Hi (from FT2), meet FT2, currently active ArbCom member Options

[Jon Awbrey]

What a nest of guttersnipes!

I'll say!

The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved.

And Mr. FT2, you're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley". Around here we call him "Docknell". User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it?

I have fond memories of FTA — I'm wondering if FT2 is any kin?

Jon

[Docknell]

What a nest of guttersnipes!

I'll say!

The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved.

And Mr. FT2, you're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley." Around here we call him "Docknell." User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it?

Indeed, and in fact there seem to be many HDs on this article,

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

all no doubt with similarly sizzling levels of virulence.

I am actually none of them, and I'll not be packing anything in whatsoever. The diffs are there for anyone to examine.

Doc

(Someone moved it. Took ages to figure where to find it!)

Lots to reply to, I hope this catches the main ones. I've priorotized them a bit, or tried to, so if I miss one, PM me with a link to the post number thats missing.

First and easiest - now confirmed on my wiki talk page.

Damian and Rootology - as explained, I'm not in the habit of assuming all WR users are (whatever). I may ignore individual ones after a time, but I'm no sitting here waiting to confirm some impression of the site. I know roughly what to expect, and asked for an account to be created being aware of that already. The so-called "bitter pill" crowd seem to be roughly two groups: HeadleyDown (WR's "Docknell") and Damian is one rather small group, and those who act as if they want to score points and soundbites, or generic "wikipedia- or arbcom-opposers" is roughly the other.

Kohs - you and I may only have a limited amount of interaction. I was willing to support you and look into your case on-wiki in April, but your claim to be an unrepentant sock-user in it for disruption, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a third post of yours is clearly a well thought out debating point and not disruptive, so when you do make perceptive comments, it's appreciated. For the record in citing Alex B as an admin, I am (rather obviously) not endorsing everything he has said, nor everyone he says it to, and you know that. He has said what I cited him as saying, and is competent as an admin to say it. (And if my assessment of you is mistaken please contact me to discuss.)

Headley - As since 2005, the denials wear thin; pack it in. You only fool few people, and those few... well, so be it.

Damian - you had been given links to a wide range of other users' comments on Headley on several occasions. Evidence was given to you exactly as to others, many times. Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong). Let's leave it all till mediation though. I appreciate the offer of peace, and I would rather follow it up than respond unhelpfully or be seen as attacking in any way.

Somey - I don't run away easily. I added content that was, for the most part, researched rather than O.R. I could probably do better with experience. Some day I should go back to those topics for that purpose. It's just not a priority. Headley has spent from 2006 to now - over 2 years at this time - trying to present it as biased editing, and trying to get others via email, to push that viewpoint with him and for him. It hasn't worked so far for him on wikipedia, and even at WR, where you'd think he might get natural traction, I don't get the impression of much real belief.

Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.

Kelly Martin - you said You will find such sockpuppetry games unwelcome on WR, FT2.. Technically Docknell isn't a sockpuppet - he's using one account here and if it's not in his better known name, who cares. I can affirm 1/ Damian doesn't use socks so far as I know, and 2/ Damian isn't Docknell/Headley, for the record, and if there was a third pusher of Headley/Docknell's meme who joined in or since December, I think even the gullible at WR would have noticed. However the unfortunate fact is, something being welcome or otherwise does not mean it doesn't exist.

The irony is that this does expose the double standard. A number of users here who will endorse and encourage socking when used at wikipedia, will not endorse or encourage when they find it was used against them or "their" forum.

I'll try to come back to the rest (if any were important) in a bit. One or two need their own separate posts.

Just a simple question FT2.

The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way.

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

They are generally against the promotion of pseudoscience.

And the articles you created and conflated are indeed being deleted against the persistent arguments from yourself.

Do you feel that all those editors who are against your POV pushing should "pack it in"?

Doc

[Jon Awbrey]

Chapter 2. Wherein Jon begins to suspect that all ArbComedians are really sockpuppets of Fred Bauder.

Jon

[FT2]

(Snip)

Answered in its own thread.

[Vicky]

Why, belated greetings from me too, Mr FT2.

It's so delightful to see someone who has edited several of the same articles as I have. I look forward to resuming our collaboration - whenever you say, Mr FT2!

[Peter Damian]

Damian - you had been given links to a wide range of other users' comments on Headley on several occasions. Evidence was given to you exactly as to others, many times. Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong). Let's leave it all till mediation though. I appreciate the offer of peace, and I would rather follow it up than respond unhelpfully or be seen as attacking in any way.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply. Please note I have left Wikipedia for good. This refers

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235343699

so there will be no need for mediation.

On your comments about users exasperated with Headley. You originally cited Thatcher and Alex B. Thatcher has said he had never even heard of Headley Down (private email, can't cite). Alex B I don't know about. Was he involved with Headley?

And who were the others? I asked Woohookitty, and he (or she) said they didn't want to be involved any more. There were some others involved in the NLP dispute who obviously weren't too keen on Headley, but the vocal ones are all connected with the NLP industry in some way. E.g. Comaze who has admitted on-wiki to being an NLP practitioner.

Could you find us a truly independent person to comment on Headley? Thanks

[edit] And regarding Doc's post above: he is correct. Nearly all the scientific evidence I have looked at discredits NLP. And on the NLP articles I nominated for deletion, there was an overwhelming majority (apart from you and a handful of others) for 'delete'. Doesn't this suggest that Headley's editing, which was generally sceptical of the claims of NLP, was all right?

Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong).

Sorry, what was this? By the way, on WR mores and culture, it is considered impolite not to source any claim with a diff or reference of some sort. Could you give precise references for your claims. And note the falsely attributed quote from Lakoff which you used earlier against me is still there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...of_users_of_NLP

(see the bottom). The quote attributed to Lakoff is not by him at all, but by an NLP practitioner. Again, could you please accurately source anything you say here, thanks.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 1st September 2008, 6:07am

[The Adversary]

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

Slightly more seriously, I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" )

[FT2]

Quick comments -

You're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley." Around here we call him "Docknell." User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it?

Noted about referring to Docknell as "Docknell" here, that's fine. I will refer to Headley the wiki sock-master as Headley, the WR editor as Docknell, and not use the one name for the other. I call him that since I'm used to him by that name, whatever name of the day he uses on-wiki.

One correction - far from not having edited for 2 years, he has edited pretty much without break from 2004/05 to August 2008. The last edits identified as him on-wiki were June 2008, and that is the customary name all concerned (including him) have consistently used.

I don't consider a mere change of nick to signify "hasn't edited".

The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved.

There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange.

I'm surprised to see you (if this is FT2) assume someone is a sock/one particular opponent just because they share any opinion. I thought you were more sophisticated than that.

Did I say that my basis for stating it was "just that they shared an[y] opinion", or is that just an assumption? I think it's the latter.

An introductory post isn't the place for detailed analysis, plus, that debate's been had numerous times on-wiki from 2005, for 3 years and some 60 - 80 socks, now. It gets predictable.

When I said he's subtle to detect, I meant it. But all that means is, you need someone to show you. One of Headley's annoyances is I've never told anyone except people I'm fairly sure won't leak to him, and only told people what's needed to ID a specific sock, never all of it, in case they do. Even so he's been affirmed by probably dozens of users over time -- are they all wrong? Doubt it. The evidence isn't usually trivial. They, like you, start knowing nothing and requiring good evidence. And yes that caution isn't usual, and ... that's how it is.

Of course I don't believe it of you But have you thought (playing devils advocate here) that some people are simply being tactful, or not saying they agree with the suggestion because alleging it led to some people being blocked, or because they want to stay on wikipedia? You are in a position of power on WP. It would be hard and unwise for people to publically agree or say that they think there might be a grain of truth in allegations of scandalous things about you, on the record. Just saying

Yeah, sadly some people will not be honest about how they see things. They imagine others act as they would, or as they believe others will. The idea some don't, is hard to fit into their world view.

My commitment, and I make it publicly in case anyone does have this concern - I will not take action (nor for the suspicious, will I ask others to take action) for views, concerns and other matters expressed on Wikipedia and within wikipedia site norms. I also will not import views from here, to there, other than blatant statements of intent to disrupt or do harm, or evidence relating to actual bad conduct or likely future conduct, or the like. In other words, no, I don't and won't be going "OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING NASTY SO I WILL FIND A WAY TO HURT THEM FOR IT". Thats not okay, that's not the basis anyone should have who's an admin or arb, and anyone who thought it, can forget the possibility.

I'd respect some people a load more if they'd ask thoughtful questions for good cause, rather than mere assumption.

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

Slightly more seriously, I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" )

I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

And no, I haven't. My computer issues have been annoying, and a serious impediment, and lasted from beginning July to now. The alternatives were two laptops - one with a busted keyboard and overheating, and a borrowed one with so little memory that opening a web page is a 90 second adventure. I hope they're over, but god knows. The tech guys don't understand either (multiple components tried with multiple components). At worst it may all go back for testing, and likely I'll pull it offline for 24 hours to do testing anyway here. But today for the first time since June it passed [[Memtest]]. I wish I were as confident as memtest is. As a result I haven't done the full review on that case, which I'd have wished to. Its on my "get caught up" list.

[Peter Damian]

There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange.

Ahem this is simply not true. Your first edits (in July 2004) I shall pass over for now (there is a thread about them below). You edited it extensively from 2004-early 2007. My issue with them is nothing to do with 'yuk' factor, but what appears to be highly slanted and promotional editing, selective sourcing and so on. Example given below, of an edit war you had with Skoppensboer. I have included Skopp's comments only, but they were all directed at you. Link to the archived page is given if you want to check.

-------------------------------------------------------

I stand by what I said. Your edits all tend to minimise perceived risk and your intention is clearly to give the entire topic a gloss of safety and normality, I presume for personal reasons. Let me ask you directly: are you a zoophile? We should be told. It would certainly help to explain your edits made without consensus-seeking. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using pornographic erotica forums for proof of what we should or shouldn't say here. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. As for taking a break, I'll take a permanent break if you agree not to gut the Health and Safety section again. I am also agreeable to spinning it off as a separate page with a {{main| tag linking it to the Zoophilia page H&S section, as I've offered before, and to which you have never agreed, your recent comment about this notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Zoophilia Talk page)

-----------------

I do not have the time to engage in a long explication of this kerfuffle here, and I see I'm already in danger of being overwhelmed by FT2's verbose style right at the start. I refer the mediator to the actual talk pages where I've made my points. I don't wish or have the time to rewrite them here. Needless to say, I deny all of the points FT2 tries to make above.

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.

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: Mon 1st September 2008, 8:14am

[Docknell]

FT2, you said:


"There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange."


Well, let’s look at that with a few diffs shall we?

You seem to be removing well sourced information that is condemnatory to bestiality

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141077281

And you seem to have shown a desperate need to save zoophiles from the normal and obvious comparison with pedophiles, and you add NLP vaguery to the opening that quite frankly a pedophile would want to add to the lead of the pedophilia article. That’s not science, its pure promotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62331938

There is a definite need to deal with the ick factor. There is an increasingly vocal element among Wikipedians (especially during ANI’s and AfDs that seem to have been complaining about your activities) that seems to cry for the whole of Wikipedia to have such ick hosed out of the project, contributing arbitrators and all.

Or do you think casually dismissing the obvious incidence such fringe promotional editing is normal, natural, and acceptable for arbitrators such as yourself?

Doc

[Proabivouac]

Quick comments -
…

FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

[Peter Damian]

Quick comments -
…

FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

Yes, answers needed. Let's spell this out. Here is the contribution history for Hani_Miletski

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

from which you can see TBP began the article, and left it in pretty much a finished state.

(cur) (last) 20:03, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:02, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:58, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:56, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:43, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:41, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:39, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) m (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:30, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs)

FT2 claims to have 'substantially rewritten' the article but when you look at his overall contributions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52713521

they are just referencing, adding tags and a vandalism revert. What is going on?

[dtobias]

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

You mean the "wretched hive of scum and villainy"?

----------------
Now playing: London Symphony Orchestra - Star Wars Main Title and The Arrival at Naboo
via FoxyTunes

[tarantino]

Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2
First edit to self-nom
06:13, 17 June 2006 FT2 (Talk | contribs)

TBP's last edit
01:19, 16 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Animal cognition ‎ (→Emotion: fix section head)

How long was checkuser data retained at the time?
No, it cannot be definitively proven at this time that the accounts were run by the same person. I've seen users with less mojo templated on weaker evidence, but frankly, it is one of your lesser transgressions. I'm a little busy on another matter that the wikiverse will soon feel the effects of to review your alleged socking, but if you wish to clue us in on this matter, feel free.

[thekohser]

Kohs - you and I may only have a limited amount of interaction. I was willing to support you and look into your case on-wiki in April, but your claim to be an unrepentant sock-user in it for disruption, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a third post of yours is clearly a well thought out debating point and not disruptive, so when you do make perceptive comments, it's appreciated. For the record in citing Alex B as an admin, I am (rather obviously) not endorsing everything he has said, nor everyone he says it to, and you know that. He has said what I cited him as saying, and is competent as an admin to say it. (And if my assessment of you is mistaken please contact me to discuss.)

You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try -- I know it's difficult for some of you -- but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point.

[Kelly Martin]

Greg, you can't expect someone addicted to the kool-aid to really understand why we disrupt Wikipedia. They've internalized the rule against "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" so deeply that when they see a disruption they immediately conclude that the disruptor is an unrepentant enemy and stop thinking further. No enemy of Wikipedia would ever have any meritorious point. There is no need to worry yourself with trying to understand what the point of the disruption was.

Frankly, I'm rather unimpressed with FT2's effort to fling poo here; it's plainly obvious that he is here to strike an effective blow at the enemy. If he will stop tossing feces long enough to actually have a discussion, I suspect he will find his continued participation more welcome.

[Peter Damian]

It's not just the poo, it's the confusion. Once again, why does FT2 claim to have completely re-written an article (Hani Miletski) that user:TBP in fact wrote? That makes no sense, and FT2 hasn't answered it either.

Scientology's inability to tolerate disagreement makes it seem an act of loyalty to label others as enemy and to discredit non-group persons and values. In this authoritarian atmosphere, the Church is always right. In taking any independent position, the individual is always wrong. In the logic of Hard Sell, a clever person can produce an infinity of reasons why the individual is wrong-for-some-reason-or-other without regard to the facts of any particular situation.

A common misdirection is to force attention off the issue and onto intentions and motives; anyone who is not gung ho must have evil intentions. Thus discourse is reduced to smearing, invalidating, or otherwise "disconnecting from" (generally: not seeing) those not of one's persuasion. For example, a Scientologist who saw a very early draft of these notes made no response at all to their content, but was horrified that I would discuss the group in non-group terms. I was told to see an ethics officer and get it "handled."

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 1st September 2008, 2:41pm

[Jon Awbrey]

You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try — I know it's difficult for some of you — but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point.

Now, Greg, you ought to know this bit by now. Try to play along — you donwanna up↑set the Wiki-Peeneut Gallery, now do you? After all, up↑setting the Wiki-Peanut-Brains is my job.

FT2 is just the latest in a long, long — long to the WP:PUNT of TL;DR — long, long line of PR agents from the Wiksliver Kill The Messenger Service that we all know as Wikipedia. He will quite natterly feel a bit naked without his Waleser-PPK™ and his License2Kill® over here, so try to be gentle with him @ 1st, will you? He will quickly learn the trick, if he hasn't already, of deftly ignoring anyone who is e-wake e-nuff to speak the discomfitable truth bak@im, devoting his e-tentions to all the X-Boys-Staters and X-Girls-Staters who are so Gawdawful Frank 'n' Earnest 'n' Beans about the ArbCommodious Side-Show known as ARBCon.

So all us old BarFlies might as well sit back, relax, have a Strohs (IceCream or Beer, name yer poison), and laugh our arses off at the Comedy of BarfLies that we are about to see Wiki-Paraded b4 us.

Cheers!

CODE

   ¤
  º
   .°
  \_/
   |
  -^-

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Mon 1st September 2008, 2:42pm

[Carruthers]

You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try — I know it's difficult for some of you — but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point.

Now, Greg, you ought to know this bit by now. Try to play along — you donwanna up↑set the Wiki-Peeneut Gallery, now do you? After all, up↑setting the Wiki-Peanut-Brains is my job.

FT2 is just the latest in a long, long — long to the WP:PUNT of TL;DR — long, long line of PR agents from the Wiksliver Kill The Messenger Service that we all know as Wikipedia. He will quite natterly feel a bit naked without his Waleser-PPK™ and his License2Kill® over here, so try to be gentle with him @ 1st, will you? He will quickly learn the trick, if he hasn't already, of deftly ignoring anyone who is e-wake e-nuff to speak the discomfitable truth bak@im, devoting his e-tentions to all the X-Boys-Staters and X-Girls-Staters who are so Gawdawful Frank 'n' Earnest 'n' Beans about the ArbCommodious Side-Show known as ARBCon.

So all us old BarFlies might as well sit back, relax, have a Strohs (IceCream or Beer, name yer poison), and laugh our arses off at the Comedy of BarfLies that we are about to see Wiki-Paraded b4 us.

Cheers!

CODE

   ¤
  º
   .°
  \_/
   |
  -^-

Jon

I'll drink to that!

[bambi]

Does this look about right? That first line probably dates from 24 July 2006. Not earlier, and certainly no later than 30 September 2007.