wikipedian condition - there is an alternative logic that abounds, seemingly based in AGF, where "bold" statements can be made unchallenged because to challenge them is to break the rule of assuming honesty, but as soon as you can pierce the veil of AGF through some evidence of lack of candour or whatever, then AGF is entirely withdrawn and is replaced with ABF, where all statements can be taken as false, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Worse, statements made under AGF are assumed to be permanently unchallengeable truths and statements made under ABF can be assumed to be unchallengeable falsehoods until a Wikipedian deems that AGF can no longer be applied (bloodbath ensues).

This is how Jimbo himself manages his interpersonal relationships, so it's small wonder
Wikipedia behaves the same way. It's been amusing to see FT2 repeating Jimbo's strategy for "managing trolls" in this thread, as well. Really speaks to FT2's tendency to cultishness.

[Cedric]

It strikes me that this is a very Wikipedian condition - there is an alternative logic that abounds, seemingly based in AGF, where "bold" statements can be made unchallenged because to challenge them is to break the rule of assuming honesty, but as soon as you can pierce the veil of AGF through some evidence of lack of candour or whatever, then AGF is entirely withdrawn and is replaced with ABF, where all statements can be taken as false, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Worse, statements made under AGF are assumed to be permanently unchallengeable truths and statements made under ABF can be assumed to be unchallengeable falsehoods until a Wikipedian deems that AGF can no longer be applied (bloodbath ensues).

WAB - Wikipedia Addles the Brain.

I believe that the process described above only applies to power users, that is, to Those Of The Body. If you are not a power user and do or say something that pisses off an admin or other power user, and despite the lack of any actual policy violation, the offended party can proceed immediately under ABF and make false accusations against the non-power user. The more ridiculous and contrary to the evidence the accusation is, the better. I should know; it was done to me.

[Moulton]

It strikes me that this is a very Wikipedian condition - there is an alternative logic that abounds, seemingly based in AGF, where "bold" statements can be made unchallenged because to challenge them is to break the rule of assuming honesty, but as soon as you can pierce the veil of AGF through some evidence of lack of candour or whatever, then AGF is entirely withdrawn and is replaced with ABF, where all statements can be taken as false, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Worse, statements made under AGF are assumed to be permanently unchallengeable truths and statements made under ABF can be assumed to be unchallengeable falsehoods until a Wikipedian deems that AGF can no longer be applied (bloodbath ensues).

Could be some variant of the game-theory strategy "Tit for Tat", where players trust everybody until they betray them, after which they're distrusted. Unlike in the artificial games where such strategies are generally described and tested, there aren't clear, objective standards for determining whether somebody has "cooperated" or "defected", so this is judged in a highly subjective, biased way, but once somebody judges that somebody else is a "defector", the distrustfulness is right out of that strategy. However, in strict "tit for tat" I believe the players are forgiving in that they'll start trusting again if the other player starts cooperating again, so maybe the Wikipedia strategy is more like an alternative game theory strategy (I'm not sure the name) where defectors are shunned permanently.

In a classical game (especially in a 2-person game), the contestants have diametrically opposed objectives.

But when you morph from a 2-person zero-sum game to an N-person drama, the hidden agendas of the participating characters have arbitrary aims. Whether the maneuvers of another player are a help or a hindrance to oneself depends on a lot of factors, most of which are hard to reckon without a librettro and Cliff's Notes.

The intractability of reckoning the politics of a dramafest like Wikipedia is what makes the site such a wonderful laboratory for those of us who are studying the theory and operation of 21st Century drama engines.

[Giano]

This thread has now gone on for so long, it has become a little lost, and certainly a lot has happened during it's progression. So I'm going to post and answer my own rhetoric.

Do we have any real proof that FT2 has personally engaged in perverted activities? - No
Has Wikipedia Review wrongly accused FT2 of being a leather clad male escort? - Yes
Has FT2 written about perverted activities? - Yes
Does writing about a subject prove one embraces it? - No
As a result of the above has FT2 received unacceptable threats from Peter Damian? - yes
Is Peter Damian a person whose word can be trusted 100%? - No
Did David Gerard wrongfully oversight the famous edits? - yes
Did Jimbo know about the situation before the shit hit the fan? - Yes
Did FT2 know about these edits and deliberately prevaricate? - Yes
In light of the above was their any justification for FT2's prevarication? - No he was an Arb, they have to be above suspicion.
Is it right that FT2 takes the blame entirely alone? - No

Conclusion: FT2 has been maligned and wronged on WR. However, he is largely, through naivety, the architect of his own misfortune. Peter Damain is an obsessive liar whose word cannot be trusted. FT2 is a naive person with odd, but legal interests in illegal subjects. Hopefully we have all learned something from this d=strange situation. Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.

Giano

[Peter Damian]

Peter Damain is an obsessive liar whose word cannot be trusted. FT2 is a naive person with odd, but legal interests in illegal subjects. Hopefully we have all learned something from this d=strange situation. Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.

The argument for my being an 'obsessive liar' essentially because I claimed in Dec 2007 to have 'contacted various websites' (true, 3) and later in this very thread to have made contact with only one of them (true also).

As I have said above, the loss, in a way that I fail to comprehend or fathom, of Giano's support, a support that meant much to me and was like a kind of friendship, is the worst thing to have come out of all this. Bitter regrets indeed.

I still admire the way he has stood up to the corruption of Wikipedia and the kindness and support he has shown to those who are trying to write the encyclopedia, and I hope the reasons for his behaviour here amount to no more than a tragic misunderstanding. I will continue to support him in whatever he does on the project.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Giano]

Peter Damain is an obsessive liar whose word cannot be trusted. FT2 is a naive person with odd, but legal interests in illegal subjects. Hopefully we have all learned something from this d=strange situation. Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.

The argument for my being an 'obsessive liar' essentially because I claimed in Dec 2007 to have 'contacted various websites' (true, 3) and later in this very thread to have made contact with only one of them (true also).

As I have said above, the loss, in a way that I fail to comprehend or fathom, of Giano's support, a support that meant much to me and was like a kind of friendship, is the worst thing to have come out of all this. Bitter regrets indeed.

I still admire the way he has stood up to the corruption of Wikipedia and the kindness and support he has shown to those who are trying to write the encyclopedia, and I hope the reasons for his behaviour here amount to no more than a tragic misunderstanding. I will continue to support him in whatever he does on the project.

"I am posting at various activist sites,
and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this."

ACTIVIST

This post has been edited by Giano:

[Peter Damian]

ACTIVIST

Ergo obsessive liar? Actually I posted to 'Veggie boards'. This seems mostly to be full of middle aged women who own cats and demonstrate against live cattle transporting and discuss recipes for lentils. They were somewhat bemused by my rant about the zoophilia article and it was a relief all round when the thread was deleted.

[GlassBeadGame]

Peter Damain is an obsessive liar whose word cannot be trusted. FT2 is a naive person with odd, but legal interests in illegal subjects. Hopefully we have all learned something from this d=strange situation. Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.

The argument for my being an 'obsessive liar' essentially because I claimed in Dec 2007 to have 'contacted various websites' (true, 3) and later in this very thread to have made contact with only one of them (true also).

As I have said above, the loss, in a way that I fail to comprehend or fathom, of Giano's support, a support that meant much to me and was like a kind of friendship, is the worst thing to have come out of all this. Bitter regrets indeed.

I still admire the way he has stood up to the corruption of Wikipedia and the kindness and support he has shown to those who are trying to write the encyclopedia, and I hope the reasons for his behaviour here amount to no more than a tragic misunderstanding. I will continue to support him in whatever he does on the project.

Based on the summary provided, Giano shows himself to be concerned only with the internal workings of the encyclopedia and not at all with social responsibility. He is as oblivious to the Mueller Parallels that runs through FT2 edits on sex with animals edits and Mueller's "pedophia can be harmless or benficial" writings. Giano is completely unconcerned with the lack of child protection measures that makes all of this a crucial concern. Peter is terribly over-involved in Wikipedia but still retains some notions of social responsibility.

[wikiwhistle]

Do we have any real proof that FT2 has personally engaged in perverted activities? - No

No, but he says doing so is sometimes not abusive.

As a result of the above has FT2 received unacceptable threats from Peter Damian? - yes

PD has a right to inform the authorities (but maybe not professional troublemakers) if he feels abuse is occuring IMHO.

Did David Gerard wrongfully oversight the famous edits? - yes

Sort of, but you can sort of see their point if they think FT was being threatened with real world problems from them.

Did FT2 know about these edits and deliberately prevaricate? - Yes
Is it right that FT2 takes the blame entirely alone? - No

These I agree with.

Peter Damain is an obsessive liar whose word cannot be trusted.

Hmmm, not sure about that. According to your own claim above that he lied, it is FT who's not to be trusted (just playing devil's advocate here.) I've not known PD actually lie- maybe be slightly economical with the actualite in the sense of altering definitions of 'contacting' but that's about it.

FT2 is a naive person

Maybe in some ways, but if he was not a smooth political operator at some points, he would not have become an arb.

Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.

Now FT has resigned as an arb, I think he is not deserving of being a target here any further, unless people feel they've discovered or seen him abuse his power in some new way.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[dogbiscuit]

It is an odd thread this one for bringing out some unsavoury sides of characters.

Contrary to their aims, it seems to increase the stature of Peter Damian and substantially reduce the credibility of FT2 even further, and now Giano. Didn't quite manage to rehabilitate Moulton, but there is still time (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.

...and Giano joins FT2 in running off with the ball - I didn't realise it had been brought back. Fortunately WR has a few spares (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) There are still a few issues to cover.

[wikiwhistle]

There are still a few issues to cover.

The Zoo and NLP topics' numerous articles may need NPOVing- it would take someone bolder than me though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

There are still a few issues to cover.

The Zoo and NLP topics' numerous articles may need NPOVing- it would take someone bolder than me though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I was thinking more along the lines of FT2's dismissal of knowledge of the hacked emails when he knows he had been in contact with various people who worked with that information and that they provided him with information that he could not be unaware of the source. (In other words, he did not hack the emails, but he must have known that the information he was using came from hacked emails).

However, you are right. Given that FT2 has been unseated, it opens an opportunity for a sanitising of Wikipedia's articles. I would have thought that NLP has been given something of a going over by now (not knowing enough about this pseudo-science I wouldn't be able to judge how well NLP has been contained) but sanitising the zoophilia article, (which on a read of some sections definitely uses inappropriate wording which does not sufficiently distance the narration from the opinions which are not well balanced), might not be practical if there are those still determined to keep its friendly stance, in which case it should go and be replaced with a short brief definition of the issue (stubbed and protected).

There is also the question of how reliable his identification of socks are and how many people have been blocked inappropriately on the infallible word of FT2.

[Somey]

It might very well be a good idea to close this thread, at some point at least. I don't think we're going to reach any sort of closure on the issues involved, but then again, that could be said about nearly every thread on the website to some degree.

However, I do think this statement is completely unfair:

The reality is, that had Damian not found willing sleaze to listen and embellish his sordid words, and to hear him uncritically instead of probe for reality, no drama would have happened in the first place. Far from catharsis, those broad failings created it in the first place by lapping them up. Then again, we've almost come full circle - 3 sentence summaries are easy when one doesn't have to check both sides and all evidence.

First off, most of the really nasty verbiage about FT2 here has come from Mr. Docknell, not Mr. Damian. Mr. Damian's tone here has always been more of the "I can't believe people are really getting away with these things" variety. Also, the original thread that introduced us to the "oversighted edits" actually started out being about WJBscribe (T-C-L-K-R-D) , not FT2, and he got into it here with Ryan Postlethwaite, not (again) FT2:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=86159

It would be easy to overlook this because it wasn't moved into the "FT2" sub-subforum. Anyhoo, Damian apparently didn't want to bring FT2 into it at first, the way I read that (though admittedly, these things are open to interpretation). And his story hasn't really changed, at least not in that respect. Speaking of which, why is it such an issue as to whether or not he threatened to go to "multiple sites" with the story as opposed to just one? What difference does that make, really?

But back to the point: The problem wasn't that we were "lapping it up," though it's probably true that most of us here are predisposed to treat these things as scandalous if there's any possibility thereof. The fact is, the diffs were there, we all looked at them, and many of us (including myself) were appalled by them - there wasn't anything special about the way Mr. Damian formulated his arguments that made us all "dance to his tune." And I, for one, didn't immediately assume that the author of that content was a zoophile himself - as you can see from the post I just linked to, I thought the content was horrific, but more because I saw it as a form of "political correctness" taken to an absurd, even dangerous, extreme.

Last but not least, I have to say that I reject this idea that in cases where the media, the "man in the street," and "science" have all weighed in on a particular subject, an encyclopedia-like website must by necessity place the view of "science" over the others, particular to the exclusion of the others. Science can be wrong too, and to me, common sense should trump all of it. And again, we're talking about "sexology" here, not "biology" or "chemistry" or even "psychology" - it's a nascent "science" at best. I for one am willing to accept the idea that the majority of serious sexological researchers have concluded that the "typical zoophile" isn't on the level of, say, the "typical rapist" or the "typical sadist." But that doesn't quite make it all right, does it?

[The Adversary]

Editors come here all the time to complain about specific admins on WP (I sure did (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) And it turns out that sometimes they are right, ..and sometimes not. (Surprise!) I have heard/read pretty nasty things about SandyGeorgia, AlisonC and Gwen Gale here; and a little have turned up to be correct, and a lot: not so.

So when Peter Damian/Mr. Docknell started complaining about FT2, well, I think most of us didn´t "lap it up". (I knew FT2 from WP only as an important player in finally nailing Matanmoreland; for which he received countless stars/medals of honor in my eyes)

Ok, there were some speculations about FT2 RL identity, including a link to a male escort site, which mysteriously went down a few hours (minutes?) after it was linked from here. So what? Even if that was him, well, it had a certain "chuckle"-factor, but that was it. Hey, W.C. Minor did excellent work for Oxford English Dictionary, so who gives a damn about the background of a WP-writer? And nooo, I don´t think anyone here is so naive that they immediately think that you automatically practise/have sympathy with what you write about. (I have often edited articles related to, say, Islam on WP, in RL I´m a hard-core atheist.)

It was only when FT2 arrived here that I became "willing sleaze" of WR: the way FT2 avoided the question about his sock-puppery, the oversights, and not the least: I started reading the "Bestiality"-articles themselves. Eck. And guess what: if you act guilty, then many will believe that you are guilty. When O.J. Simpson runs from the police, (or edits are oversighted), even if a formal court finds you "not guilty", the impressions have been made. (Recall the erasing of tapes by Nixon?)

And the way first FT2, and now Giano, are trying to nuke Peter Damian; jeeez, an "obsessive liar"?? where the only possibly false statement from him is regarding whether he had contact with *one* ..or *more than one* external site.....Holy Christ, when people are using verbal nuclear bombs against a guy because he used a bow and arrow: isn´t that a "slight" overkill? Do you think we will "buy the argument" if you just use strong enough language?

As to the zoophilia-articles themselves: yes, they are (IMHO) horribly slanted. (Btw; two of the more liberal countries in the world (both in Scandinavia) are now in the process of making zoophilia illegal. The main argument has come from vets and animal welfare groups, after vets have reported many cases of animals which were killed or had to be put down after zoosexual activities. This is an aspect which is completely missing from the articles; see Animal rights, welfare and abuse concerns. And typically Zoophilia and health is only about human health. (But we do have long sections on "Zoophilia as a lifestyle", (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) ) (The WP articles now seems to want us to believe that the reason that zoophilia is illegal in most countries is just a left-over from the religious dark ages. With an enlighten, "scientific" new age it will become legal everywhere, right? Hah!)

So there you are, FT2: it was you that made this WR-person start "lapping up" Damiens words, and become a "willing sleaze" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) So stop blaming others for the trouble you have created for yourself. It is not a pretty sight.

[FT2]

A few quick answers before wrap-up:

I was thinking more along the lines of FT2's dismissal of knowledge of the hacked emails when he knows he had been in contact with various people who worked with that information and that they provided him with information that he could not be unaware of the source. (In other words, he did not hack the emails, but he must have known that the information he was using came from hacked emails).

I think I answered this. None of the information I used, whatsoever, came from anything other than readily available legitimate resources - Poetlisters edits, public information, and third parties legitimately contacted. I cannot of my own knowledge say whether information used by others was hacked or not; I can say if it was, I was neither part of it, nor used it.

There is also the question of how reliable his identification of socks are and how many people have been blocked inappropriately on the infallible word of FT2.

I hate to say this but the answer here is probably 100% accuracy. To underline this, there were more than a few socks I waited 2 - 4 months after first noticing (or being asked to look at), until there was overwhelming evidence. They were not blocked hastily, nor on whim, nor recklessly. They were consulted, discussed, evidence looked at. I was quite often the one saying "not 100% sure yet, let's wait". (more)

First off, most of the really nasty verbiage about FT2 here has come from Mr. Docknell, not Mr. Damian. Mr. Damian's tone here has always been more of the "I can't believe people are really getting away with these things" variety.

That'd make sense in part. But not in whole... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

A simple question, Somey: why on earth didn't someone email to say "There is considerable discussion going on and you really should address it", around a year ago? I heard nothing of any of this except the odd "Damian's still going on, off-site" comment; there wasn't any indication that anything needed reply. When I finally found it was to that degree, it was many months later.

And guess what: if you act guilty, then many will believe that you are guilty

Which ties in to the above. By the time I was aware of this going on at WR to this extent, it was around August/September. Distinguishing genuine questions from faux smoke and established gossip was not easy because it had festered so long. There comes a point one says simply, "You know, if you (collectively) hold or encourage such views then you're clearly incompetent to judge evidence, or else you (or one or more of you) would have done so, or at least asked".

That may not be the most perfect of answers but I tend to avoid the antics of drama-whoring, so it's the response that I felt. Had it been clear that an answer would be taken as serious, and considered in a balanced way, rather than feeding time at a menagerie, then fine. Instead, respectful speech was met with mockery, lines related to privacy were taken as "must be guilty of something", and so on. But if you look on WP, I've respected privacy of everyone faithfully, not just myself; well spoken to everyone, not just a few. What kind of site have you created where a person has to swear like a trooper and feed the monkeys, to be taken seriously, anyway? I'll do it if needed but jesus, what a mess.... and it's supposed to be a criticism site? Criticism implies care in reviewing evidence. I don't see any of that. Damian's blocks were easily checked for evidence, and anyone could have called him on his persecution claims. Thread where this took place? Apparently none. Evidence was lapped up because it was salacious gossip; were there mass voices going "wait, lets recheck this"? No.

Most people's response to such circumstances is not "let's trust everything". Mine isn't either. At least one person here will take all data given and use it to do harm. Cause and effect, right? I don't much talk about myself at the best of times, like many people. Build a site which can handle "criticism" seriously rather than in name only, remove the jokers who can't, and you might have readily heard more.

Last but not least, I have to say that I reject this idea that in cases where the media, the "man in the street," and "science" have all weighed in on a particular subject, an encyclopedia-like website must by necessity place the view of "science" over the others, particular to the exclusion of the others.

I can't agree with that. Think what "the media" and "the man in the street" have endorsed over time, compared to science. Remember "Loving v. Virginia"? The judge told the couple, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." We'd laugh now, but that was popular opinion back then. 1700? 1800? No. This was 1959. I forget how recently it was that homosexuals couldn't adopt because "everyone knew" they might be child molesters. A few hundred years ago it was witchcraft. I just don't share your high regard for the media and the man in the street's ability to read evidence in depth and consider things that may be hard to think about.

So I cannot agree with your comment here. If the aim is to educate, then we tell people that homosexuals are not "per se" child abusers even if their culture prevalently believes this to be the case; we tell people the truth as best it's known about other matters rather than pandering to street talk. At times those truths will be uncomfortable, especially if science has developed a view that there is a good chance a whole culture's beliefs are mistaken.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Peter Damian]

First off, most of the really nasty verbiage about FT2 here has come from Mr. Docknell, not Mr. Damian. Mr. Damian's tone here has always been more of the "I can't believe people are really getting away with these things" variety.

That'd make sense in part. But not in whole... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Ahem, I am not the only one who has compared NLP to a cult.

Having compared the version from December 1 with the current version, it seems to me very much as if Comaze and a few others are promoting rather than documenting the concept. The article becomes more promotional with each batch of edits, and the fundamental fact that NLP is essentially a cult with no scientific validity is more and more obscured. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=94711304

[Bottled_Spider]

Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.
Giano

Bet you a tenner that you will. It's like when you blank your Wiki pages and/or flounce off threatening never to go back again. You're an addict.

ACTIVIST

Hey! I just made a tenner! True, a virtual one, but cash is cash.

[Peter Damian]

Think what "the media" and "the man in the street" have endorsed over time, compared to science. Remember "Loving v. Virginia"? The judge told the couple, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." We'd laugh now, but that was popular opinion back then. 1700? 1800? No. This was 1959. I forget how recently it was that homosexuals couldn't adopt because "everyone knew" they might be child molesters. A few hundred years ago it was witchcraft. I just don't share your high regard for the media and the man in the street's ability to read evidence in depth and consider things that may be hard to think about.

So I cannot agree with your comment here. If the aim is to educate, then we tell people that homosexuals are not "per se" child abusers even if their culture prevalently believes this to be the case; we tell people the truth as best it's known about other matters rather than pandering to street talk. At times those truths will be uncomfortable, especially if science has developed a view that there is a good chance a whole culture's beliefs are mistaken.

Two important points here. First, modern liberal rights theory is generally agreed that our rights extend to the point where they do not impinge on other people's rights. Thus homosexuality, being between consenting adults, is now viewed is a lifestyle to which any adult has a right. This leaves the problem of pedophilia and zoophilia. Pedophiles argue that adult child relations can be consensual, and therefore do not impinge upon the rights of a child. Most people would argue otherwise (children have the right to have a proper childhood, to be free from molestation, to be protected by caregivers &c).

Zoophilia is more difficult because no one agrees whether animals have rights or not. Zoophiles argue that animals cannot give consent, or that because animals are open about their sexuality (a dog will hump your leg, e.g.) they are clearly giving their consent. But that brings me to the second point, which is far more important, namely that little work has been done in the field of ethics concerning bestiality. Given that, and given that Wikipedia is not for original research, editors should approach articles like this with great care. I would say: limit it to a summary of the work that has been done in the medical field regarding the health of humans and the health of animals, in the psychological field concerning the mental health of those who practice bestiality, and finally a summary of the very limited work in ethics concerning the morality of the practice.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[wikiwhistle]

I can't agree with that. Think what "the media" and "the man in the street" have endorsed over time, compared to science. Remember "Loving v. Virginia"? The judge told the couple, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." We'd laugh now, but that was popular opinion back then. 1700? 1800? No. This was 1959. I forget how recently it was that homosexuals couldn't adopt because "everyone knew" they might be child molesters. A few hundred years ago it was witchcraft. I just don't share your high regard for the media and the man in the street's ability to read evidence in depth and consider things that may be hard to think about.

So I cannot agree with your comment here. If the aim is to educate, then we tell people that homosexuals are not "per se" child abusers even if their culture prevalently believes this to be the case; we tell people the truth as best it's known about other matters rather than pandering to street talk. At times those truths will be uncomfortable, especially if science has developed a view that there is a good chance a whole culture's beliefs are mistaken.

I still don't think the "animal shagging is sometimes a wonderful expression of love from beautiful, romantic souls" or whatever is the majority scientific or research opinion among mainstream researchers in the scientific or medical establishment- I doubt it sincerely. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) So yes I think a scholarly/scientific POV is great- but I doubt this is the majority scientific or scholarly research POV.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Moulton]

Mass Media Ethics

Think what "the media" and "the man in the street" have endorsed over time, compared to science.

And this is where I came in, back in August of 2007, when Wikipedia, that bastion of mass media content produced by the unschooled "man in the street" was found to be concocting and publishing haphazard (and preposterous) theories of mind regarding hundreds of scientists whom none of the authors of those flawed BLPs had bothered to interview.

And this is also where I came in, when KillerChihuahua, acting on behalf of IDCab, similarly concocted a haphazard theory of mind (regarding my interests in writing an encyclopedia) and then arrogantly and summarily acted on that bogus theory to justify an indefinite block without community review.

Now that you are off of ArbCom, FT2, I'd like to see you team up with the likes of Cla68 to finish the job of cleaning up the fetid messes of IDCab.

FeloniousMonk is gone, but KillerChihuahua has succeeded him as Wikipedia's poster child for egregiously unethical practices.

As you know, my (now blanked) WP User Space is flush with the evidence against the many malicious miscreants of IDCab, notwithstanding their shameful and cowardly efforts to baleet it.

I don't know whether it's a realistic goal for Wikipedia to rise to a professional level of accuracy, ethics, and excellence in online media, but the issue needs to be addressed, because the present situation is not a sustainable model for an authentic learning organization that purports to compile and convey the sum of all human knowledge for the benefit of impressionable 21st Century youth.

Sex Objects

Can FT2 really not understand the disservice he does to GLBT interests? I don't see how that is even possible. Right wing nut jobs say that gay rights, including marriage is a slippery slope and that what's next marriage to animals. Everyone knows that this is disingenuous bullshit not even worthy of a considered response. So along comes FT2 and links having sex with animals to Loving v Virgina. Either he is the most witless fool to ever walk this earth or he is some kind of agent-provocateur.

You think that's bad, wait till the public's prurient interest turns to sex with robots. Already there are electric dildos and artificial merkins of varying degrees of autonomous functionality.

Can you imagine the excitement in the Wikisphere when teledildonics supplants Tweeter and Facebook as the frontier of social networking?

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[GlassBeadGame]

Think what "the media" and "the man in the street" have endorsed over time, compared to science. Remember "Loving v. Virginia"? The judge told the couple, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." We'd laugh now, but that was popular opinion back then. 1700? 1800? No. This was 1959. I forget how recently it was that homosexuals couldn't adopt because "everyone knew" they might be child molesters. A few hundred years ago it was witchcraft. I just don't share your high regard for the media and the man in the street's ability to read evidence in depth and consider things that may be hard to think about.

So I cannot agree with your comment here. If the aim is to educate, then we tell people that homosexuals are not "per se" child abusers even if their culture prevalently believes this to be the case; we tell people the truth as best it's known about other matters rather than pandering to street talk. At times those truths will be uncomfortable, especially if science has developed a view that there is a good chance a whole culture's beliefs are mistaken.

Two important points here. First, modern liberal rights theory is generally agreed that our rights extend to the point where they do not impinge on other people's rights. Thus homosexuality, being between consenting adults, is now viewed is a lifestyle to which any adult has a right. This leaves the problem of pedophilia and zoophilia. Pedophiles argue that adult child relations can be consensual, and therefore do not impinge upon the rights of a child. Most people would argue otherwise (children have the right to have a proper childhood, to be free from molestation, to be protected by caregivers &c).

Zoophilia is more difficult because no one agrees whether animals have rights or not. Zoophiles argue that animals cannot give consent, or that because animals are open about their sexuality (a dog will hump your leg, e.g.) they are clearly giving their consent. But that brings me to the second point, which is far more important, namely that little work has been done in the field of ethics concerning bestiality. Given that, and given that Wikipedia is not for original research, editors should approach articles like this with great care. I would say: limit it to a summary of the work that has been done in the medical field regarding the health of humans and the health of animals, in the psychological field concerning the mental health of those who practice bestiality, and finally a summary of the very limited work in ethics concerning the morality of the practice.

Can FT2 really not understand the disservice he does to GLBT interests? I don't see how that is even possible. Right wing nut jobs say that gay rights, including marriage, is a slippery slope and that "what's next marriage to animals." Everyone knows that this is disingenuous bullshit not even worthy of a considered response. So along comes FT2 and links having sex with animals to Loving v Virgina. Either he is the most witless fool to ever walk this earth or he is some kind of agent-provocateur.

[Milton Roe]

I still don't think the "animal shagging is sometimes a wonderful expression of love from beautiful, romantic souls" or whatever is the majority scientific or research opinion among mainstream researchers in the scientific or medical establishment- I doubt it sincerely. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) So yes I think a scholarly/scientific POV is great- but I doubt this is the majority scientific or scholarly research POV.

But surely there is a spectrum of temptation. What if the little filly who led you down the bridle path was a veritable Demeter, neigh, the ride of a life who looks like the young Barbra Streisand? Hmmmm? Houyhnhnm? What jury in San Francisco, asked to judge you, could fail to be moved to prancing?

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/PeopleWhoDontNeedPeople.jpg)

[LaraLove]

... looks like the young Barbra Streisand...

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/PeopleWhoDontNeedPeople.jpg)

Hahahoh-myhaha-gahahad... That is so harsh! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[wikiwhistle]

... looks like the young Barbra Streisand...

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/PeopleWhoDontNeedPeople.jpg)

Hahahoh-myhaha-gahahad... That is so harsh! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Harsh on the horse, maybe.

[Kato]

A simple question, Somey: why on earth didn't someone email to say "There is considerable discussion going on and you really should address it", around a year ago? I heard nothing of any of this except the odd "Damian's still going on, off-site" comment; there wasn't any indication that anything needed reply. When I finally found it was to that degree, it was many months later.

As someone who didn't lap up this zoophilia thing and couldn't give two hoots to be honest, I have to say - FT2, you Jackass.

You've come here defending WP to the hilt, and then boo-hooed about WR not emailing you to say "there is considerable discussion going on about you".

If you think that is impolite, then how about you email every goddam victim of Wikipedia and tell them there is "considerable discussion going on about you"?

If you don't like people talking about you without your knowledge, email all the BLP victims of Wikipedia everytime someone adds a libellous comment about them on your beloved site, to make amends.

Email all the hapless editors who got embroiled in your mess thinking they were contributing to a genuine encyclopedia before finding themselves smeared across your pages during some Kangeroo Court trial.

You are ludicrous. You've sat on the Supreme Court of the largest defamation machine we've ever seen, without apology, and have even defended it here. And yet are now boo-hooing about another site not being prompt enough to address an issue which Wikipedia breaches every hour of every day. You want your cake and you want to eat it too.

PS: And what was your role in the illegal hacking of Poetguy's email account to confirm the sockpuppetry? Still no answers.

[dogbiscuit]

A few quick answers before wrap-up:

I was thinking more along the lines of FT2's dismissal of knowledge of the hacked emails when he knows he had been in contact with various people who worked with that information and that they provided him with information that he could not be unaware of the source. (In other words, he did not hack the emails, but he must have known that the information he was using came from hacked emails).

I think I answered this. None of the information I used, whatsoever, came from anything other than readily available legitimate resources - Poetlisters edits, public information, and third parties legitimately contacted. I cannot of my own knowledge say whether information used by others was hacked or not; I can say if it was, I was neither part of it, nor used it.

Just so we are clear. I was party to the conversations at this end which were discussing the information before it was public and subsequently. The various people who were discussing it with us were discussing it with Wikipedians which we now understand to be you and therefore it was you at Wikipedia who had sight of the contents of the hacked email. You seem to me be using a formulation that says that you came to your determinations based on other information, therefore you did not "use" any hacked information.

However, I find it implausible based on what I've been told over some time that you did not see the information in the emails or told about that information - especially as we know that some of the blocks/bans depended on that information - actions you claim sole responsibility for.

I note the formulation that you suggest that you are claiming plausible deniability that if some third party legitimately contacted got the information nefariously then you didn't ask where it came from, and you are therefore not implicated.

There is also the question of how reliable his identification of socks are and how many people have been blocked inappropriately on the infallible word of FT2.

I hate to say this but the answer here is probably 100% accuracy.

So you never ever informed ArbCom that PoetLister was anyone other than the person now identified?

[Alison]

But surely there is a spectrum of temptation. What if the little filly who led you down the bridle path was a veritable Demeter, neigh, the ride of a life who looks like the young Barbra Streisand? Hmmmm? Houyhnhnm? What jury in San Francisco, asked to judge you, could fail to be moved to prancing?

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/PeopleWhoDontNeedPeople.jpg)

Gahhh!! Creepy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Well thanks a bunch, Milton. That's me set up for nightmares tonight. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[FT2]

Do we have any real proof that FT2 has personally engaged in perverted activities? - No

No, but he says doing so is sometimes not abusive.

Incorrect. I noted that from considerable careful checking, those who most study the field conclude this. I was considerably surprised too, hence I looked into it in considerable depth.

My own personal opinions on the activities aren't salient or especially controversial, so I don't go into them. Broadly my views are that when person A assesses the conduct of person B, they should not rely on presumption or hearsay, but test the evidence personally and carefully for themself (which includes any evidence from reputable others that have done so). I don't like abuse. But it would be equally bad to accuse someone of being an abuser if I had possible cause to question if that was the case. So I check my facts and what's known, like anyone should. I would have no objection to being described as having significantly edited the topic. The implication that this "means" anything, or needs defending, is obnoxious.

Maybe in some ways, but if he was not a smooth political operator at some points, he would not have become an arb.

Arbcom's easy to stand for. Be good at dispute resolution, don't act up, be highly trusted on your track record, put in hard work. About as far from politics as it gets, or at least so it seems.

But that brings me to the second point, which is far more important, namely that little work has been done in the field of ethics concerning bestiality. Given that, and given that Wikipedia is not for original research, editors should approach articles like this with great care. I would say: limit it to a summary of the work that has been done in the medical field regarding the health of humans and the health of animals, in the psychological field concerning the mental health of those who practice bestiality, and finally a summary of the very limited work in ethics concerning the morality of the practice.

Which is exactly to support original research -- the decision that although there is consistent research, it's to be ignored because your belief differs. No. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that does not give us the right to misinform about the findings of those who have studied it. Is it that unlikely that a person writing a book on abuse might come to this anomaly and find it interesting - a field where scientific understanding and their own/popular belief differ so widely? And having found it and having the ethic of honesty rather than self-deception, look into it at considerable length to find what's going on before writing further? If I'm mistaken I would want to know it. If not, I want to know that too.

One day, the notion will dawn that there is a distinction between studying something, reporting something, and endorsing something. In the meantime I absolutely do not buy an argument that what's within the ambit of science should be diluted or misreported due to its impact on other agendas (good or bad), or popular beliefs. To the extent there is scientific information we give it, and the fallout of that may discomfort whom it will. Too many "objections" on this thread appear to rely on one, or both, of these issues.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Somey]

A simple question, Somey: why on earth didn't someone email to say "There is considerable discussion going on and you really should address it", around a year ago? I heard nothing of any of this except the odd "Damian's still going on, off-site" comment; there wasn't any indication that anything needed reply. When I finally found it was to that degree, it was many months later.

As someone who didn't lap up this zoophilia thing and couldn't give two hoots to be honest, I have to say - FT2, you Jackass.

You've come here defending WP to the hilt, and then boo-hooed about WR not emailing you to say "there is considerable discussion going on about you".

If you think that is impolite, then how about you email every goddam victim of Wikipedia and tell them there is "considerable discussion going on about you"?

It's a matter of perspective, really. I mean, FT2 has a point, and in fact WP'ers are often informed of WR-based discussions about them by some of our more conscientious members. I'd say that the BADSITES campaign probably made some people fearful of even mentioning such things on WP, but certainly not everyone... In any event, I would never have done that myself, since I don't have an account on WP and therefore wouldn't be able to use the interal e-mail feature (though admittedly, at the time, it wouldn't have even occurred to me to check whether or not Mr. FT2 had disclosed his e-mail address on his user page). An e-mail from me around that time might also have been considered "stalking" or "harassment" by some WP'ers, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I should also disclose here that about 2-3 months before FT2 did register here, he sent an e-mail to our "Anticabal" address to ask if it would be worthwhile for him to register an account and participate in said discussions directly. In fact, SlimVirgin did the same thing - and in both cases I said "no," and in both cases I was probably wrong (though probably less so with SV). I told myself that participation in what was clearly a hostile forum would only "make things worse" for them, but I was applying my own standards of what would be "worse," which are probably totally unrealistic (as evidenced by my own refusal to start a WP account).

Again, my only real defense is that, at the time, there was a much greater degree of stigmatization of Wikipedia users who were also members here, including those who were clearly here to defend WP. (The turning point for that was probably when Alison and Lar showed up, though there were quite a few before them, too.) Obviously the core group here shouldn't care a whit about the stigmatization problem, and may have even preferred things the way they were back in the old days, but regardless, it isn't just a question of "should I participate" - there are trust and privacy issues involved too, not to mention the fact that WP'ers are used to being able to "refactor" and delete their comments whenever they want, which isn't really the case here.

[Peter Damian]

But that brings me to the second point, which is far more important, namely that little work has been done in the field of ethics concerning bestiality. Given that, and given that Wikipedia is not for original research, editors should approach articles like this with great care. I would say: limit it to a summary of the work that has been done in the medical field regarding the health of humans and the health of animals, in the psychological field concerning the mental health of those who practice bestiality, and finally a summary of the very limited work in ethics concerning the morality of the practice.

Which is exactly to support original research -- the decision that although there is consistent research, it's to be ignored because your belief differs. No. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that does not give us the right to misinform about the findings of those who have studied it. Is it that unlikely that a person writing a book on abuse might come to this anomaly and find it interesting - a field where scientific understanding and their own/popular belief differ so widely? And having found it and having the ethic of honesty rather than self-deception, look into it at considerable length to find what's going on before writing further? If I'm mistaken I would want to know it. If not, I want to know that too.

One day, the notion will dawn that there is a distinction between studying something, reporting something, and endorsing something. In the meantime I absolutely do not buy an argument that what's within the ambit of science should be diluted or misreported due to its impact on other agendas (good or bad), or popular beliefs. To the extent there is scientific information we give it, and the fallout of that may discomfort whom it will. Too many "objections" on this thread appear to rely on one, or both, of these issues.

You are saying that my academic and professional qualifications in the field of ethics (which is one of the subjects relevant to the article) somehow were not reflected in the judgment I made? I have no beliefs about the matter: I look at the evidence and the publications and so on, per WP:DUE and WEIGHT and my judgment was the Zoophilia article was grossly slanted and distorted.

And I have already said I consulted an expert in the field of Zoophilia (just as I have consulted experts in the field of NLP), who said the article by its very nature was a collection of internet links, and that it was selective about which citations it used.

In fact he said this:

Realistically, your chances of improving the Wiki entry are very limited. By its very nature, it collects stuff from the web and that is a notoriously inaccurate kind of information gathering (I note that no mention is made of the work of Helen Munro, the reply to Singer by Regan, and my work is not linked, and even my name is misspelled!). I agree it understates the moral case. In my view, no sexual relations can be justifiable without informed consent, but of course zoos properly counter that by saying almost all animal exploitation is without consent, which of course it is.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[wikiwhistle]

Do we have any real proof that FT2 has personally engaged in perverted activities? - No

No, but he says doing so is sometimes not abusive.

Incorrect. I noted that from considerable careful checking, those who most study the field conclude this. I was considerably surprised too, hence I looked into it in considerable depth.

Alfred Kinsey might have been considered a foremost expert in his day, indeed still is to some extent, but he compiled some research based on that of a paedophile recording a diary of whether a particular child orgasmed (in his belief) in each particular instance of abuse.

These 'experts' will be fringe, not the majority IMHO. You're picking out who you decide is an expert on the study of zoophilia, in a way others would not, they'd probably choose more established, mainstream scientific opinion.

[FT2]

Just so we are clear. I was party to the conversations at this end which were discussing the information before it was public and subsequently. The various people who were discussing it with us were discussing it with Wikipedians which we now understand to be you and therefore it was you at Wikipedia who had sight of the contents of the hacked email. You seem to me be using a formulation that says that you came to your determinations based on other information, therefore you did not "use" any hacked information.

However, I find it implausible based on what I've been told over some time that you did not see the information in the emails or told about that information - especially as we know that some of the blocks/bans depended on that information - actions you claim sole responsibility for.

I note the formulation that you suggest that you are claiming plausible deniability that if some third party legitimately contacted got the information nefariously then you didn't ask where it came from, and you are therefore not implicated.

There is also the question of how reliable his identification of socks are and how many people have been blocked inappropriately on the infallible word of FT2.

I hate to say this but the answer here is probably 100% accuracy.

So you never ever informed ArbCom that PoetLister was anyone other than the person now identified?

Okay, let's try to say this again from scratch.

You (like most here) saw Tarantino/Proabivouac's case, which I gather may have in part depended upon hacked information. I didn't check their case too much; I already knew Poetlister's ID from his edits alone and was already in discussion with people he had impersonated in the UK civil service before any users here were on the ball. The sole thing the case by Proabivouac and others contained that I hadn't found already, was the identity of the girls and information about "Rachel Brown" from The Boudoir.

I didn't identify MB using any of that information, nor any other "hacked" information at all. A user emailed me to claim they had hacked the email address; I used no information they purported to offer, didn't discuss it much, and dropped contact once it became obvious they were trying to be serious. I was already investigating Poetlister, and knew his identity via utterly irrefutable and 100% legitimate means as early as June 2008. The purported information by email was simply "I have evidence that Poetlister and Runcorn (and a couple of others) really are the same person". However since I had access to Arbcom's prior work and had analyzed it thoroughly from scratch (being new to the case) for Poetlister's unblock report, I already knew that Poetlister was Runcorn. It was stated by Arbcom in 2007 and checked thoroughly by myself in May 2008. That was basically, the sole "information" that the user was purporting to give, and it was worthless; already well proven.

I don't know what data was said to be "hacked", but that's the sole data that was emailed to me -- and it added nothing whatsoever. I dropped it, it was too unusable, unethical -- and a year out of date.

As far as Arbcom goes, I kept the case outside Arbcom. A few arbitrators were informed as it was ongoing; several were not. I named precisely one person as being Poetlister and the others, from June onwards, and that one person was MB, the same person it has always been. The edits of the Poetlister socks made it obvious. I have named no other person as a possibility, at any time. It was about as blindingly obvious as it gets, if you actually go looking. As a test I asked fellow arbitrator Sam Blacketer to identify poetlister (He had zero involvement or sight of the evidence). The case evidence says of this:

"I gave Sam Blacketer a hint that Poetlister's sockmaster was identified. 2 days later he came back to me with the identical answer. Notably, he had followed completely different evidence."

Thus there was not just one way to identify him from his edits, but at least two entirely independent routes to do so. I found one, a fellow arb in 48 hours with a cold standing start found another.

Reversing the question, every account I named as being a sock, was ultimately confirmed as one on Poetlister's "list of admitted socks" on Wikisource. Not one error there either. One sock I held back and did not name (to test for completeness of disclosure) was admitted as well, after being named by someone else.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[GlassBeadGame]

A user emailed me to claim they had hacked the email address; I used no information they purported to offer, didn't discuss it much, and dropped contact once it became obvious they were trying to be serious.

This is know as "the mysterious dude defense." So who is the mysterious dude? Also what is the distinction between "a user" and "they" as used in the sentence above?

[FT2]

A user emailed me to claim they had hacked the email address; I used no information they purported to offer, didn't discuss it much, and dropped contact once it became obvious they were trying to be serious.

This is know as "the mysterious dude defense." So who is the mysterious dude? Also what is the distinction between "a user" and "they" as used in the sentence above?

No great mystery. 1) Someone emails information that's already well known for over a year, to the arbcom member most visibly having worked on that case, at a point where it's progressed way past that already; it doesn't exactly do much. 2) I don't know, nor much care, nor inclined to publish a gmail address or what were clearly intended as private emails. They already got a severe email back saying "sorry what you are saying wouldn't be ethical if true". If you have a wish to identify them (singular "them"), then the same person contacted others here, very probably with the same email account. So you probably have the same data on them that I have. And incidentally the same knowledge that Poetlister was dishonest in his claims too. Let me know if you get anywhere. 3) One (same) person: "singular they".

[GlassBeadGame]

A user emailed me to claim they had hacked the email address; I used no information they purported to offer, didn't discuss it much, and dropped contact once it became obvious they were trying to be serious.

This is know as "the mysterious dude defense." So who is the mysterious dude? Also what is the distinction between "a user" and "they" as used in the sentence above?

No great mystery. 1) Someone emails information that's already well known for over a year, to the arbcom member most visibly having worked on that case, at a point where it's progressed way past that already; it doesn't exactly do much. 2) I don't know, nor much care, nor inclined to publish a gmail address or what were clearly intended as private emails. They already got a severe email back saying "sorry what you are saying wouldn't be ethical if true". If you have a wish to identify them (singular "them"), then the same person contacted others here, very probably with the same email account. So you probably have the same data on them that I have. And incidentally the same knowledge that Poetlister was dishonest in his claims too. Let me know if you get anywhere. 3) One (same) person: "singular they".

I do not believe that you are saying all that you know about the email hackers identity. Sometimes it is not the first crime but the cover up that matters most.

Also I do not believe that even you would torture language to that extent, especially when you already had a better gender neutral word (user) at hand in the very same sentence.

[FT2]

I do not believe that you are saying all that you know about the email hackers identity. Sometimes it is not the first crime but the cover up that matters most.

Also I do not believe that even you would torture language to that extent, especially when you already had a better gender neutral word (user) at hand in the very same sentence.

I didn't ask, they didn't volunteer. And repeating "the user" is awkward wording. At most I could make a guess that the email address was possibly a shortened version of a first or other name, and spend forever looking up people who have a name that might abbreviate to it. Who may well not be online, or may not be identifiable. But I'm not going to. The email was sent and trusted in private, dealt with in private, and stays that way.

Note that respect for privately given information is consistent for me:- I didn't disclose MB's identification either (either online, at his his workplace, nor to any person who was not integral to the investigation: a checkuser, WMF, or arbcom, and highly trusted to keep it private while checking my findings).

I often use singular "they". A lot of the time it's got better flow than "he/she" or "the user". Unless you're proposing multiple hackers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif)

[Random832]

So you never ever informed ArbCom that PoetLister was anyone other than the person now identified?

Okay, let's try to say this again from scratch.

I'll state clearly the question that dogbiscuit is trying to imply. There seems to be an undercurrent of belief among some here that you initially identified Poetlister incorrectly as one of the people whose identity he misused, rather than as MB - and that you only came to the correct conclusion after comparing your notes to Proabivouac's.

True or false?

This post has been edited by Random832:

[GlassBeadGame]

I do not believe that you are saying all that you know about the email hackers identity. Sometimes it is not the first crime but the cover up that matters most.

Also I do not believe that even you would torture language to that extent, especially when you already had a better gender neutral word (user) at hand in the very same sentence.

I didn't ask, they didn't volunteer. And repeating "the user" is awkward wording. At most I could make a guess that the email address was possibly a shortened version of a first or other name, and spend forever looking up people who have a name that might abbreviate to it. Who may well not be online, or may not be identifiable. But I'm not going to. The email was sent and trusted in private, dealt with in private, and stays that way.

Note that respect for privately given information is consistent for me:- I didn't disclose MB's identification either (either online, at his his workplace, nor to any person who was not integral to the investigation: a checkuser, WMF, or arbcom, and highly trusted to keep it private while checking my findings).

I often use singular "they". A lot of the time it's got better flow than "he/she" or "the user". Unless you're proposing multiple hackers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif)

I note only that your disclosure of information is entirely self-serving. Perhaps if you didn't use Wikipedia as the reference source for your syntax you might be at least a little more comprehensible. I'm just trying to parse your wording to tease out any information that might be available there. It is odd to write in a manner that obscures both gender and plural. But then your language does not seem meant to impart information. "..and highly trusted" seems to be the weasel nest in your above post.

[Random832]

I note only that your disclosure of information is entirely self-serving. Perhaps if you didn't use Wikipedia as the reference source for your syntax you might be at least a little more comprehensible. I'm just trying to parse your wording to tease out any information that might be available there. It is odd to write in a manner that obscures both gender and plural.

Hey now - there's nothing wrong with singular they. Shakespeare used it. (yeah, yeah, FT2 is no Shakespeare; my point is it's a legitimate part of the language with a long history)

[darbyl]

One might suspect that FT2 is a linguistic sadist; because he sure as hell seems to enjoy torturing the fuck out of the language.

[dogbiscuit]

So you never ever informed ArbCom that PoetLister was anyone other than the person now identified?

Okay, let's try to say this again from scratch.

I'll state clearly the question that dogbiscuit is trying to imply. There seems to be an undercurrent of belief among some here that you initially identified Poetlister incorrectly as one of the people whose identity he misused, rather than as MB - and that you only came to the correct conclusion after comparing your notes to Proabivouac's.

True or false?

You clearly are aware of the same conversations. I'm happy to let it drop. He has documented his position pretty clearly (for FT2) with some poking. That's what I was after.

If FT2 is not being entirely open (and we could measure him by the standard he set for Peter Damien where a syntactic nicety is turned into a year of being a congenital liar) then it will catch up. If he is being entirely honest, then I have teased out something approaching a clear statement from his syntactic goo.

[Peter Damian]

One day, the notion will dawn that there is a distinction between studying something, reporting something, and endorsing something. In the meantime I absolutely do not buy an argument that what's within the ambit of science should be diluted or misreported due to its impact on other agendas (good or bad), or popular beliefs. To the extent there is scientific information we give it, and the fallout of that may discomfort whom it will. Too many "objections" on this thread appear to rely on one, or both, of these issues.

What exactly are your qualifications, FT2? You said above you would have said if you had any. Are you saying you have none at all? If so, why are you freely giving us your opinions on this?

[tarantino]

I chatted with FT2 several times before the story broke. We actually shared very little information and spoke mostly in generalities, but I have no reason to disbelieve what he is saying in regards to this line of inquiry. It's entirely possible Baxter's name was attached to most or all of his WMF accounts using edit histories and checkuser results. It wasn't 100 percent certain though, until Chris S. confirmed it, more like 98%.

PL's email account was the postal code for Ilford. The Ilford County High School and the Baxter brother articles were each edited by several of Poetguy's accounts. Some of the ICHS edits added the Baxter brothers as alumni. One of the IPs blocked as a Runcorn sock was a British government proxy used by Baxter's employer.

I don't recall how Cato could have been identified, other than by his suspicious actions and the Crum375 wq episode. I think one of the most interesting unanswered questions is what ID Baxter used to verify with Carey Bass.

[Peter Damian]

Oh yes, FT2, you said you nearly wrote a book on the subject of Zoophilia. When was that? I mean, at what time were you 'nearly' writing the book?

[GlassBeadGame]

Oh yes, FT2, you said you nearly wrote a book on the subject of Zoophilia. When was that? I mean, at what time were you 'nearly' writing the book?

Pity the least senior editor on hand the day that manuscript arrives at the publishers.

Q. What's it about?

A. Well...uhmm...I'm not sure exactly.

Q. Not sure?

A. Well I think it's about...well...no, I must just have it wrong.

...and which publisher? Pegasus? Penguin?

[Bottled_Spider]

2) I don't know, nor much care, nor inclined to publish a gmail address or what were clearly intended as private emails.

Oh my. Normally I can follow most of what you're trying to say, but for some reason I found that sentence very hard to parse. I've (very tentatively) translated it as :

"I neither know, nor care, who the mysterious emailer was, and I feel disinclined to reveal the said users gmail address or the contents of the "hacked" emails as they were clearly intended to be private".

No? Yes? Or maybe you intended it to be a Zen kōan? That leaves me in an awkward position, because I'd like to give the answer as "mu" (you can't fail with mu. An old and beloved standard, God bless it, though there's no God). It's just that it sounds too much like "moo", and the last thing we need in this dreadful, vicious thread is accusations and insinuations of unnatural rumpy-pumpy, and all that stuff. Nasty business altogether.

[One]

I don't recall how Cato could have been identified, other than by his suspicious actions and the Crum375 wq episode.

Cato was very curious about Poetlister evidence in the backchannels, which pretty much gave it away (or at least raised enough eyebrows to run a cross-project check). FT2 already explained it. From what I can tell, this is entirely accurate:

The results showed that Poetlister was very likely indeed to also be Cato, a checkuser and admin at Wikiquote, with some OTRS access, and known to be associated with Poetlister. Wikiquote checkuser Aphaia was informed, and is deeply thanked for her help and understanding, as is her colleague Jeff Q for his discretion.
...
Cato had asked various users what the evidence was related to Runcorn. That is reasonable, since Cato is a checkuser in the same community that was considering Poetlister for enhanced access. What is less honest is that I asked round the others in the investigation, had they had at any time, an inquiry from an unknown user interested in the case. One had. Bedivere/Cato had approached one of the other users, pretending to be a 15 year old minor who was a "new user" and "some day interested in being an admin", and fantastically curious about how Runcorn was identified.. even though that was actually old, long before.

[Peter Damian]

I got tired of all this nonsense and had a go at the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

The definitions section was absurd. Popularly it's known as bestiality. Kraft Ebbing, as far as I know, did not introduce the term 'Zoophilia' as the quotation shows. 'Zoophilia' was an animal rights term appropriated by bestialists.

[FT2]

I'll state clearly the question that dogbiscuit is trying to imply. There seems to be an undercurrent of belief among some here that you initially identified Poetlister incorrectly as one of the people whose identity he misused, rather than as MB - and that you only came to the correct conclusion after comparing your notes to Proabivouac's. True or false?

Thanks for this. My answer above stated:

"I already knew Poetlister's ID from his edits alone and was already in discussion with people he had impersonated in the UK civil service before any users here were on the ball...

I... knew his identity via utterly irrefutable and 100% legitimate means as early as June 2008." (Minor correction noted: fairly sure by June, irrefutable by July)

I pretty much knew some time before this, but had only strong pointers from the sock-ring's editing, not proof. I couldn't hard-prove it beyond doubt until July. Specific cites:

• July 13, text file note: "GOT HIM!!!!! We have officially got a connection. MB lived at the [address] which 30 years later, Poetlister uses [redacted]. (Do I claim my cookies and ice cream for that one?)"
• July 15, IRC with thatcher:
  <FT2> you'll never guess who poetlister's admin sock is.
  <FT2> have a go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
  <FT2> hint: this is a sockmaster who thinks big (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
  [...]
  <FT2> and thats why I am handling this like gelignite
  [...]
  <FT2> hence why Im looking for hard enough evidence [...] and its not in any way assailable as "supposition"
  [...]
  <FT2> hence why Im not acting yet
  <FT2> and hence why none of this is on arb-l or CU-l or anything
  [...]
  <FT2> everything else is proven
  [...]
  <thatcher> what is the secret bio
  <FT2> [MB]
  [...]
  <FT2> and I can tie that real person specifically to poetlister
  <FT2> via evidence I can show on-wiki
• July 15, IRC chat with thatcher, jayvdb, wjbscribe (some redacted so MB can't learn the other evidence showing how he was detected):
  <WJBscribe> no, FT2 has been holding off the "fun" pending your arrival
  [...]
  <FT2> its private, it's not being passed round checkuser-list, or arb-l, or crats... very very few people.
  <FT2> But it needs a few extra eyeballs beyond "me and 2 others"
  [...]
  <FT2> based on what happened last time, I'm not going to act until one of 2 things happens...
  <FT2> 1/ A poetlister sock tries to pass RFA on enwiki
  <FT2> 2/ I have rock solid evidence that is indisputable
  <FT2> As it happens runcorn/poetlister goofed. badly. Twice or 3 times, and on-wiki.
  <FT2> completely missed that last time, found it this time.
  <FT2> What I have is compelling almost undeniable evidence of [redacted]
  [...]
  <FT2> [redacted] - he slipped on [redacted]
  <WJBscribe> "he" ?
  [...]
  <FT2> he
• July 30, draft email to MB sent to thatcher and rlevse for sanity checking: "Dear M., We have spoken before, under various of your accounts. You will remember this. This is the email you didn't want to get [...] You are [B.], and I am confident enough to name you and allow the community to examine the multiple evidence, that as [B.] you - and with exceedingly high probability you alone - control all of these accounts..."
• July 30 - Aug 2, told jpgordon, sam blacketer, possibly newyorkbrad. Two days after I tell sam, he comes back to me and says "It's MB isn't it?" and I point out to him the other evidence he missed; he metaphorically kicks himself.
• Aug 14, had such evidence as to draw it to a close - contacted Guy Goodwin to identify whether this person was party to it - not disclosing MB's name or any identifying information; spoke (round about then) to co-workers of GH and their office HR department, and so on.

I'm just trying to parse your wording to tease out any information that might be available there. It is odd to write in a manner that obscures both gender and plural. But then your language does not seem meant to impart information. "..and highly trusted" seems to be the weasel nest in your above post.

I disclosed it to the Wikimedia communities at the time; look there for it. I figured if you were interested, you'd have read and digested my report to the community before asking questions. Anyhow, easily remedied. The report's here, and the specific disclosure of who knew, to judge for yourself, is in the section "Current situation and intention".

I write in my style, if it's confusing then apologies.

[Peter Damian]

Catharsis

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266010551

[wikiwhistle]

Catharsis

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266010551

That was braver than I lol. But very well done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I mentioned it on a noticeboard but no-one's dared/cared to go near it.

[GlassBeadGame]

Catharsis

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266010551

I don't usually get involved with the details of editing but I must say that that is an improvement.

[Milton Roe]

Well thanks a bunch, Milton. That's me set up for nightmares tonight. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What, the giant tarantula slurping and the giant scorpion-shagging didn't do the trick?

I once had a woman tell me that tarantuas didn't bother her quite so much as other spiders because they are hairy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) If that's not a really primitive mammalian circuit talking, then I never met one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Catharsis

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266010551

Now lose the classy art pieces and replace with a red light bulb and some chew toys.

[wikiwhistle]

Catharsis

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266010551

Now lose the classy art pieces and replace with a red light bulb and some chew toys.

I tried, but an editor called "Zetawoof" reverted PD and tinkered with my edits grrr. A friend reminded me that "Leda and the Swan" involves sex (actually, rape) by the god Zeus appearing as a swan, not an actual swan. Which I thought was a good point. Anyway, some of this we can move to the 'articles' section.

[GlassBeadGame]

Catharsis

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266010551

Now lose the classy art pieces and replace with a red light bulb and some chew toys.

I tried, but an editor called "Zetawoof" reverted PD and tinkered with my edits grrr. A friend reminded me that "Leda and the Swan" involves sex (actually, rape) by the god Zeus appearing as a swan, not an actual swan. Which I thought was a good point. Anyway, some of this we can move to the 'articles' section.

So that was you huh? Zetawoof has an interesting edit history. The page has returned to it's Valentine-to-animals like characteristic. Does anyone know anything about this person?

[tarantino]

I tried, but an editor called "Zetawoof" reverted PD and tinkered with my edits grrr. A friend reminded me that "Leda and the Swan" involves sex (actually, rape) by the god Zeus appearing as a swan, not an actual swan. Which I thought was a good point. Anyway, some of this we can move to the 'articles' section.

Zetawoof is a zoophile and a furrie.

[Kelly Martin]

The entire discussion of FT2's catching the PoetHorde is irrelevant and a distraction from the real issue. That FT2 has done some good for Wikipedia is without question, but it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is whether his participation in Wikipedia is for the purpose of increasing the value of Wikipedia as a resource for the general public, or for other purposes. It seems quite clear that the latter is the case (although I suspect that FT2 would self-servingly argue that furthering his own interests inherently serves the public interest simply because he believes that his aberrant beliefs are obviously true).

FT2 wants us to believe that he's done nothing wrong and that Peter Damian is obviously a troll, and has even been intimating that Damian is (if I understand recent posts) of a poetic inclination. Peter Damian, on the other hand, has been pretty clear about merely wanting us to look at FT2's edits and decide for ourselves what FT2's intentions are. When I'm faced with one guy who says "Look at the evidence" and another guy who says "No, don't, my accuser is an evil troublemaker anyway", I'm inclined to disbelieve the second guy.

I think Peter has a personal grudge with FT2, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, but FT2's behavior is so consistent with others I've run into on Wikipedia who have proven to be self-serving ideologues intent on bending Wikipedia's message to their personal preferences that I see no reason to disbelieve any of Peter's claims, especially since Peter's claims are credible and supported by evidence (or, in the case of oversighted edits, evidence that has been removed by persons with whom FT2 has affiliation) while FT2's claims are entirely innuendo and hypothetical rhetoric without any solid support.

FT2 will no doubt make more stupid contents about popcorn. That just shows that he's been studying Jimmy Wales' "Guide to Dealing With People Who Don't Like You".

[GlassBeadGame]

My understanding of an encyclopedia is that articles ought to represent the consensus of informed thought on the subject. Where such a consensus does not exist either because there is significant disagreement or because the subject is not properly developed with reliable sources then the encyclopedia ought to remain silent on the subject. When the writers lack this type restraint the"encyclopedia" will quickly descend into fringe advocacy and soon the bad will drive out the good.

Articles like Zoophilia ought to be radically stubbed. If they are allowed to be the vanity works of fringe crackpots like FT2 Wikipedia deserves the mockery and derision that the articles illicit.

[FT2]

(Snip)

Kelly, hun, your stint on the internet obviously taught you little. See the things in my posts with lines under them? Those are called "links", or "hyperlinks" if you're fussy. They show you stuff. The small thing on your table near your rightmost floppy limb is called a "mouse"; you move it to the "link" and "click". It will show you some text.

I think I have to point this out for you, because if you had cared to read the posts I made, you'd see they contain "links" to stuff called "evidence" and "citations" of a good standard, which you can read (you do know how to, right? You aren't having this explained to you by your kid brother?) and which will inform you. Or allow you to contribute intelligently and with a reasonable clue, for one thing.

But what should one expect from a lass who (if memory serves) declared last year she's done nothing in the last 2 years except trolling? Go microwave another bowl of popcorn, and don't worry your pretty head anymore about the big world, 'kay hun?

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Kelly Martin]

Told you he'd have something to say about popcorn. I rest my case.

[EricBarbour]

This has become on of the most toxic threads in WR history,
yet it did accomplish one public service: it showed FT2 at his
prevaricating worst.

Oh, and btw, if you guys aren't careful, I'll start posting links
to certain deeply insane furry-porn websites. There are
millions of them. Proving that it's not an uncommon fetish
(although still quite disgusting).

[Jon Awbrey]

Told you he'd have something to say about popcorn. I rest my case.

popcorn and porncop …
popcorn and porncop …
go together like horse
and marriage …

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

[GlassBeadGame]

Told you he'd have something to say about popcorn. I rest my case.

popcorn and porncop …
popcorn and porncop …
go together like horse
and marriage …

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Well, now you are truly back.

[Krimpet]

Told you he'd have something to say about popcorn. I rest my case.

[Jon Awbrey]

Told you he'd have something to say about popcorn. I rest my case.

popcorn and porncop …
popcorn and porncop …
go together like horse
and marriage …

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Well, now you are truly back.

next verse is something about a furry with a singe on top —

but i think i'll hand the mike over to milton & moulton, inc.

and get my ja-jas out of here …

[Milton Roe]

next verse is something about a furry with a singe on top —
but i think i'll hand the mike over to milton & moulton, inc.

Too easy for Wikipedia:



Bonds and gags and kids in a hurry
To find hentai sex with a furry
Lumps and chunks of porn in a slurry
With the crud— on top!

[Peter Damian]

I tried, but an editor called "Zetawoof" reverted PD and tinkered with my edits grrr. A friend reminded me that "Leda and the Swan" involves sex (actually, rape) by the god Zeus appearing as a swan, not an actual swan. Which I thought was a good point. Anyway, some of this we can move to the 'articles' section.

So that was you huh? Zetawoof has an interesting edit history. The page has returned to it's Valentine-to-animals like characteristic. Does anyone know anything about this person?

Apparently a friend of FT2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=100412113

Has a long history of conspiring with a certain group of editors to prevent, and in some cases ban, those who dislike the Valentine aspect. Self-admitted 'fencehopper' - this is Zoo code for someone who does it with other people's pets. Usually while pet-sitting, so be careful who you let into your house. Yes, I have screenshots.

I think Peter has a personal grudge with FT2, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me,

I have no quarrel with FT2 beyond what he is, or was, doing to the encyclopedia. I have a particular dislike for editors with a fringe viewpoint, or cranks, and I have a history of running them off the project quickly. When I first encountered FT2 in Feb 2007 he struck me as a particularly dangerous crank, namely one who wasn't quite as stupid or ham-fisted as the usual variety, possessing a considerable degree of native cunning. Moreover he specialised in not just one but two cranky areas (Zoo and NLP). And I really disliked (once I checked out the edit history) his history of getting good editors blocked or banned. There really are an incredible number of editors who came off badly in 'close encounters with FT2'. Also worrying was the EssJay-like influence he has over certain gullible members of the admin community. I don't know how he does it - his manner is so obviously self-serving and that it is hard to see how people could be taken in - but he undeniably has this influence. And it clearly extends to Jimmy, who should know better at his age.

Hope that explains the 'grudge', which is not personal at all, how could it be, this is the internet, and I have no idea who FT2 is, and don't care (even when I tried to contact the external sites, it was to try and discuss my concern about the Zoo article and its propagandist tone.

[edit] Another interesting editor here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drum_Scope

Looks very much like a Headley sock. Question: will FT2 try to block him, or get someone to block him? As I have always claimed, Headley is not a bad editor (althought not a brilliant editor for all that, sorry Headley) and FT2's pursuit of him certainly does seem like a grudge.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Bottled_Spider]

Another interesting editor here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drum_Scope

Looks very much like a Headley sock. Question: will FT2 try to block him, or get someone to block him?

Note who's placed a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on his talkpage. Such a civil way to say "we're watching you". Based on his contributions so far, he should expect quite a few other templates in the near future.

[Peter Damian]

That said, Zetawoof is a polite and conscientious editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia

and (you may be surprised I am saying this) the subject is a lot more complex and difficult than you would believe I have represented it. I just think that if Zoophiles are going to be editing Wikipedia articles, they should declare this up front (as he, to his credit, has done).

Actually there are a few socks on that page now.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

That said, Zetawoof is a polite and conscientious editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia

and (you may be surprised I am saying this) the subject is a lot more complex and difficult than you would believe I have represented it. I just think that if Zoophiles are going to be editing Wikipedia articles, they should declare this up front (as he, to his credit, has done).

Actually there are a few socks on that page now.

But that polite and conscientious editor re-added the the complete nonsense you removed and restored the article to it's Valentine status. Now there is that awkward impasse status where nobody wants to do what is clearly needed. All it needs now is an embedded ogg file of Barry White playing in the background. I worry about you Peter, you accept too much of the culture of Wikipedia. Sometimes disgust is more appropriate than AGF.

[Peter Damian]

That said, Zetawoof is a polite and conscientious editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia

and (you may be surprised I am saying this) the subject is a lot more complex and difficult than you would believe I have represented it. I just think that if Zoophiles are going to be editing Wikipedia articles, they should declare this up front (as he, to his credit, has done).

Actually there are a few socks on that page now.

But that polite and conscientious editor re-added the the complete nonsense you removed and restored the article to it's Valentine status. Now there is that awkward impasse status where nobody wants to do what is clearly needed. All it needs now is an embedded ogg file of Barry White playing in the background. I worry about you Peter, you accept too much of the culture of Wikipedia. Sometimes disgust is more appropriate than AGF.

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

And what am I supposed to do?

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

Discredit wikipedia from outside of its control structure, maybe?

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

Not edit Wikipedia? Nothing is worse to your long term well being than to work in an environment that is incapable of making distinctions on this level. Of course "sex with animal" POV pushers are all polite and "helpful." They have found a home in which there disgusting ideas are welcome. You validate and legitimize them. Better to criticize from outside Wikipedia.

And what am I supposed to do?

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

Discredit wikipedia from outside of its control structure, maybe?

Well we certainly seem to agree.

[wikiwhistle]

And what am I supposed to do?

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

That's what I just did lol and it was so much more fulfilling! I doubt Peter would have to publish via lulu.com though. However while I'm researching the next one, it's th perfect excuse to be on WP.

[Peter Damian]

Not edit Wikipedia? Nothing is worse to your long term well being than to work in an environment that is incapable of making distinctions on this level. Of course "sex with animal" POV pushers are all polite and "helpful." They have found a home in which there disgusting ideas are welcome. You validate and legitimize them. Better to criticize from outside Wikipedia.

I am hopelessly addicted, as I have mentioned before, re the need for rehab or recovery or something like that. This site is like methodone.

Yes as I have said I am writing a book but I have a substantial block at the moment and Wikipedia is displacement for that.

[GlassBeadGame]

Not edit Wikipedia? Nothing is worse to your long term well being than to work in an environment that is incapable of making distinctions on this level. Of course "sex with animal" POV pushers are all polite and "helpful." They have found a home in which there disgusting ideas are welcome. You validate and legitimize them. Better to criticize from outside Wikipedia.

I am hopelessly addicted, as I have mentioned before, re the need for rehab or recovery or something like that. This site is like methodone.

Yes as I have said I am writing a book but I have a substantial block at the moment and Wikipedia is displacement for that.

Well, you have worked very hard trying to bring sanity to some of the darkest corners of Wikipedia. You are our Van Helsing.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Yes as I have said I am writing a book but I have a substantial block at the moment and Wikipedia is displacement for that.

s/displacement for/an obstacle to/g

Wikipedia is ultimately disempowering for the majority of its users - even those nincompoops who believe they attain positions of power or leadership through their titles in the wikipedia structure. Looking around the wikipedia/wikia landscape, I see much independently-produced content lifted and stuffed into a monolithic block, where every piece of information is force-fit to a corporate form and ideology.

I encourage you to make your escape.

[EricBarbour]

You are our Van Helsing.

And he needs a weapon more powerful than a crossbow.

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

Better yet, write a book on the evil implications of Wikipedia......

For example: whenever someone asks on Yahoo Answers or similar sites
whether bestiality is legal, the answer is usually no......but the Wikipedia
zoophilia articles are frequently quoted.

It's not specificaly "illegal" on a national level in the US. Many states have outlawed it but not the feds. Zoophilia is rarely acepted as legal but is mainly "not illegal" in most countries.
Check out this site for more specific information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosexualit...
And YES as a zoophile myself I belive it should be better accepted than it is.

What a clever and sneaky way to indoctrinate the sexually-confused adolescent
into the Animal-Sex Club. Nice going, FT2 and Zetawoof. Bastards.

[FT2]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

DSM III, which is far more definitive than either a dictionary definition or one purported (I have no interest making my own determination of his bona-fides) researcher's distinction, includes in your own quote, the completed act of having sex with an animal. You want to ignore this and retreat into the justification of "just thinking about sex with animals" as some kind of mitigation. You are creepy beyond belief.

[wikiwhistle]

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

DSM III, which is far more definitive than either a dictionary definition or one purported (I have no interest making my own determination of his bona-fides) researcher's distinction, includes in your own quote, the completed act of having sex with an animal. You want to ignore this and retreat into the justification of "just thinking about sex with animals" as some kind of mitigation. You are creepy beyond belief.

It appears like backtracking too I have to say.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Peter Damian]

I agree that the definition is crucial. See the my essay on taboo subjects below (WP:TABOO). If 'Zoophilia' really does not mean the ''practice'' then we will simply change the title of the article to 'bestiality', since it is clear that nearly the whole article is about the practice. E.g the section '''Books, articles and documentaries about zoophilia'' lists books about sexual crimes, case studies of preferential bestiality, 'Sex between humans and animals'. 'Forbidden sexual behaviour' and so on. I have no problem changing the title of the article to 'bestiality' if you or any of the other regulars on that page object to the definition.

The point is, the article is about the practice.

There should be a clear definition of the subject in the introduction. The definition should reflect the modern meaning of the word, as reflected in standard reference works such as a dictionaries, other encyclopedias &c. This is in order to avoid 'fallacy of equivocation': defining the word to mean a practice or condition that is legal, and acceptable to all people (e.g. paedophilia is defined as non-sexual attraction to children), then making statements or claims that are untrue in the normal meaning of the word, and which for that reason would be confusing to uneducated or naive readers who were reading this in an encyclopedia they trusted. (e.g. religion/ethicists/spiritual leaders do not condemn paedophilia, which is true of paedophilia as defined, but not true in the ordinary sense of the word, which connotes the gratification of the corresponding sexual desire).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TABOO

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[FT2]

(Snip)

Glass Bead - the original in DSM-III contains the word "or" (= this or that). The intro correctly contains the word "or" (= this or that). Damian removes the "or" to misrepresent it (= only means this). You get upset when this is pointed out? Go back to Conservapedia and rant there about the evilness of science and how it should be used to prove gays are evil or evolution doesn't work. I'll see you defending Intelligent design next time, right?

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

So stop acting like a prima donna and just say "yes, I agree that edit of Damian's was inaccurate". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) That was the only point being made.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Moulton]

Mary had a little lamb
Its fleece was white as snow.

The lamb turned out to be a ram
Mary had a little lamb.

[GlassBeadGame]

(Snip)

Glass Bead - the original in DSM-III contains the word "or" (= this or that). The intro correctly contains the word "or" (= this or that). Damian removes the "or" to misrepresent it (= only means this). You get upset when this is pointed out? Go back to Conservapedia and rant there about the evilness of science and how it should be used to prove gays are evil or evolution doesn't work. I'll see you defending Intelligent design next time, right?

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

So stop acting like a prima donna and just say "yes, I agree that edit of Damian's was inaccurate". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) That was the only point being made.

You are a fringe POV pusher and dishonest hack. WP will shelter you to some extent, much to it's dishonor. PD ought to disengage in any process that permits you an opportunity push this rubbish.

[Peter Damian]

(Snip)

Glass Bead - the original in DSM-III contains the word "or" (= this or that). The intro correctly contains the word "or" (= this or that). Damian removes the "or" to misrepresent it (= only means this). You get upset when this is pointed out? Go back to Conservapedia and rant there about the evilness of science and how it should be used to prove gays are evil or evolution doesn't work. I'll see you defending Intelligent design next time, right?

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

So stop acting like a prima donna and just say "yes, I agree that edit of Damian's was inaccurate". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) That was the only point being made.

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.

Also, can you explain why I've seen several brand-new accounts all trying to make the exact same edit recently? Not accusing, just wondering... Zetawoof(ζ) 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh.

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

This from the man who forged a quote to make it look as though premier linguist George Lakoff had endorsed Neurolinguistic programming.

To please FT2 I have modified the definition, while still placing emphasis on the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266203148

[GlassBeadGame]

To please FT2 I have modified the definition, while still placing emphasis on the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266203148

Well then you should add a depiction of someone thinking about having sex with animals for every depiction of someone having sex with an animal to decorate that Valentine.

[EricBarbour]

Mary had a little lamb
Its fleece was white as snow.
The lamb turned out to be a ram
Mary had a little lamb.

Excellent.
(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/badgerslayer.gif)

[FT2]

(Snip)

Which is odd since in simple terms, I'm the one citing the mainstream sources, while you're the one basically implying that we shouldn't reflect science here (and that anyone who would want to report the science honestly and in full rather than "what everyone knows" is evilnezz, because it's a horrible subject).

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.

Would you rename homosexuality to anal sex (a common misconception) or men who have sex with men? I thought not. There is a subject covered by significant reliable sources called zoophilia, and it is not just about sex. There is also a somewhat narrower topic about bestiality that is all about sex, but is also covered by zoophilia as well and currently handled in the same article.

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it, but it's probably not needed. There's only so much one can say about sexual acts at the best of times, and a second article on the actual mechanics is pretty unnecessary. Documenting the article subject is one thing but should not need to descend into gratuitous discussion of the actual physical actions. Covering zoophilia generally as an umbrella article (including both practitioners and fantasizers per mainstream definitions), animal sexual abuse, and health aspects (human and animal, no article really covers the latter well yet), are probably more useful ways to do it than trying to split into 2 articles as zoophilia vs. bestiality.

This from the man who forged a quote to make it look as though premier linguist George Lakoff had endorsed Neurolinguistic programming.

This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[GlassBeadGame]

(Snip)

Which is odd since in simple terms, I'm the one citing the mainstream sources, while you're the one basically implying that we shouldn't reflect science here (and that anyone who would want to report the science honestly and in full rather than "what everyone knows" is evilnezz, because it's a horrible subject).

Bullshit you are doing a vanity piece on a topic that you are obsessed with and Wikipedia, in it's typical inability to show restraint, is indulging your irresponsible and disgusting behavior. If you need help locating the needed depictions of people thinking about having sex with animals to round out your Valentine a good starting point might be hivemind.

[One]

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.

Would you rename homosexuality to anal sex or men who have sex with men? I thought not. There is a subject covered by significant reliable sources called zoophilia, and it is not just about sex. There is also a somewhat narrower topic about bestiality that is all about sex, but is also covered by zoophilia as well and currently handled in the same article.

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it, but it's probably not needed. There's only so much one can say about sexual acts at the best of times, and a second article on the actual mechanics is pretty unnecessary. Documenting the article subject is one thing but should not need to descend into gratuitous discussion of the actual physical actions. Covering zoophilia generally as an umbrella article (including both practitioners and fantasizers per mainstream definitions), animal sexual abuse, and health aspects (human and animal, no article really covers the latter well yet), are probably more useful ways to do it than trying to split into 2 articles as zoophilia vs. bestiality.

This is an interesting discussion. I just noticed PD's participation on Talk:Pedophilia, where he made a clear distinction between the act (which would be abusive--covered at child abuse or something similar) and the desire, which [[Pedophilia]] is apparently about. I guess he thinks that Zoophilia should have a similar structure.

Given that, I guess he would ask you whether [[Child sexual abuse]] should be likewise merged into pedophilia.

[Sorry to butt in here, but I literally looked at Talk:Pedophilia two minutes ago.]

[Bottled_Spider]

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it

All this one article or two, or seven ......... it's all so unnecessary. Why not just redirect all that animal-shagging crap to this? Tells it like it is, that does, and some will like the pic.

[GlassBeadGame]

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it

All this one article or two, or seven ......... it's all so unnecessary. Why not just redirect all that animal-shagging crap to this? Tells it like it is, that does, and some will like the pic.

It seems to me likely that some people will edit these articles as a way of focusing attention upon the subject matter and obtaining erotic satisfaction. The article become a kind of fetish trophies. Continuous edit wars, revision, discussions and multiplication of articles provide an ideal canvas for this type of purpose.

[wikiwhistle]

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it

All this one article or two, or seven ......... it's all so unnecessary. Why not just redirect all that animal-shagging crap to this? Tells it like it is, that does, and some will like the pic.

Wtf? lol. We could redirect all of this to [[Sick fuck]]. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Just joking (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It seems to me likely that some people will edit these articles as a way of focusing attention upon the subject matter and obtaining erotic satisfaction. The article become a kind of fetish trophies. Continuous edit wars, revision, discussions and multiplication of articles provide an ideal canvas for this type of purpose.

My mate thinks it's gross that I'm involved in these articles now, and is mocking outrageously. He keeps saying, "research purposes," that's what they all say" as I'm forced to read stuff about this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[tarantino]

You're not going to win this argument in this forum, FT2. It's probably best if you leave it with your last statement.

I might add that I find it disturbing that the number one search result for bestiality or zoophilia is a Wikipedia article that is effectively influenced by a 22 year old college student who's been having sex with dogs since he was 15 and jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

[wikiwhistle]

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[victim of censorship]

(Snip)

Which is odd since in simple terms, I'm the one citing the mainstream sources, while you're the one basically implying that we shouldn't reflect science here (and that anyone who would want to report the science honestly and in full rather than "what everyone knows" is evilnezz, because it's a horrible subject).

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.

Would you rename homosexuality to anal sex (a common misconception) or men who have sex with men? I thought not. There is a subject covered by significant reliable sources called zoophilia, and it is not just about sex. There is also a somewhat narrower topic about bestiality that is all about sex, but is also covered by zoophilia as well and currently handled in the same article.

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it, but it's probably not needed. There's only so much one can say about sexual acts at the best of times, and a second article on the actual mechanics is pretty unnecessary. Documenting the article subject is one thing but should not need to descend into gratuitous discussion of the actual physical actions. Covering zoophilia generally as an umbrella article (including both practitioners and fantasizers per mainstream definitions), animal sexual abuse, and health aspects (human and animal, no article really covers the latter well yet), are probably more useful ways to do it than trying to split into 2 articles as zoophilia vs. bestiality.

This from the man who forged a quote to make it look as though premier linguist George Lakoff had endorsed Neurolinguistic programming.

This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.

BLA BLA BLA BLA...MORE BLA BLA BLA BLA ...Drama and other minutia Ad nauseam (this spelled correctly see Websters, larua. The little realized fact by the typical Wikipediot, is; if it was not for the google juice and the high search engine placement of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would but just a self generating drama engine for Sociopaths, Napoleon complex sufferers. This will go on, endlessly unless Wikipeida is discredited and dismantled.

[Jon Awbrey]

Well, you have worked very hard trying to bring sanity to some of the darkest corners of Wikipedia. You are our Van Helsing.

A bit too bitten to make a good Buffy.
More slayin' and less parlayin' please!

Ja³

[tarantino]

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

[wikiwhistle]

I think he will be here soon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) If any of you banned users are on the article, do you think you are improving or worsening the unbanned one's attempts to improve it? Or does it make no odds? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

I can't get those webcite urls to work. I found a copy of the page though. Won't link as it reveals more personal info than he'd probably want to share. At least there aren't any pics of people in action. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Cedric]

You're not going to win this argument in this forum, FT2.

I already said that over 100 posts ago. As ever, he's not listening.

FT2's increasingly shrill justifications remind me of the advice that an old trial attorney once supposedly gave to a new attorney: "When the law favors your case, expound upon the law. When the facts favor your case, expound upon the facts. When the law and the facts favor your case, expound upon both. And when neither favors your case, pound on the table."

[GlassBeadGame]

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

What I find most striking about "Zetawoof" is from the earlier link you provided, tarintino. In it a fellow traveller says:

For the past several months, I have been looking at certian aspects of my life. I have finally come to the conclusion that I have wasted basically the better part of 30 years in a sexuality/choice that has led me nowhere.

and Z is not upset at the loses this guy suffered by not forming a caring relationship with another person, be it heterosexual or gay. No he is most concerned that this devastated person has responsibly put his former victims beyond further abuse by neutering:

Same story, different name. I've not heard from (redacted) since, so I can only assume that he followed through with his plans. Again, I was as shocked by his choice as by his methods; it seemed to me, as well as a number of fellow denizens of the talker, that mutilating his animals was not only unnecessary if he'd really made up his mind to leave zoophilia behind but also cruel to the animals.

Such are the twisted, selfish and uncaring views of this abusive and exploitative bastard. Presumably this is the kind of advice he would impart to the young person that FT2 is so very proud to have turn to Wikipedia for advice on these issues.

[luke]

....<snip>.... "When the law favors your case, expound upon the law. When the facts favor your case, expound upon the facts. When the law and the facts favor your case, expound upon both. And when neither favors your case, pound on the table."

yea ..........ad hominem posts do get rather tiresome, and most often contribute more heat than light

[EricBarbour]

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

Ugh. Damn.

Last night I saw the documentary Manda Bala. It spent a lot of time talking about the prominent Brazilian politician Jader Barbalho. A more corrupt man you won't ever meet, at least according to all the Brazilian police and prosecutors the film trotted out. Yet Barbalho had managed to fight off every legal challenge. He even was prosecuted and jailed, yet he managed to get the charges dropped by appealing to friends in the superior court. He used his massive media empire, including the primary newspapers and broadcast outlets in Belem, to get himself reelected to the Senate--after resigning in shame.

There's also the matter of billions of dollars that Barbalho managed to launder and make disappear....not to mention a long list of people who were jailed or "disappeared", to make Barbalho look good.

They even managed to get Barbalho to show up for an interview. He talked to the filmmakers for a few seconds, realized they were out to document the truth, and left in a huff.

(Ironic that the Wikipedia BLP about him isn't very detailed, and appears to only cover events up to October 2002--he was jailed shortly after that. I wonder if I just discovered a BLP that was "sanitized" by one of Barbalho's lackeys? Needless to say, type his name into Google, and this BLP is the top hit.)

And guess what, it's supposedly illegal to sell or show "Manda Bala" in Brazil.

Wikipedia is like Brazil. A huge, utterly corrupt country, overwhelmed
with corruption and crime--none of which is obvious on the glossy surface.
And FT2 is like Jader Barbalho, an utterly smooth, serene, lying sociopath.
Like Barbalho, he would have no power, if he didn't have toadies
(like the utterly pathetic Zetawoof) to help him with his dirty work.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[everyking]

Obviously this thread has become entirely about FT2 and zoophilia, but I need to point out something relevant: Bishzilla's admin rights were transferred back to the Bishonen account a few hours ago, and the account's user page was deleted. As far as I'm concerned, then, this situation was an all-around success: FT2 was forced off the ArbCom and Bishonen decided to stop playing silly games with the responsibility that was given to her by the community four years ago. I recognize that my viewpoint on the latter is not popular, but I don't think you can seriously criticize admin abuse while arguing that Bishonen should be allowed to play games with her adminship. My viewpoint is consistent: adminship is a serious responsibility and it should be exercised only by people who behave like serious adults. I don't much care that Bishonen happened to be on the right side of this wikiwar in political terms; occasionally I can let something slide for political reasons, but the nature and conduct of adminship is central to my criticisms and I won't make any exceptions for that.

While looking at the logs, I noticed this interesting detail: "Bishzilla" actually bestowed rollbacker rights on the Bishonen account last year. It is disappointing that nothing has changed since then to make this account-swapping, self-promotion nonsense impossible. There isn't really anything, aside from shame, to keep from Bishonen from playing this game all over again. You can lose your adminship for political reasons, but not for treating it as a joke.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Lar]

Obviously this thread has become entirely about FT2 and zoophilia, but I need to point out something relevant: Bishzilla's admin rights were transferred back to the Bishonen account a few hours ago, and the account's user page was deleted. As far as I'm concerned, then, this situation was an all-around success: FT2 was forced off the ArbCom and Bishonen decided to stop playing silly games with the responsibility that was given to her by the community four years ago. I recognize that my viewpoint on the latter is not popular, but I don't think you can seriously criticize admin abuse while arguing that Bishonen should be allowed to play games with her adminship. My viewpoint is consistent: adminship is a serious responsibility and it should be exercised only by people who behave like serious adults. I don't much care that Bishonen happened to be on the right side of this wikiwar in political terms; occasionally I can let something slide for political reasons, but the nature and conduct of adminship is central to my criticisms and I won't make any exceptions for that.

While looking at the logs, I noticed this interesting detail: "Bishzilla" actually bestowed rollbacker rights on the Bishonen account last year. It is disappointing that nothing has changed since then to make this account-swapping, self-promotion nonsense impossible. There isn't really anything, aside from shame, to keep from Bishonen from playing this game all over again. You can lose your adminship for political reasons, but not for treating it is a joke.

No comment on any of the rest of it, but what's the issue with the alternate account (whichever one it is at the time) having rollback?

[everyking]

No comment on any of the rest of it, but what's the issue with the alternate account (whichever one it is at the time) having rollback?

It's the fact that she bestowed it upon herself. Everybody else has to be approved by an admin; she approved herself.

[Lar]

No comment on any of the rest of it, but what's the issue with the alternate account (whichever one it is at the time) having rollback?

It's the fact that she bestowed it upon herself. Everybody else has to be approved by an admin; she approved herself.

Well, she IS an admin. So theoretically competent to have rollback and competent to decide who gets it.

On the other hand the rule is one admin account per person... no matter how many socks or bots you have, only one can have admin sans special approval (not given by yourself).

It's an interesting conundrum. Is rollback like adminship?

[Peter Damian]

This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.

The error I am talking about was not immediately 'corrected at the time'. Do you remember this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...deling/Evidence

which you created when I nominated one of your NLP articles for deletion. You said the AFD had been 'created by a user with little knowledge and minimal research, who has recently been proxy editing for a banned user who used to virulently sock war on this topic', and that there were plenty of independent and reliable sources that would prove me wrong. You then proceeded to list all the sources that proved that 'Damian has not done his work'. Among 'serious users of NLP'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...r_serious_users

you cite Lakoff. When I first saw that I reacted with shock. Perhaps my whole campaign about NLP had been a mistake, and perhaps we should take it seriously? The other citations were piffle (self-published sources, other forms of miscitation) but if anyone of the stature of Lakoff was endorsing NLP, then we should really be thinking again.

I wondered about this for a few days then decided to do some further research. In fact it was not Lakoff at all.

The other 'citations' about NLP were mostly selective sourcing, usually from self-published non-independent sources. A substantial number of the sources did not mention NLP at all, i.e. were blatant miscitation. If I had not had the charge of harrassment against me I would have taken this to RFC. Persistent and wilful misuse of sources is far worse than any of the bad things we are talking about here (at least, if it is encyclopedias we are talking about).

No comment on any of the rest of it ....

La la la la Lar can't hear you.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

This is an interesting discussion. I just noticed PD's participation on Talk:Pedophilia, where he made a clear distinction between the act (which would be abusive--covered at child abuse or something similar) and the desire, which [[Pedophilia]] is apparently about. I guess he thinks that Zoophilia should have a similar structure.

Given that, I guess he would ask you whether [[Child sexual abuse]] should be likewise merged into pedophilia.

[Sorry to butt in here, but I literally looked at Talk:Pedophilia two minutes ago.]

Pedophiles and their apologists justify the splitting of child sexual abuse from pederasty/pedophilia because they claim sexual activity with children is not inherently abusive. See FT2's remark above that 'it's not all about anal sex' (referring to homosexuality).

Similarly zoophiles (of which Zetawoof is certainly one) distinguish between consensual and caring sexual relations with animals (zoophilia proper), and animal sexual abuse, which is forked out to the article 'Zoosadism'.

I'm not sure about this. First, some forms of sexual activity with animals is invariably harmful indeed fatal to the animal. Sex with birds or reptiles. There is some evidence that even with dogs it is harmful (more later, if anyone has the stomach). Animals have a defined breeding cycle unlike humans.

And I'm not sure about this claim about the caring nature of zoophilies. I'm sure some are, but look at the quote below (from a site since taken down). That suggests that there is a considerable amount of abuse out there, directly attributable to the internet:

We became disgusted with the " ZooCons " and other gatherings a long time ago and have since boiled with anger over the treatment of the animals and the horrid ways some so-called " zoos " and other " bestialists " threatening anyone who dared questioned there behavior. Such as man handleing, fence hopping, swapping and other abuses. Such as discarding animals like " wore out toys " when no longer wanted or needed. Or our favorite, "THE WEEKEND POUND ADOPTION". Yet these very people still profess to care about and love the animals. We wanted none of this.

Our group began back in December of 1999 when " Mr Ex, whY and Mr Zee ", three animal loving (in every way) people gathered over drinks at The Dragon's Lair. Decided they had enough with the state of things among the so-called "online zoo community" and decided that an alternative was needed. What we wanted was a fresh start and a place for others who felt as we did to gather and share ideas. A place, with rules of proper conduct, a philosophy of safe and kind behavior, and a resource for those out there who did not want to play head games or trick others needed to be established.

This suggests (coming from people who have every reason to defend the practice) that there is a considerable amount of abuse taking place within the zoophile 'community'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Bottled_Spider]

BLA BLA BLA BLA...MORE BLA BLA BLA BLA ...

Your needle's stuck.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

Holy shit. And he and FT2 are pals. What do you do with these people?

Edit : Weird. These were two separate replies which somehow got welded together. Never mind.


This post has been edited by Bottled_Spider:

[Peter Damian]

Holy shit. And he and FT2 are pals. What do you do with these people?

Indeed

"Thanks for the support on RfA!" "As a friend and also as an editor, you wrote. As both those - thanks. I hope to live up to the best of 'em all."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=100412113

"Just a quick note" [about a sockpuppet] "Hope your stress and busy stuff calms down soon, and look forward to catching up when it does. Feel free to delete this message when you're done. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29130627

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

I'd have more sympathy with "You don't Understand How To Edit" FT2 if he was as vigilant on getting unsourced favourable material out of the article as he was in supporting his supposedly sourced but ultimately suspect viewpoint in. If he was serious, he himself would have deleted the lifestyle section under half a dozen policies. Oddly, he stands by instead.

Ultimately, it is his inability to deal fairly with the topic shows how hollow his words sound as he lectures on the appropriate approach.

[Obesity]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

[dogbiscuit]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

It's far too depressing knowing that these days you can't admit to being an animal lover without someone checking up what it means on Wikipedia and getting you arrested.

[One]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

It's far too depressing knowing that these days you can't admit to being an animal lover without someone checking up what it means on Wikipedia and getting you arrested.

I know! And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to jump over a fence again.

[dtobias]

I know! And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to jump over a fence again.

Miss Mary Mack, in the old children's rhyme,

asked her mother mother mother
for 50 cents cents cents
to see the elephants elephants elephants
jump over the fence fence fence

It's unstated what she would do with the elephants after they jumped the fence.

[wikiwhistle]

I know! And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to jump over a fence again.

Miss Mary Mack, in the old children's rhyme,

asked her mother mother mother
for 50 cents cents cents
to see the elephants elephants elephants
jump over the fence fence fence

It's unstated what she would do with the elephants after they jumped the fence.

Clearly, going by the logic of the rest of the Zooph article, this is more evidence for the acceptance of zoophilia throughout human history. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Bottled_Spider]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

Me too. So I decided to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about FT2's performance in this thread. Bereft of both inspiration and talent, all I could come up with was shaggy dog story.

The Wiki article is relevant - see the sections on War story :-

in which the narrator presents his audience with insurmountable odds, and as the antagonistic forces close in, ends the story. When the audience clamors to know what happened next, the narrator simply responds, "I died."

...... and Lengthy :-

A shaggy dog story derives its humor from the fact that the joke-teller held (sic) the attention of the listeners for a long time (such jokes can take five minutes or more to tell) for no reason at all (an anticlimax)

Well ....... it's quite low.

[victim of censorship]

BLA BLA BLA BLA...MORE BLA BLA BLA BLA ...

Your needle's stuck.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

Holy shit. And he and FT2 are pals. What do you do with these people?

Edit : Weird. These were two separate replies which somehow got welded together. Never mind.

Bla Bla Bla <insert wiki drama> Bla Bla Bla <insert more wiki drama> bla bla bal... ad nauseam .

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Peter Damian]

La zoophilie, du Grec ancien ζωον (zôon, « animal ») et φιλία (philia, « amitié » ou « amour »), est l'attirance sexuelle d'un être humain pour un ou plusieurs animaux[1]. Elle est éventuellement affective, étymologiquement parlant.

Généralement considérée comme une déviance ou une perversion sexuelle, elle devient véritablement une paraphilie si elle remplit ces critères ; bien qu'elle ne soit plus listée depuis 1980 dans le Manuel diagnostic et statistique des troubles mentaux (DSM), la référence américaine et mondiale psychiatrique en matière de pathologies mentales.

Apparu au XIXe siècle, le mot zoophilie provient de racines grecques. Il était autrefois connu sous le nom de « bestialité ». Aujourd'hui ce terme est souvent utilisé pour désigner le passage à l'acte sexuel effectif qui peut découler d'une attirance zoophile. On parle aussi d' « actes zoophiles ».

En France, depuis 2004[2], la zoophilie est réprimée. La Cour de Cassation a confirmé, le 4 septembre 2007, un arrêt de la Chambre correctionnelle de la Cour d'Appel de Dijon du 27 janvier 2006, condamnant un individu à un an d'emprisonnement avec sursis ainsi que d'une interdiction définitive de détenir un animal.[3]Voir la décision
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

[Dzonatas]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

There is much more to bestiality than that... but I guess it really is determined but what "animal" means.

For example:

NSFW: http://thumbs.bc.jncdn.com/4b0585eaccacf07...721540e8_lm.jpg

and

NSFW: http://na.mo.free.fr/gaza2008/16-01/IMG_1963.jpg

Which some sick mind attempt justify on what exactly are animals. The fact here, before you go off and say I went to far with it, is there is a religion out there that actually does classify those outside their race as animals. (I'll save details to avoid a conflict here.)

Images found here: NSFW: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12012

Those event related to those picture sure do put a new meaning to zoophilia, as one that likes caged animals for exhibition. Uhm.... walled city.


Oh, and the thought that Vegans would naturally think such ways about love.... oh my!

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[EricBarbour]

Those event related to those picture sure do put a new meaning to zoophilia, as one that likes caged animals for exhibition. Uhm.... walled city.
Oh, and the thought that Vegans would naturally think such ways about love.... oh my!

Um, are you trying to drive this thread off into Israelis-killing-babies-in-Gaza territory?

.....well......okay, go ahead. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

La zoophilie, du Grec ancien ζωον (zôon, « animal ») et φιλία (philia, « amitié » ou « amour »), est l'attirance sexuelle d'un être humain pour un ou plusieurs animaux[1]. Elle est éventuellement affective, étymologiquement parlant.

Généralement considérée comme une déviance ou une perversion sexuelle, elle devient véritablement une paraphilie si elle remplit ces critères ; bien qu'elle ne soit plus listée depuis 1980 dans le Manuel diagnostic et statistique des troubles mentaux (DSM), la référence américaine et mondiale psychiatrique en matière de pathologies mentales.

Apparu au XIXe siècle, le mot zoophilie provient de racines grecques. Il était autrefois connu sous le nom de « bestialité ». Aujourd'hui ce terme est souvent utilisé pour désigner le passage à l'acte sexuel effectif qui peut découler d'une attirance zoophile. On parle aussi d' « actes zoophiles ».

En France, depuis 2004[2], la zoophilie est réprimée. La Cour de Cassation a confirmé, le 4 septembre 2007, un arrêt de la Chambre correctionnelle de la Cour d'Appel de Dijon du 27 janvier 2006, condamnant un individu à un an d'emprisonnement avec sursis ainsi que d'une interdiction définitive de détenir un animal.[3]Voir la décision
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

The zoophile, from the old Greek ζωον (zôon, “animal”) and φιλία (philia, “friendship” or “love”), is the sexual attraction a human being for one or more animals [1]. Etymologically speaking, it is possibly an emotional attraction.

Generally regarded as a deviance or a sexual perversion, it becomes truly a paraphilia if it fulfills these criteria; although it has not been listed since 1980 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the American and world psychiatric reference regarding mental pathologies.

First appearing in the 19th century, the word zoophilia comes from Greek roots. It was formerly known under the name of “bestiality”. In the modern day this term is often used to indicate the actually sexual act which can arise from a zoophilic attraction. One can also speaks “acts of zoophilia.”

In France, since 2004 [2], zoophilia has been legally surpressed. On September 4, 2007, the Court of Appeal confirmed a stay? of the Criminal Court of the District? Court of Dijon of January 27, 2006, condemning an individual to one year of suspended sentence comprising a total ban on keeping an animal. [3] See the decision http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

Ain't Babelfish wunerful? But the last sentence is not intelligable to me. The count of appeal confirmed a stop/stay in a suspended sentence consisting of a one-year ban on keeping an animal? Was the suspended sentence stayed or not, and who cares, if it was suspended?

[Dzonatas]

Um, are you trying to drive this thread off into Israelis-killing-babies-in-Gaza territory?

.....well......okay, go ahead. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

No, I won't try. Just seems like someone wanted to push the limits on what is acceptable, and well, all things considered then.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Bottled_Spider]

In France, since 2004 [2], zoophilia has been legally surpressed. On September 4, 2007, the Court of Appeal confirmed a stay? of the Criminal Court of the District? Court of Dijon of January 27, 2006, condemning an individual to one year of suspended sentence comprising a total ban on keeping an animal.

Ain't Babelfish wunerful? But the last sentence is not intelligable to me. The count of appeal confirmed a stop/stay in a suspended sentence consisting of a one-year ban on keeping an animal? Was the suspended sentence stayed or not, and who cares, if it was suspended?

Google's translation facility repaces all instances of "zoophilia" with "bestiality". Its version of the final paragraph is :-

In France, since 2004 [2], bestiality is suppressed. The Court of Cassation confirmed on 4 September 2007, a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Dijon, 27 January 2006, condemning a person to one year suspended prison sentence and a permanent ban on hold an animal.

No mention of "staying" at all.
A permanent ban on "hold an animal"?! I should bloody well think so.

[groody]

En France, depuis 2004[2], la zoophilie est réprimée. La Cour de Cassation a confirmé, le 4 septembre 2007, un arrêt de la Chambre correctionnelle de la Cour d'Appel de Dijon du 27 janvier 2006, condamnant un individu à un an d'emprisonnement avec sursis ainsi que d'une interdiction définitive de détenir un animal.[3]Voir la décision
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

Ain't Babelfish wunerful? But the last sentence is not intelligable to me. The count of appeal confirmed a stop/stay in a suspended sentence consisting of a one-year ban on keeping an animal? Was the suspended sentence stayed or not, and who cares, if it was suspended?

Bablfish is taking "arret" as meaning "stay" or "stop", rather than, as intended, a decree. It's also buggering up the difference between the cour de cassation (high court), and the district court of appeals. A better translation (well, I hope so, I'm not a native speaker) is something like this:

On the 4 September 2007, the French high court confirmed the 27 Jan 2006 decison by the correctional chamber of the Dijon court of appeals, which condemned an individual to a one year suspended sentence combined with a total and permanent ban on him/her keeping any animal.

"keeping" is not as funny as "holding", though.

f.

This post has been edited by groody:

[Moulton]

I'd hate to hazard a guess what Babelfish does with "Animal Husbandry".