Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ FT2 _ The Oversighted Edits

Posted by: Peter Damian

As this has caused so much controversy, here are the two edits that FT2 made to the Zoophilia article in July 2004. I was asked to provide these to the Wikipedia administration on Thursday 6 December 2007. After doing this, they were 'oversighted' - Wikipedia jargon for deletion - early Saturday morning, 8 December 2007.

They were meant to support my claims of slanted editing of that article, which a number of administrators have described as 'absurd' or 'crazy'.

My emphases throughout.

EDB April 22 2008

[Edit EDB July 9 2008] A link a document written by administrator WJBScribe early in May 2008, where he confirms that the edits were by FT2.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17576&view=findpost&p=111850



----------------------- THE OVERSIGHTED EDITS ------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=4559833

QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 11 July 2004 11:48 am)

In [[pornography]], zoosexuality is occasionally referred to as "'''farmsex'''" or or "'''dogsex'''" . The comment is "added "dogsex" to "farmsex", being the two terms commonly used in pornography)".


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=4557792


QUOTE(FT2 @ Sun 11 July 2004 8:23 am)

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle. A common reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. Lifestyle zoophiles often share some or all of the following common traits:Some form of social individualism. This can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group.An emotional respect for animals. Examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common (google: pet memorials); in some cases this will become akin to a partnership, or become sexual. Belief that animals and humans are not so different in many ways, similar to the way that homosexuals feel the gender gap is not a major issue.A sense that humans can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect animals and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.

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 humans, as human partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)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 animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. Either way, zoophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find.An open view on sexuality. Sex is commonly seen as "just part of life".
Zoophiles tend also to be highly accepting of bi/homosexuality, but less accepting of abusive activities.

A higher proportion than average of zoophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for animal welfare, SPCA, conservation organisations, etc.That the ideal life would be an animal as lifelong mate, and a human as a companion (with or without the possibility of sexual relationship). Lifestyle zoophiles often experience the biggest issues of their chosen life as the inability to be open or accepted in their relationships. This is not usually [[religion]]-oriented, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible. Another difficulty is the loss of loved ones, in a world that dismisses animals as secondary species.

Animals and humans differ in sexuality. For most animals, sex carries less importance, is burdened with fewer social and conceptual barriers, and is more an immediate than a conceptual experience. Therefore there are 3 trends amongst zoophiles, depending whether the human partner feels inclined to human-style relationships (human remains monogamous), animal-style relationships (both partners trusted to make own sexual choices, humans role is primarily as protector), or tries to blend the two in various ways.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners. In some cases the human partner or family knows. As human partnerships are often seen by society as desirable and there is social pressure to be in them, both male and female zoophiles often marry and this forces many to keep their other lifestyle as a private affair.

Posted by: thekohser

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Bumping this one - had further communications from the Arbs but it is stalling on the question of the edits. They are denying all knowledge and I have said I am not taking the case further in private unless they acknowledge the deletions. It is obviously absurd for me to have to prove that they deleted edits from their own database. Specifically: that revisions #4559833 and #4557792 were deleted between 7-8 December.

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:59am) *

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.


It is possible to use a source but not reference it.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 2nd May 2008, 9:12pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:59am) *

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.


It is possible to use a source but not reference it.


Eh I'm sorry but we are still stuck at the bit where we are wondering who wrote those edits. The Arbcom is still stuck on that bit.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 2nd May 2008, 9:23pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 2nd May 2008, 9:12pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:59am) *

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.


It is possible to use a source but not reference it.


Eh I'm sorry but we are still stuck at the bit where we are wondering who wrote those edits. The Arbcom is still stuck on that bit.


I'm willing to ask FT2 on his userpage about this if it will help resolve it. But I need some help, because I can't completely understand what the problem is. Would someone please tell me exactly what question needs to be asked of him?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 3rd May 2008, 6:04pm) *

I'm willing to ask FT2 on his userpage about this if it will help resolve it. But I need some help, because I can't completely understand what the problem is. Would someone please tell me exactly what question needs to be asked of him?


I don't think that would be a wise idea. Since I posted this, the Arbcom have agreed to move on the matter, and I will say nothing further. Though the question would have been: what happened to revisions #4559833 and #4557792? Every edit to Wikipedia is assigned a unique ascending integer ID. We are now up at 200,000,000 or something like that. Thus these numbers, which now no longer return a page, must have been oversighted. The question is, who oversighted them?

Posted by: Miltopia

Peter, you may want to double check and edit the dates you posted. I assume you mean April 2008 is when they were oversighted?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Miltopia @ Sat 3rd May 2008, 7:56pm) *

Peter, you may want to double check and edit the dates you posted. I assume you mean April 2008 is when they were oversighted?


Thanks for spotting there was an error. But it was December 8 2007 (I have changed it). Otherwise my account (that I notified the administrators on the 6 December, and that this is what prompted the deletion or oversight) makes no sense.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I am now publishing material from private correspondence with Arbcom. Apologies to the squeamish for doing so but it is now two months since I asked them to act on this, and they are refusing even to acknowledge my mails. The excerpt is from a document put together by WJBScribe, which is remarkably accurate and candid. In it, Scribe admits that the edits had been oversighted, and mentions the name of Jimbo and Cary Bass.

I have hesitated to publish this for some time, because it shows how stupid Scribe was. He says the edits were not particularly momentous. Well, first, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17576&view=findpost&p=95284. Second, did he not ask himself why if there was nothing wrong with them, they were being deleted so as to hide the fact that FT2 was the editor? Third, did he not see this would do nothing but inflame the situation (as it indeed did)?

QUOTE
Matters came to a head later when B--- claimed that edits which formed
part of his "evidence" had been deleted from the article on Zoophilia. He
had previous linked to 2 edits to that page which were no longer in the
database - as there was no deletion log entry for that page, it appeared
they had been oversighted. I was copied into an email exchange where Jimbo
asked Cary who had oversighted those edits, but did not see the reply if
there was one
. I remain unaware of who oversighted the edits or why they did
so. Some have asked since why I did not pursue this matter more. The honest
answer is that by this stage I simply did not believe B--- - I had seen
the edits and did not recall them being very momentous - they merely
confirmed FT2 had edited the article [my emphasis]. The deletion of evidence I had found
utterly unpersuasive did not concern me much and it seemed to me others were
better placed to investigate the matter.
I had put B--- in contact with
Jimbo, it was up to him whether to pursue the matter further. Had the
oversighting been improper, that would no doubt have come to light. I never
saw it as my role to investigate B---'s claims, why I regard as
fantastical, and felt that putting him in touch with appropriate people and
preventing the matter from derailing the onwiki elections
should be the
limit of my involvement.
2008/5/8 Will wjbscribe@gmail.com


Interesting that someone who claims to be a lawyer says that the deletion of evidence does not concern him much, though I suppose lawyers do see a lot of that don't they.

Posted by: Docknell

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:06pm) *

As this has caused so much controversy, here are the two edits that FT2 made to the Zoophilia article in July 2004. I was asked to provide these to the Wikipedia administration on Thursday 6 December 2007. After doing this, they were 'oversighted' - Wikipedia jargon for deletion - early Saturday morning, 8 December 2007.

They were meant to support my claims of slanted editing of that article, which a number of administrators have described as 'absurd' or 'crazy'.

My emphases throughout.

EDB April 22 2008


----------------------- THE OVERSIGHTED EDITS ------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=4559833
QUOTE(FT2 @ Zoophilia article)
In [[pornography]], zoosexuality is occasionally referred to as "'''farmsex'''" or or "'''dogsex'''" . The comment is "added "dogsex" to "farmsex", being the two terms commonly used in pornography)".


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=4557792


QUOTE(FT2 @ Zoophilia article)

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle. A common reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. Lifestyle zoophiles often share some or all of the following common traits:Some form of social individualism. This can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group.An emotional respect for animals. Examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common (google: pet memorials); in some cases this will become akin to a partnership, or become sexual. Belief that animals and humans are not so different in many ways, similar to the way that homosexuals feel the gender gap is not a major issue.A sense that humans can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect animals and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.

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 humans, as human partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)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 animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. Either way, zoophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find.An open view on sexuality. Sex is commonly seen as "just part of life".
Zoophiles tend also to be highly accepting of bi/homosexuality, but less accepting of abusive activities.

A higher proportion than average of zoophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for animal welfare, SPCA, conservation organisations, etc.That the ideal life would be an animal as lifelong mate, and a human as a companion (with or without the possibility of sexual relationship). Lifestyle zoophiles often experience the biggest issues of their chosen life as the inability to be open or accepted in their relationships. This is not usually [[religion]]-oriented, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible. Another difficulty is the loss of loved ones, in a world that dismisses animals as secondary species.

Animals and humans differ in sexuality. For most animals, sex carries less importance, is burdened with fewer social and conceptual barriers, and is more an immediate than a conceptual experience. Therefore there are 3 trends amongst zoophiles, depending whether the human partner feels inclined to human-style relationships (human remains monogamous), animal-style relationships (both partners trusted to make own sexual choices, humans role is primarily as protector), or tries to blend the two in various ways.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners. In some cases the human partner or family knows. As human partnerships are often seen by society as desirable and there is social pressure to be in them, both male and female zoophiles often marry and this forces many to keep their other lifestyle as a private affair.




Maybe it was this line FT2 was trying to hide:

"Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group"

If the voters noticed, they would never have voted him in:)

Doc


Posted by: Docknell

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:59am) *

Frightening how all of that contains not a single source or citation, eh? Must be a natural expert, needing no references to support the free knowledge.



Hi Thekohser

Here are some more of such lifestyle edits by FT2, all seem to be pushing for lifestyle normality, without citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=8285000
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=9174554
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=12624105
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=22039242


And this is consistent with FT2's push in general in the leading "zoos and pets riding off into the sunset" conclusion in the lead

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=22038466
Ft2 is making it look more like zoophilia is not functionally different from normal relations per se.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=62344974
the idea that research supports the claims of zoophiles

Dismissal of the notion that zoophilia is often compared to pedophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=62345233

And some interestingly related edits on the labrador article

Labrador retrievers: the perfect sex toy:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labrador_Retriever&diff=next&oldid=21348442
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labrador_Retriever&diff=prev&oldid=21348400







Posted by: Peter Damian

Adding this post on another thread by Probivouac - attempting to get all the material in one place if possible!

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 8th July 2008, 11:02pm) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 8th July 2008, 4:59pm) *

The supposed edits by FT2 would not qualify for Oversight...

Following confidential information which has been forwarded to me by an uninvolved party, I can independently confirm that the edits existed and were oversighted. Though it was already obvious that Peter Damian was telling the truth, it no longer rests solely upon his word. The edits were 4557792 8:23 4 July 2004, 4559833 11:48 4 July 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=4557792
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=4559833

The contents were as Peter Damian described them, and are now blamed on an anonymous IP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=4570685


Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Docknell @ Wed 9th July 2008, 5:02am) *

And some interestingly related edits on the labrador article

Labrador retrievers: the perfect sex toy:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labrador_Retriever&diff=next&oldid=21348442

I've never thought that my highly trainable Labrador-Retriever cross could be described as "open-minded to new things" - it is more a case of she'll do anything for a biscuit. That edit has to be the most creepy of the lot when you think of the context of FT2's editing.

Posted by: Docknell

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 9th July 2008, 7:02am) *

Adding this post on another thread by Probivouac - attempting to get all the material in one place if possible!

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 8th July 2008, 11:02pm) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 8th July 2008, 4:59pm) *

The supposed edits by FT2 would not qualify for Oversight...

Following confidential information which has been forwarded to me by an uninvolved party, I can independently confirm that the edits existed and were oversighted. Though it was already obvious that Peter Damian was telling the truth, it no longer rests solely upon his word. The edits were 4557792 8:23 4 July 2004, 4559833 11:48 4 July 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=4557792
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=4559833

The contents were as Peter Damian described them, and are now blamed on an anonymous IP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=4570685



Thanks much. There's so much of the stuff, I'm losing count.
Doc


Posted by: Peter Damian

[filing] Evidence that WJ Scribe denied knowledge of the oversighted edits at the time (although admitted it later).


QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 4th October 2008, 2:04pm) *

If so, post the evidence here, and I'll go ask the candidate some direct questions on their candidacy page. I'm not shy about doing so.



Why not. The emails are below. The first is to Scribe on the morning that the oversights were made. Scribe replies later that afternoon, saying he has no knowledge of any content deletion.

My second email was some weeks later on the 17 December. Again, Scribe denies any knowledge of there being such a deletion. This seems to conflict with his later claim here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17576&st=0&p=111850&#entry111850

made in May 2008 that he was copied in to email exchanges about the oversights from Jimbo and Cary Bass. It is possible that these email exchanges happened after the 17 December, but that would have been some weeks after the incident, and seems highly implausible.

QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
To: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
Cc: "GRBerry" Glenn.Berry AT pega.com
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:49 AM
Subject: Recent deletions from Wiki database


Will,

I checked this morning and this user's first edit to the Zoophilia article
has disappeared. This takes the affair to an unprecedented level and I can
have nothing more to do with it. Clearly I can't discuss with Wales unless
the edit trail is public domain.

The deletion was a rather inept thing to do. The edit is still there but
now has apparently been made by a different editor. And more than one edit
has been removed. I made a list of the entire edit trail to this articles
'Zoophilia', its talk page and the user-in-question's talk page, so it is
completely obvious to me where this has happened, or where further deletions
will be made.

As your organisation needs to think carefully how this is handled, and as I
want to enjoy my gardening leave and Christmas period in peace, can I
suggest we all leave the matter until the New Year.

Will, as you are a volunteer and as you work for a law firm yourself can I
suggest you also take no further action. You should hand this over to a
third party who is employed by the Wikimedia foundation and who can deal
with the matter in a way that is conflict-free. There is no point in you
getting any further involved. I have agreed take no further action myself,
indeed, have no reason to take any action given some of the evidence has
been removed, and for the other reasons stated.


Sincerely

Peter


QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
To: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Recent deletions from Wiki database

I have no knowledge of any content deletion in relation to this
matter
. And in reply to another email of yours, no I would not restore
the block on your IP to pressure you. I don't think that would be
legitimate.
Will


QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
To: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Fw: Username - stil problems

[…]

On other matters, we still have to get to the bottom of who erased the
two edits in question. Can we sort that one out please - or you hand the
whole matter over to someone else who can deal with it
.

Thanks.

EDB



QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: "Will" wjbscribe AT gmail.com
To: "Damian" d3amian AT btinternet.com
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Username - stil problems

[…]

As to the other matter, I cannot help you. I am unable at my access
level to confirm that any content has been deleted, never mind by whom.
You have Jimbo Wales' contact details and it would seem his attention.
If you wish to pursue anything about FT2 further, he would seem that
appropriate person to contact.

Will


Posted by: Peter Damian

Giano is doing the rounds of the Arbcom asking about the oversighted edits. The members are not even bothering to check each other's answers. Thus Morven says it is old news, Blacketer says it is all nonsense and conspiracy theory. Flo claims she doesn't know anything. Which is very strange in view of my my email exchange with Flo in May this year when

1. She confirmed that the edits had been oversighted

2. She promised to consult with the Arbcom members about whether this should be made public (I urged her it should be made public for it would be far worse if it eventually got out)


QUOTE
Giano, as someone that talks to you and the Committee regularly, I can say that the Committee and you often receive information about situations around the same time. As you know, often the information is exaggerated, or faulty in another why that makes in plain wrong. We both know that the information that people send us is sometimes dodgy and perhaps meant to deceive us so we make poor decisions. Like you, the Committee does not rush to judgments based on rumors and unsupported claims. When and if good information becoames available then we can act. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying we cannot trust the word of Thatcher and Fred Bauder who both comfirmed the oversights? Giano (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Posted by: Giano

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 28th November 2008, 2:55pm) *

Giano is doing the rounds of the Arbcom asking about the oversighted edits. The members are not even bothering to check each other's answers. Thus Morven says it is old news, Blacketer says it is all nonsense and conspiracy theory. Flo claims she doesn't know anything. Which is very strange in view of my my email exchange with Flo in May this year when

1. She confirmed that the edits had been oversighted

2. She promised to consult with the Arbcom members about whether this should be made public (I urged her it should be made public for it would be far worse if it eventually got out)


QUOTE
Giano, as someone that talks to you and the Committee regularly, I can say that the Committee and you often receive information about situations around the same time. As you know, often the information is exaggerated, or faulty in another why that makes in plain wrong. We both know that the information that people send us is sometimes dodgy and perhaps meant to deceive us so we make poor decisions. Like you, the Committee does not rush to judgments based on rumors and unsupported claims. When and if good information becoames available then we can act. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying we cannot trust the word of Thatcher and Fred Bauder who both comfirmed the oversights? Giano (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)



Yes, and J P Gordon does not seem to want to discuss it at all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJpgordon&diff=254650430&oldid=254463437, at least with me.

Giano

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(Giano @ Fri 28th November 2008, 10:40pm) *



Yes, and J P Gordon does not seem to want to discuss it at all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJpgordon&diff=254650430&oldid=254463437, at least with me.

Giano



Why on earth would he want to feed trolling on this non-issue?

Giano, can't you find a cause that matters to pursue. This petty revenge seeking ill-becomes you.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Fri 28th November 2008, 11:25pm) *

QUOTE(Giano @ Fri 28th November 2008, 10:40pm) *



Yes, and J P Gordon does not seem to want to discuss it at all http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJpgordon&diff=254650430&oldid=254463437, at least with me.

Giano



Why on earth would he want to feed trolling on this non-issue?


Respect to him.

Posted by: tarantino

Being a polyandrous, bisexual, gothic transvestite Wikimedian means never having to say you're sorry.

QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=254110935#Oversight_issue
Hi. On his talk page Giano has accused you of improperly oversighting edits for FT2. Naturally, there is a lot of buzz about it. Can you comment on it? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've undertaken to the arbcom not to get involved with Giano, so I'm afraid not - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)



Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 29th November 2008, 12:35am) *

Being a polyandrous, bisexual, gothic transvestite Wikimedian means never having to say you're sorry.


Indeed.

But so does being a respectable, educated, Italian, Wikipedian, or a loud-mouthed, pigheaded, Scottish Wikipedian, or indeed any type of Wikipedian.

So either David was nothing to apologise for, or he's just a typical unbending wikipedian.


Have you even heard of ad hominem?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 29th November 2008, 12:58am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 29th November 2008, 12:35am) *

Being a polyandrous, bisexual, gothic transvestite Wikimedian means never having to say you're sorry.


Indeed.

But so does being a respectable, educated, Italian, Wikipedian, or a loud-mouthed, pigheaded, Scottish Wikipedian, or indeed any type of Wikipedian.

So either David was nothing to apologise for, or he's just a typical unbending wikipedian.


Have you even heard of ad hominem?

Ah! Another one of those phrases that you can go through life without until you arrive at Wikipedia.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 29th November 2008, 1:04am) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 29th November 2008, 12:58am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 29th November 2008, 12:35am) *

Being a polyandrous, bisexual, gothic transvestite Wikimedian means never having to say you're sorry.


Indeed.

But so does being a respectable, educated, Italian, Wikipedian, or a loud-mouthed, pigheaded, Scottish Wikipedian, or indeed any type of Wikipedian.

So either David was nothing to apologise for, or he's just a typical unbending wikipedian.


Have you even heard of ad hominem?

Ah! Another one of those phrases that you can go through life without until you arrive at Wikipedia.


Gosh, I suppose that depends on where you live and how rudimentary your education is.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 29th November 2008, 1:12am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 29th November 2008, 1:04am) *

Ah! Another one of those phrases that you can go through life without until you arrive at Wikipedia.


Gosh, I suppose that depends on where you live and how rudimentary your education is.


mellow.gif

I

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

The logical fallacies seem to be referred to a lot more in internet arguments than any other kind...

There is some irony in fact that an argument can now be won through copy and paste, thus negating the value of learning logical communication in the first place. A positive feedback cycle, perhaps?

Sounds profound, but then it's Friday night smile.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Fri 28th November 2008, 3:25pm) *

Why on earth would he want to feed trolling on this non-issue?
Giano, can't you find a cause that matters to pursue. This petty revenge seeking ill-becomes you.

Very funny. You know goddamn well why Giano's pursuing it. FT2 is pushing POV and writing unsourced statements--and using his high-holy status to cover up his tracks. And has been doing so FOR YEARS.

Not to mention the whole sex-with-animals-is-okay thing, which verges on the disgusting.

Stop doing his off-wiki trolling for him. He is an adult (presumably), and can make his own arguments.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Sat 29th November 2008, 1:20am) *

The logical fallacies seem to be referred to a lot more in internet arguments than any other kind...

There is some irony in fact that an argument can now be won through copy and paste, thus negating the value of learning logical communication in the first place. A positive feedback cycle, perhaps?

Sounds profound, but then it's Friday night :)


I wasn't trying to be logical, or win an argument. It was just a little provocation on my part :)

David openly acknowledges his eccentricities. They probably have nothing to do with his inability to ever say he was sorry or wrong. What I was thinking though is there are many extremely odd people in positions of power at Wikimedia.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE
Oversight

Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.

Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? --Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, and have a nice Thanksgiving. --Duk 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

When you can squeeze this matter in to your busy agenda, would you be kind enough to give us your opinion on the rights and wrongs of David Gerard's oversighting of FT2's edits in the middle of an election campaign. It is impossible to know how many others would have opposed his election had the oversights not been made, but at least once you have spoken and shared your thoughts, those that will be taking this unsatisfactory matter further will have an idea how to proceed. The problems of a registered charity are manifold, I wonder what the solution to all this is - what a pity those such as Gerard do not think before they act. Giano (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe FT2 intends to say something about this early next week. I'll comment at that time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=254997246#Oversight

Posted by: Peter Damian

Thatcher says:

QUOTE

<--I'm looking for accountability in the use of oversight. That means acknowledging that there is a problem and applying the appropriate remedy. I do not advocate David Gerard losing his oversight permission over a single mistake, that is for Arbcom to decide. Arbcom hands out oversight permission and only Arbcom can determine what sorts of mistakes, if any, warrant its removal. As long as they grant the power, they must accept responsibility to oversee the use of the power. (If Arbcom really wants an RFC to determine community sentiment about oversight, they should really just make granting and revoking oversight subject to a public vote and take themselves out of it entirely.) Damian's block is complicated but it has nothing to do with his efforts to expose the oversighted edits. Thatcher 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=255168524#FT2


No Thatcher, the Damian block (in early December 2007) has everything to do with the oversighted edits. The correspondence with Scribe (5-7 December) makes it abundantly clear that producing evidence of FT2's biased editing by means of 'diffs' to edits was a necessary condition of unblock. He even mentions this on-wiki.

QUOTE

You have still yet to provide a single diff of these allegedly POV edits. WjBscribe 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&diff=175764532&oldid=175763938#FT2_and_lunacy


That was on the 4 December. After the oversight on Saturday December 8, relations between Scribe and myself completely broke down. I no longer trusted supplying him with further diffs, he recommended discussing with Jimbo, Jimbo refused to acknowledge any of my emails.

In summary, my block was everything to do with the oversights.

Posted by: Peter Damian

FT2 has finally made the promised statement on his talk page. Reproduced below without comment, for now.


QUOTE

Most of this has been responded to piecemeal in email, as best I'm aware. It's old, and misrepresented. In fact, it isn't your complaint as such; you adopted it from a banned user with a well known grudge and a penchant for smear campaigning.

To start with the basics, you or perhaps others allege some clique (I think), and/or possibly David Gerard, might pull strings? You never actually asked if David Gerard and I were "friends" though, you just assumed it, so the error here shouldn't surprise you. You weren't aware that (as far as 30k edits and nearly 5 years memory goes) my only memorable contact with David Gerard of any kind prior to the elections was basically seeking help with a disruptive user and a couple of checkuser requests in 2006, 18 months prior? Virtually zero contact prior to Arbcom. When I first emailed Arbcom-l for something significant, in June 2007, the internal response was "has anyone heard of this user"? Specifically, my request for checkuser was forwarded, and while positively viewed, David Gerard's own response was: "Never encountered FT2 myself, fwiw" (July 24 2007). In fact he had, for a couple of checkuser requests a year earlier; it was evidently unmemorable enough to be forgotten. Not what gossip says? So much for some kind of hidden contacts.

At election, you'll find my support was from content editors and dispute resolution arenas. These were the users who I dropped everything to try and help when they asked for it. Not "higher ups". Science writers, difficult users, admins and OTRS users. Users from Jack Merridew and ScienceApologist to Lar and Carcharoth, Vintagekits and Betacommand, Alison and Cla68. I think some people forget the scope of support. These are the users who need help when they ask for it. But checkusers, oversighters, and arbitrators? See many of them voting? Like most users, I almost never spoke to them, except when presenting evidence on case pages. So much for conspiracy support theories.

I imagine you also haven't fully checked the diffs themselves either. Correct me if I'm mistaken. If you had, you would have learned that the diffs concerned weren't being used as "evidence", would have been exceedingly unlikely to be felt by anyone with a clue likely to "change" the election (given prior discussion on-wiki), and if you'd asked further maybe also have found David Gerard apologized for the oversighting at the time and asked the dev's to reinstate them within 48 hours of it. I've seen Gerard's apology to Jimbo shortly after the incident, for over reacting with oversight rather than deletion over concerns to do with defamation. So much for a "conspiracy". Anyone could have found that out. I've had bare weeks (from October) to do so. Why couldn't you?

How did I find this stuff out? I asked for myself, as soon as I heard the oversight log was back, and dug round myself until I found out what had gone on. Anyone else could have done the same. And several good faith users did -- they asked, and they got told where the evidence was and who to speak to. These were not unavoidable mistakes you made. They are the sorts of mistake that come from a preference towards untested hearsay, inadequate interest in fact-checking own beliefs, and wanting too much to prove a pet theory.

You're also probably not aware that similar dramatic theories over identification were equally badly founded. Apparently some people are still hoping one of the theories posted at WR might hold water and something was wrong there. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, Jimbo and I actually met this fall. Beyond doubt he knows 100% who I am. He's seen me, seen my passport and driver licence in person, seen my work documentation, seen my resume, knows my work and business. I've met at least one other senior WMF employee, who has also seen the same. We discussed emails that only he and I know, at that meeting, and I can quote (and have on arbcom email) details such as non-wiki people known to Jimbo who were present during that meeting, and the payment of the bill for lunch. So that conspiracy is pretty much dead, too.

Other stuff that some never cared to check is, why exactly this took place, which has nothing to do with the election at all. Let's spell this out:
While not the best decision, it turned out it was a good faith attempt to handle a genuine problem caused by a banned user, for which Oversight was the wrong tool.

The background has not been publicized, mainly since until now nobody on-wiki that I'm aware of, has asked me for it. Those who have asked have done so in private and been answered in full. I have no objection to giving it now, and will do so in a few days, like I said (once I get permission from those involved to cite the relevant evidence and reference the relevant emails publicly). I don't expect to have problems getting that permission.

Worth noting for those who have the full facts: the oversighter took no action when the diff was linked, or for a time afterwards. Action was only taken beyond that point - when an actual defamation risk that might implicate the wiki, had arisen.

The mistake was made due to the perceived pressures of the situation and risk of the wiki itself being used for defamation that possibly could not be addressed at a later stage. Not due to "evidence"; that part was already long closed by communal assent and the diff did not add a thing of any significance to what was known.

The oversighter volunteered full disclosure and apology for this privately to Jimbo at the time (or very shortly after); I've seen a copy of this. It turns out he also asked if the removal could be reversed almost immediately after, when the underlying problem that led to it had been resolved by a (non-Arbcom) administrator with the appropriate know-how.

Jimbo is aware of the rest of the background and the other background that's not touched on here.

I first became aware by an "off the cuff" single question in July, that couldn't be answered (Oversight log broken). I remembered the matter and when I was told the full log was back, went digging and found answers. I was first asked on-wiki about this last week. This is an interim response, pending full discussion and evidence, once I have permissions from all involved. Someone had better nudge Peter Damian - his permission will be needed too, and I'll be asking Jimbo, David Gerard and about 4-6 other users. For my part I state simply, all emails, chats, and on- and off-wiki posts, logs and correspondence of any kind, related to either Damian's oversight concerns or the Arbcom election, may be cited by anyone on-wiki if done fairly (not out of context) and if deemed by uninvolved admins to help the community (if theres doubt), provided they in return grant permission to cite any relevant matching dialog of theirs related to it. I look for others to commit likewise.
Further details to fill the gaps in this and provide the hard evidence, as I said, in a few days. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


FT2, one could drive a coach and horses through the middle of the above, but I doubt anyone has the energy, but for a start here are 3 questions:
"also have found David Gerard apologized for the oversighting at the time and asked the dev's to reinstate them within 48 hours of it. I've seen Gerard's apology to Jimbo shortly after the incident." How would I "also have found" where is the diff for them? and
why exactly if the oversight was so harmeless why was David Gerard personally appolagising to Jimbo for it?
Is it true that Gerard, was advocating you have obersight rights before the election? Giano (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&oldid=255175891#Oversight_question [permalink]

Posted by: EricBarbour

And now, the last word on this subject, courtesy of The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18/zoophilia_wikiscandal/

Other thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21955.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE

Last, there was no way to look for any diffs and find them missing, without the oversight log. Perhaps some users memorize the edits they make. I've made 30k of them and I doubt I could tell you any of them. "My first edit" might be something of deep importance to some users; I haven't memorized them and were it not for explicitly being told where to look (oversight log, October) I would not be able to verify the presence or absence of almost any edit out of my 30 K alleged to be missing. You also forget that the person who made those claims fabricated a wide range of other claims which were fantastical in style. I had no way to check if this was one more, in July, and said so. I noted despite this, the need to check anyway, and did in fact check the very first day I heard it was possible again. But at July 4 I had (in memory terms) the statement that "some edits were oversighted" and a question whether I could confirm or deny. The answer accurately was, no, I could not confirm or deny, but I would do so when the log came back. Which without asking I did. As witness that 3 months later I did so (October 9-10), and that this was done way before anyone asked it or nagged. That's not the act of someone deliberately delaying anything, Thatcher. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2


What a fibber.

1. "there was no way to look for any diffs and find them missing, without the oversight log. " But we know that FT2 canvassed a number of admins about the links in the blog. Furthermore, I know that FT2 has a copy of the blog post, which contains one of the links. To test whether they had been oversighted, he only need to follow the link - that was how I found out, after all.

2. "Perhaps some users memorize the edits they make. I've made 30k of them and I doubt I could tell you any of them. "My first edit" might be something of deep importance to some users ...". But he was canvassing admins about the edits, and he made a copy of the blog post containing a link to the edits. That was not memorable?

3. "You also forget that the person who made those claims fabricated a wide range of other claims which were fantastical in style. " The reference is to me. What claims did I fabricate? I merely claimed that his edits were biased and violated NPOV. Fantastical?

QUOTE

:::I just looked to see when the oversighted edits were first mentioned on Wikipedia Review. The first discussion I see there about it was on December 21, 2007. Are you ''seriously'' suggesting that you didn't look at any of those threads before July 2008, and that no one e-mailed you to alert you to them? <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


To prove FT2 had looked at the Wikipedia review thread started Dec 2, see this IRC transcript from Dec 22 2007.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20918&view=findpost&p=139317

Posted by: Moulton

This one is coming down to "My haphazard theory of your mindset is more accurate and more reliable than your recollections and representations of your mindset. My theory is that the noteworthy discrepancies are not attributable to any conceivable errors in my theoretical model of your muddled mindset; my theory is that the discrepancies are entirely explained by intentional dissembling on your part."

Reference: http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/epistemologicalNightmare.html by Raymond Smullyan.