FT2 fails to get the joke, Defender of the wiki on the loose Options

[Kato]

But who is the Wiki defender? The sense of humour reminds me of our dearly beloved the Kohs.

Though I am fond of most things Canada, 'tis not I.

I do know the identity of the Wiki Defender, but I presume the comedy-drama remains all the more heightened with my secret kept safe.

Greg

It's isn't me either. I wish I'd come up with the idea.

[Peter Damian]

Here is something very funny. FT2 was not the only one fooled. I gave it a quick glance when the "You have new messages" flashed up - and reverted it thinking it was completely genuine too, it was a good while later when everyone else was laughing and emailing that I re-read it in the history and realised it was a spoof. I'm not sure if that says more about me, or the type of people who post on my page.

Giano

But you presumably read the talk message only, which looked genuine (given the sort of nonsense that people write on talk pages these days). FT2, on the other, hand, clearly went to the trouble of reading the whole blog (since he comments on its contents) without realising it's a spoof. Plus 40 minutes of a carefully crafted reply that he then has to delete.

And now I see FT2 has been awarded the 'Barnstar of Peace'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=201595336

[edit] Just noticed another humorous touch in the blog. The Zoophilia link doesn't actually go to the Zoophilia artice, as I had assumed.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 28th March 2008, 5:45pm

[wikiwhistle]

WikiD shouldn't have been indef blocked. He only made 5 edits, and 2 of them were to revert and warn a vandal/test edit.

They shouldn't block with the subtext that it's because of his blog, when it's just a bit of fun anyway.

[BobbyBombastic]

Geobytes locates 70.73.156.111 at Shaw Cable in Toronto.

So the Defender may be Canadian?

Perhaps written by a pair of precocious poodles? (as WD might say).

[Peter Damian]

WikiD shouldn't have been indef blocked. He only made 5 edits, and 2 of them were to revert and warn a vandal/test edit.

They shouldn't block with the subtext that it's because of his blog, when it's just a bit of fun anyway.

And the comment on the block is

Trolling. I think there is an encyclopedia somewhere around here, you know

Oh of course. We are building an encyclopedia.

[wikiwhistle]

Trolling. I think there is an encyclopedia somewhere around here, you know

That, when 2 of his 5 edits were dealing with vandalism on that encyclopedia.

[Milton Roe]

One of the standard arguments used by Zoophiliacs. Another is that if killing animals and eating them is OK, so it's OK to shag them as well.

And you're doing their job for them by just saying it's a "standard argument they use" without pointing out why the argument is flawed. For example, the reason artificial insemination etc, is different is that it serves a legitimate purpose that benefits either the individual animal or its species, whereas zoophilia does not.

You mean it benefits the porcine species by breeding them faster toward making then bigger, fatter and tastier? I don't really think that's a species benefit, unless it's OUR species that benefits. Big Brother say in newspeak that we not do artsem on pigs for good of pigs, but rather for plusgood of State, which want eat plusgood pigs.

BTW, I hear they don't have Canadian Bacon in Canada. Just plusgood "ham". Newspeak approves! Also, Canada already have doubleplus good Ingsoc.

WikiD shouldn't have been indef blocked. He only made 5 edits, and 2 of them were to revert and warn a vandal/test edit.

They shouldn't block with the subtext that it's because of his blog, when it's just a bit of fun anyway.

But how are they supposed to tell it's a bit of fun without a fun-sticker? It's like the fundamentalist Republicans trying to figure out if Stephen Colbert is serious or not. Poor things. WikiDefender is merely Colbert for Wikipedia.

[wikiwhistle]

Artiificial insemination is necessary for breeding for food. When producing animals for food, they allegedly seek to avoided excessive cruelty (like 'raping' an animal for no reason) nowadays.

Anyway, zoophilia is generally just viewed as a bit gross and ewwwww, isn't it. Whereas most non-vegetarians accept that producing new animals artificially is necessary if we want to eat meat without having to wait around for it to be conceived out of the whims of nature.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Fri 28th March 2008, 8:48pm

[Random832]

You mean it benefits the porcine species by breeding them faster toward making then bigger, fatter and tastier?

Precisely.

[Milton Roe]

You mean it benefits the porcine species by breeding them faster toward making then bigger, fatter and tastier?

Precisely.

LOL Well, then, I can make the same argument for the undoubted zoophilic selection of animals with the most satisfactory vaginas. No, the act of zoophilia doesn't cause breeding directly, but then neither does stroking a cat with a soft or colorful coat. But if you like that, you'll make more cats like that. So add one more charactistic to be selected on. You can't have this argument both ways.

[Peter Damian]

And here is Wiki defender's unblock request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=201754932

Completely off the wall but very good fun for all that.

It is Friday evening and I have just made a cocktail. I logged in to work on a pet article of mine (GA status is not far off) and have found that I have been blocked erroneously. The block log states:

(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Trolling. I think there is an encyclopedia somewhere around here, you know.)

This is undoubtedly a case of friendly fire, since:

I am the antithesis of a troll.

I am well aware there is an encyclopedia, I spend hours upon hours trying to figure out ways to defend it, hence my clever username. I have a blog where I deliver crushing counterblows to the tactics of the trolls. I've been told that I am changing lives with my punishing yet perceptive prose. Take that for what you will.

Undeniably, a mistake was made. Dmcdevit and I are kindred spirits; Two friends nationally recognized for their unique and original counter-trolling abilities. I understand what it is like to battle bellicose belligerents and accidentally mis-fire towards an ally; however, I anxiously anticipate the hour that this mistaken block is lifted. It is highly probable that this block was meant for a certain malignant malcontent I recently blogged about and I am collateral damage from an attempt to expel the encyclopedia of his irrelevant ruckus causing actions.

Nevertheless, I have considered the remote possibility that this block was not made in error; in the interests of WP:AGF, I will not opine on this harrowing possibility any further. That said, I will state, in no uncertain terms, I am a very important person. People like me. When I talk, people listen. When I move, things get done. I'm tough as dirt, I'm mean as blood. Where I step the weeds die. I urinate gasoline and defecate vegetables. I will appeal this block to the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation, if necessary, and when this juggernaut is set into motion, it will be irreversible.

Be that as it may, I note that the unstable trolls and monstrous miscreants are discussing the unblock of a paid homicidal sadist. Before I make my appeal for sense and reason to the WMF, who will absolutely overturn this block, I suggest that we follow the chain of command and put the block up for review on WP:AN or (my personal favorite) WP:AN/I. This block is clearly a provocative and pernicious incident; if there was ever a block worthy of review by my informed and judicial associates at AN/I, this is it. I suggest that the title heading be named "Woeful and potentially wicked block of The Wiki Defender".

I am here for some very crucial reasons, because some admirable and heavenly seraphs have asked for my assistance in some horrific cases. I am primed to do this. I am not convinced that abandoning this account without fight is useful. We have other accounts at our disposal, but, in the interest of transparency, I would prefer to use this one, as I plan to make miraculous mainspace edits and impressive infoboxes.

I will not stop at adding remarkable content and alluring infoboxes, though. I also plan to add categories with the skill and precision of a surgeon, fix typos expeditiously and at a hypersonic pace, and perform new pages patrol with the zeal of uniformed SWAT team member in the LA riots. If that isn't enough, I guarantee that you have never seen anyone disambiguate a wiki link the way I do. There is a good chance that you will pass out in your computer chair due to awe and amazement as you watch me work; do not postpone this precious opportunity.


For your consideration.

--The Defender of the Wiki (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

…still slaughtering corrupt sockpuppets and butchering tainted trolls (metaphorically speaking)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Defender_of_the_Wiki"

[dogbiscuit]

And here is Wiki defender's unblock request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=201754932

Completely off the wall but very good fun for all that.

--The Defender of the Wiki (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

…still slaughtering corrupt sockpuppets and butchering tainted trolls (metaphorically speaking)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Defender_of_the_Wiki"

Well, remember that JzG bans people for even suggesting that some of the fun stuff should be deleted (and many admins thought that was a good block), so by the same argument it should be curtains for the admin who dared to block our Defender of the Wiki.

[wikiwhistle]

I suggest that we follow the chain of command and put the block up for review on WP:AN or (my personal favorite) WP:AN/I. This block is clearly a provocative and pernicious incident; if there was ever a block worthy of review by my informed and judicial associates at AN/I, this is it. I suggest that the title heading be named "Woeful and potentially wicked block of The Wiki Defender".

oh, so tempting lolol

[Peter Damian]

And then he refers to another apparently a sock account.

We have other accounts at our disposal, but, in the interest of transparency, I would prefer to use this one, as I plan to make miraculous mainspace edits and impressive infoboxes.

WTF?

==Hang in there, Tony==
+ I see that you are under attack from the trolls. Please know that the silent majority is in your corner and rooting for you. I've blogged about this fiasco [http://wikidefender.blogspot.com/2008/03/slimvirgin-still-target-of-stalkers.html here]. Stay strong and keep fighting the good fight. Cheers, [[User:The Defender of the Wiki|The Defender of the Wiki]] ([[User talk:The Defender of the Wiki|talk]]) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 30th March 2008, 3:07pm

[Docknell]

One of the standard arguments used by Zoophiliacs. Another is that if killing animals and eating them is OK, so it's OK to shag them as well.

And you're doing their job for them by just saying it's a "standard argument they use" without pointing out why the argument is flawed. For example, the reason artificial insemination etc, is different is that it serves a legitimate purpose that benefits either the individual animal or its species, whereas zoophilia does not.

Mmm I don't think stating other's argument is a problem. There is a general problem with editors and admin not seeing or not caring about the real issues though. The core issue is ethics. In pedo and zoo cases, the judge leans on ethics, and in both cases its a matter of duty of care. Thus, the WP zoophilia article is devoid of the standard duty of care issue, and the lead section pretty much concludes "well anyway, adults can have perfectly meaningful sexual relations with infants (oops, animals I mean). Who gives a toss whether dockshaggers are allowed to promote as a pedophile would?

Admin certainly don't care. I know most of them are thick, but the issue has been pointed out to them before. So in some cases (the spoof case) they are just plain stupid, but in this case they are just devoid of ethical concern.

Of course, with FT2 its a matter of being stupid/whitewashing on his talkpage, and being deliberately promotional of unethical activity on the zoophilia article.

[Somey]

...I put it to you that the vandal 70.73.156.111, who vandalised only 2 minutes before the defender spotted it, is in fact the defender him/herself.

If it is, then he doesn't appear to be a WR member - we've never had anyone register or post from the 70.73.*.* range, ever.

Of course, that's probably just what he's expecting us to say...


Also, that's not how you spell "scalawags."

[Count DeMonet]

......and some innovative comedian milks it for all it's worth, that morphs the comedy-drama into a dromedary (or is that drama dairy?).

Drama dairy, obviously!


...where else would you keep all your lolcows?




hey lookie here ma! I'ma chaneling the spirit of Johnny Cache!