Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Cla68

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATryptofish&diff=279831680&oldid=278114240, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_rights#Personal_pronoun_in_lead_picture_caption?

Posted by: Milton Roe

LOL. Didn't I opine somewhere that women in particular get nutty about the gender of things? In this case, we don't know the monkey's gender, but SV doesn't want it to be called "it" but "she". But SV would have no problem with "it" if it was a castrated monkey.

And if SV should ever have occasion to be castrated itself, I have no doubt that it will have no problem with people refering to it, from then-on, as "it."

Personally, I've thought of SV as "it" for some time, now. But that's just me.

Posted by: Daniel

lol @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=279840350

Posted by: Milton Roe

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR. And you never know who else on WP.

I wonder if SV has enough social capital left on WP to even get a checkuser done? Bother.

Posted by: Somey

Possibly, but if it turns out that this is someone like FT2 or one of the members of the Bishonen/Giano/Geogre club, that could backfire on her. Then again, it's impossible to say how these things will play out these days.

Still, there's no legitimate reason to think this person isn't legitimate, just because he/she happens to have shown up on Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D), Atheism (T-H-L-K-D), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (T-H-L-K-D) all within the same month.

Oddly enough, when http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22357&view=findpost&p=151549, nobody seems to mind so much!

Posted by: Proabivouac

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

Posted by: emesee

A human holds a rope around the monkey's neck

Posted by: Cla68

Well, Tryptofish did seem to know how to push her buttons. Unfortunately, SV responded by reverting back to old form with edit warring, moving comments around on the talk page, personalizing the argument, then attacking the editor on his/her userpage.

Some editors don't seem to understand what a wiki is. One of the ramifications of a wiki is that you can spend 20-hours a day for two or three years constructing a select list of articles exactly the way you want them to read, and then someone can come along and change the entire tone of each article within 30-minutes to an hour with some strategic editing. If, as an editor, you can't accept that, then Wikipedia is not the venue for you.

Posted by: gomi

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one. It is widespread, though SlimVirgin is a leading participant. You can bet that if one of the Kabal asks this question, you are not long for Wikipedia. Some other links:

• Slim asks Applensauce (T-C-L-K-R-D) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AApplesnsauce&diff=66947740&oldid=66700062, and he/she/it is soon after blocked. Same with Axxaer (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
  
• Slim and Jayjg tag-team Katie_Jemson (T-C-L-K-R-D) in the same way.
  
• The triple-threat of Slim, Jayjg, and IronDuke conspire to do the same http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A68.9.116.87&diff=88104971&oldid=88104814, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Farnsworth_J&action=history, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiyosaki&diff=90065568&oldid=90057179.
  
• IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jayjg's meatpuppet and Special Helper In Training follows suit on his own http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.38.252.83&diff=prev&oldid=274805489 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:88.109.78.21&diff=prev&oldid=240059881, but he's only a little S.H.I.T, so he only does it to IPs who edit in ways that displease him.

The message here is: if you stay away from articles Slim, Jayjg, or their cabal WP:OWN, then do your will, but edit in a way a powerful admin doesn't like, and you're immediately accused of being the dreaded "sockpuppet", if only on the basis of one or two edits!

Posted by: emesee

But the power at the top is apparently all fine with this. Its gone on for a while it seems. So certainly, if they think that it is probably fine that all this goes on. They must be right. Nothing's amiss, nothing to see here.

Posted by: Proabivouac

We think the same way!

Posted by: Alison

Oops!!!

Posted by: gomi

Aww, Proab, I understand you feel the all-consuming urge to defend SlimVirgin, but you left out the context:
Really! To paraphrase that old C&W song, How Can We Miss Her if She Won't Go Away?

Posted by: Proabivouac

Okay. So what happened in the few weeks following that post? Did any such baiting occur, to your knowledge?

Posted by: gomi

Judge for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals&offset=20071001000000&limit=500&action=history is the relevant history for PETA (T-H-L-K-D), and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_rights&offset=20071001000000&limit=50&action=history for Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D). In the first case, a little garden-variety vandalism by IPs, but nothing qualifying as "gentle messing", and in the latter, nothing to speak of.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Okay. So, to be perfectly clear, Gomi, you're not personally aware of any instances in the weeks following your post where anyone used a sockpuppet to bait SlimVirgin on animal right topics, correct?

Posted by: Somey

Apparently the thing that aggravated Slimmy on the Animal Rights article was an attempt to change the photo caption at the top, so as to refer to the organ grinder's monkey as "it" rather than "she"?

And then, in yet another "unwelcome compromise" case, Hq3473 (T-H-L-K-D) - an unreadable moniker if there ever was one - came along and changed the wording completely, so that it now reads, "A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership"... thereby removing the monkey's-gender issue completely.

Anyway, I guess it's always possible that Gomi is Tryptofish, but it's not like it's hard to figure out how to push SlimVirgin's buttons. Getting the ear-splitting alarm buzzers to stop blasting afterwards is a different story, though.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

It's amazing how much drama can be generated on Wikipedia over wurdz, innit? It's even funnier when Slimmy gets involved and ends up looking like a prannie. Again. My advice to all concerned is to simply replace all instances of "her", "it", and "its" with "Monkey! Monkey!".

As for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shanghai-monkey.jpg, the pair of them are obviously preparing to indulge in a bit of fake-UFO photography. A few good out-of-focus shots and the monkey will make an excellent downed Venusian pilot, parachute cord wrapped round the neck. Yes; a space-parachute.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Based on http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm the only documented ones are Sweet Blue Water and Sunsplash.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I don't know whether Proab is impugning myself here, or Gomi. I can affirm that my only involvement with the Animal Rights article was entirely above board, and concluded with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_rights&diff=prev&oldid=46072529 almost exactly 3 years ago.

Posted by: Son of a Yeti

Hell hath no fury like a slim virgin reverted!

Posted by: Kato

Here's you, Hersch:




I guess if LaRouche is an anti-semite, then animal rights supporters are Nazis. Welcome to Wikipedia.

----------

For what it's worth, ditch that photograph of the man with a monkey. Or at least move if down the article.

Posted by: Somey

I'm pretty sure Probey here doesn't mean to implicate Herschel, at least not in this case. Not that it matters...

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45," I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia - in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

In order to expedite the Equal Slime Provisions of the Wikipediot Code Of Conduct (WP:COC), someone should create a template that would permit the corresponding citation to be added to all applicable Wikipedia articles:

«{{X}}'s anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45.»

Get On It, You Slime Slackers !!!

Ja Ja

Posted by: Tarc

I love that story; much of her general fucked-upness traces back to Agent 99-like antics and a glorified friends-with-benefits who got himself blowed up.

Explains a lot of the anti-Muslim crusade that she's been on with jay, too.

Posted by: gomi

Proab, I should point out (again) how tiresome and annoying your crypto-moralistic Inquisitions are. There is absolutely no reason I should stoop to answering that, or any, question from you. That having been said, the easiest way to shut you up in this particular case is to say no, I'm not personally aware of any "baiting" of Slimvirgin in the weeks following that September 2007 post. Indeed, I'm not aware of any baiting of SlimVirgin at all. As pernicious elements on Wikipedia go, SlimVirgin's crimes run more toward support of Jayjg and the cabal than her own silly POV on Animal Rights.


I briefly considered "outing" myself as Tryptofish just to see what would happen, then I considered that the poor SOB running that account would probably not appreciate it.

For the record, I think there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sockpuppetry on Wikipedia, but I have had better things to do for quite some time, and don't edit WP -- with or without footwear-based mouthpieces.

Posted by: Somey

Probably not!

But there you have the essential problem society has with the abuse of anonymity. If used for purposes of naughtiness, it gets other people into double-bind, triple-bind, even n-level-bind thinking. In other words, sure, Tryptofish could be a WR member, but he could also be a loyal WP'er pretending to be a WR member to stir things up or discredit us all. Or, he could be a WR member pretending to be a loyal WP'er who's pretending to be a WR member to discredit loyal WP'ers. And on and on and on, to infinity... You just don't know, do you?

The only practical solution, then, is also the least palatable to established editors - treat every editor, and indeed every edit, on its own individual merits. Hence, you get burnout, disaffection, and attrition. The choice is almost impossible to accept over a long period, and if anything, SlimVirgin and many other admins have never really been able to accept it, at least when it comes to subjects they're particularly interested in. Indeed, this might even help explain their longevity on WP: If one refuses to accept the thing that causes most other WP'ers to burn out, maybe it reduces your own burnout rate.

So...

I was thinking we could all claim to be Tryptofish, i.e., have one of those "I AM SPARTACUS!" pile-ons, but that gag seems a little overdone to me these days.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I've often wondered why the lead in the Darwin article never mentions the Nazis using his ideology. He was used far more than Luther.

But then, the baby Dawkins would cry.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Feel free to fix it.

Here's another Bit Of Slime Automation (WP:BOSA), not to mention a way to up your edit count by leaps and bounds:

«This passage of {{Your Favorite Holy Book}} was frequently used to justify {{Your Favorite Historical Atrocity}}.»

Jon

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Holy guacamole, Batman -- that would be the moment of transition from MMORPG to encyclopedia.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_rights&oldid=216065526

Posted by: gomi

To put it more simply, SlimVirgin wants to firmly put forward her point of view on the subject. Thus is virtually every area of controversy (and many that are not) owned by entrenched Wikipidiots.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

Posted by: Proabivouac

O RLY?

Posted by: Noroton

I think the photo is a good, dramatic illustration of the subject, and I don't have a problem with it, or with its prominent placement. It's not necessarily an illustration of abuse, but the fact that a rope is being used does make you wonder. The fact that it's some Chinese guy not dressed very well reminds the viewer that there are competing interests here, and subjects competing for our sympathy.

I don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not the article is subtlely biased -- doesn't that really depend on whether or not it reflects the best sources? Various philosophers are quoted, and it seems to me they're relevant to the history of the idea. I don't see obvious bias in the article as it stands. That said, some things seem odd: It takes a long read to get to the point where the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movements are clearly separate. The article is 98K (although the many pictures must be a big part of that), and it seems to me some parts could use a separate article. Peter Singer gets an enormous amount of space in this article, but I don't know whether or not that reflects his real importance in the history of the idea of animal rights (he's clearly important). Actually, the subject seems to be "the history of the idea of animal rights in the west". Isn't it really odd that Hindu religious ideas aren't covered here and the only religious tradition represented is Christianity? Where are the sacred cows? Is that anything more than a cultural bias? I doubt it. And just what the hell is Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" doing as the second picture down? It's screwing up the layout, illustrates nothing and distracts from the subject.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I think it's put in there because somebody says something about Adam. So somebody with a brain fog used this picture to represent that.

Which is actually ironically appropriate, because God here is surrounded by the ORIGINAL brain-fog. It's a brain-shaped fog. For a sort of foggy story, from the misty past.

Posted by: Somey

Let's just say I'm on good terms with the girl who works the hat-check counter...

I've pointed this out before, Mr. Probey, but we're not in the business of self-criticism. You folks have Wikipedia for that - they love to criticize us over there, and what's more, they get better Google rankings than we do.

SlimVirgin isn't going to lost any privileges here just for discussing the situation re WP's Animal Rights articles, but that's not to say it wouldn't be better if she could discuss how Wikipedia deals with Animal Rights issues, as opposed to focusing solely on the "okay-now-which-one-of-you-is-it" question.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Your head seems to have a few oddly hammer-shaped dents.....


Yep, those damn hoo-mans really suck.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

When she gets into a controversy here, she instinctively tries to turn the topic of the discussion to the personalities who are discussing, which at WP is always a prelude to banning, like the skunk doing its little handstand. However, that doesn't work here, and I think it would be useful to engage SV/Ms. Hell in this discussion so we could see how she does when she must actually discuss the subject.

Posted by: gomi

Yes, RLY. Slim can say what she wants here regarding her position on "Animal Rights". Or "Mineral Rights", or "Vegetable Rights", for that matter. No one will stop her. Which is more than she allows us to say on Wikipedia, whether it on Talk pages, User pages, or elsewhere. Wikipedia Review doesn't ban people for expressing their opinions, unless they do it in a persistently tiresome way, and even in that case (cf Moulton), we generally don't ban them, just admonish them.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

[Fascinating discussion on animal rights now has its own home http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23479…perhaps giving this thread an opportunity to return to its original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=280239824 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATryptofish&diff=279831680&oldid=278114240.]

Posted by: EricBarbour

As I was saying elsewhere ..........

SV is amazingly good at subverting WR.
Almost as if she was trained in psy-ops and verbal deception.

She does remind me of my mother. Same method--slime into a conversation, start
quiet little ad-hominem attacks. When called on it, deny and claim mental cruelty by the
other party. Then attempt to change the subject.

(Jesus, she's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tryptofish#Your_other_accounts_An_unsuccessful_attempt_to_intimidate_me beating up Tryptofish on his/her talk page. Looks as if she's convinced of
her continued great power on WP. And yet, when she comes over HERE, she resorts
to manipulation. Looney Toon.)

Posted by: Proabivouac

Hmm…first we criticize Slim for "personalizing" discussions, and invite her to join the thread while sticking to the topic under discussion, animal rights. No sooner has she done so than a mod splits the thread to return it to its "original topic of Slimvirgin's malfeasance and bullying."

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

I think the thread should not have been split. I was asked to comment -- basically to explain my position on animal rights and why I edit the articles the way I do -- and now that I've started explaining, it's moved to an off-topic area, and the claim that I'm POV pushing and somehow misusing Wikipedia is allowed to stand, unaddressed.

Posted by: Cla68

I can understand the reasoning to split the dicussion, but I don't think it was necessary.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

The one and only exchange with HFO ended with her derailing the conversation with accusations of sexism - this from a woman with the screen name "Slim Virgin" and high-heeled avatar. She did this instead of addressing the points at hand, probably because she new she was losing the argument.

How can you take someone like this seriously?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23342&view=findpost&p=162371

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Animal rights is a clearly distinct topic from turning all threatening on WP in pursuit of your ownership of an article. I believe the threatening bit is the topic of interest in this thread. Your contribution on the other topic remains in the other thread.

So, please, feel free to address - what are you doing, SV? What are the circumstances which make it OK to ignore WP's "processes" and try to bully another "editor" away from a page?

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

When did I stop beating my wife?

I remember a lot of you complaining about the refactoring and moving of threads on Wikback, but things are much worse here. If you'd allowed that thread to continue, I'm guessing all or most of your questions would have been answered. What a few of you seem to insist on is that the infrastructure of any such discussion be 100 percent against me. If it's not, I'm being manipulative and derailing the thread.

Posted by: Kato

No they are not.

Quite simply, they are not. Very few threads get moved here. Whereas, on Wikback, the few posts and threads that existed regularly disappeared on a daily basis. And the board lasted about 3 months as a result. So no. Don't try that one. It won''t wash.

For what it's worth though, I don't think this thread should have been split.

Posted by: Moulton

Welcome to Seven-Card Monte.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game, and you can't even sing a fricken' dithyramb about it.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

I know only what I've seen this I've been here, and a lot of the threads in which I've started to answer whatever questions people had, and would have continued to answer them, have been moved. At least one of them I can't find at all. As I said, it feels as though some of you are only happy with a thread if I'm being pummelled in it. If I'm making a genuine effort to answer questions, it's "Help! Help! She's up to her old tricks!" You take ABF to hitherto undreamt of heights.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

That was a play to the cheap seats that was just not up Slim's usual standards.

Posted by: Kato

Correction: Many of Moulton's posts are moved. But that is for the greater good of both The Human Race, and the Animal Kingdom. Neither man nor beast should be subjected to that kind of abuse on a daily basis.

Posted by: Cla68

I guess we could return to the original topic, which I started...why did you ask Tryptofish what his/her alternate accounts were? His/her editing history shows that the account started in September 2008.

Posted by: Noroton

I was one person suggesting splitting the discussion, and I still think it makes sense. What may or may not make sense (or be fair) is expecting you to address, at once, both criticisms of animal rights as a political issue and your own actions in editing Wikipedia. That's a lot to put on anyone's plate at once.

I made this point at the other thread in response to a comment by Gomi: The issue of whether someone with a point of view, even a strong point of view, is separate from whether or not that person is making a WP article biased. (It's also separate from whether that person is violating behavioral norms.) Whatever your positions are on animal rights, they're irrelevant to this thread. Anyone who wants to charge that a Wikipedia article is biased needs to provide evidence of that. I haven't seen that evidence presented. Given what I've seen in the "Animal rights" article, I'd say someone would have to show where the article ignores or wrongly emphasizes or de-emphasizes some essential part of the subject. No one has done so.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I'd encourage you to go ahead and answer questions on both threads. My forecast is that they will both be popular items. I don't know whether it was necessary to split them, but it's not the end of the world.


This is, once again, the issue of encyclopedia-building versus MMORPGism and POV pushing. If the rule at WP were to evaluate each edit or comment on its own merits, it would no longer be possible to intimidate other editors with threats of deletion or banning based on accumulated MMORPG points. But the intimidation process is presently enshrined as policy.

Posted by: Noroton

Great way to derail the discussion, UseOnce. You've got someone who, whether you think it's right or wrong, has taken a lot of heat from this web forum, and nevertheless comes here to respond. It seems to me you can make your points the way Clas68 has -- civilly.

I'm assuming it's more useful for everyone involved to have a civil discussion. You may disagree about that, but please let us have it.

If you keep treating her without civility, what do you think that will look like to readers (like me) who don't know the situation and may not look into it for themselves. I'll tell you: It means you look like the bully. It's also distracting. Please don't do that.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

A couple of people here were saying that, in representing animal rights as an ownership issue (I forget what they said exactly, but it was something like that), I was misrepresenting animal rights and pushing my own POV, and structuring the articles in such a way as to make that POV prominent.

But I'm doing none of those things, and I was hoping if I explained some of the basic issues, people would see that.

If someone thinks the AR articles that I've worked on are POV, please give details of what's there and shouldn't be, or what's missing. The main [[animal rights]] article, for example -- I've worked hard on that to try to make it comprehensive. There's still stuff that needs to be added, but anyone reading it will get a fairly good idea of where the ideas came from, how they evolved, who the key players are, what they say, what the criticisms have been etc.

So what is actually wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

Posted by: Noroton

SV, I'd also be interested in your answer.

Posted by: Cla68

I think that particular article is ok as currently written, although like I said before it gives a predominently western view of animal rights. After I first mentioned this I did a google search and found that it appears that most Asian animal rights organizations pattern their philosophy and activities on the western animal rights organizations. What I suspect, therefore, is that traditional Asian philosophy may not have clearly stated opinions on animal rights, instead encompassing it in the Buddhist philosophy of "harmony with nature" that humans are supposed to achieve (and I know I'm way oversimplifying Buddhist philosophy with that statement).

Anyway, when I started this thread, the issue I had was with your behavior related to the Animal Rights article. Tryptofish was objecting to the wording in the top image's caption, and you reacted rather strongly. To be fair, Tryptofish was obviously pushing your buttons, but your reaction was rather stronger than was necessary. So, why did you react so strongly? Why did you tell Tryptofish that he had successfully started a "fight" and then asked him about alternate accounts?

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

I know who he is, and that he's doing it to irritate me. That's why I reacted. It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart just to push that person's buttons.

Posted by: Somey

I actually rather like the article myself, though I'm more history-oriented than most people.

If I were seriously anti-Animal Rights, though, I might take exception to the way that the second paragraph of the intro, which describes the extent of modern-day support for Animal Rights, mentions six different people, whereas the third paragraph - about the critics - only mentions one. Thus perhaps giving readers the impression that Animal Rights is somewhat more of a popular/mainstream movement than it actually is.

I mean, to me, this is the sort of thing that can backfire on, well, animals. People see that sort of thing and think, "ah, well, most people are in favor of animal rights, and only one or two obscure malcontents are against the idea, so we've got no reason to feel bad about the way society is set up today - hey, pass the chicken wings!" ...and so on.

After that, the history of the movement is described in such lengthy detail that the average reader is likely to have to go to the bathroom at least twice before they get to the "Philosophy" section. Ideally, the philosophy stuff should go above the history stuff - is that typical of WP articles?

In the first part of the History of... section, "Moral status of animals in the ancient world," I personally think it should be made more clear (i.e., not just in the heading) that these really are ancient thinkers who supposedly limited their moral rationale to just two things ("dominion" and the notion of animal inferiority). And by going chronologically, you're giving them more emphasis than they deserve, IMO. There may be no way around that, though, assuming you're trying to maintain some sort of logical flow through that section.

All in all, though, it's very well-written and, of course, well-researched. I'm not sure you should be expected to include more rationales in favor of the other side, really - the article isn't about the other side, after all. Nevertheless, nowhere does the article state that the consumption of animals by humans for food, clothing, etc., is something that has been going on since prehistoric times, which is to say that this was part of the "natural" development of all inter-related species, and that the concept of animal rights is actually a product of enlightened thinking - i.e., an evolutionary step forward that (strictly speaking) goes against the natural order.

Maybe that's for the best, though.

Posted by: gomi

Just as annoying when you do it to others, except that they can't ban you, and you (were) and you minions (are still) quite ban-happy.

The problem with the whole collection of "Animal Rights" articles is that they are persistently spun in way that suits your point of view. Distinctions between primate, non-primates, rodents, insects, and other experimental critters have been erased (by you, and others), the violent tactics of the Animal Rights wackos are downplayed, as are the PR mistakes of the AR crowd. And there's much, much more. The whole thing would make a serious and unbiased writer cringe.

Posted by: Emperor

Seriously? It starts with a plug for Peter Singer's book, then the first line offers a nonsensical definition for animal rights. This definition is supported by Note #1 - the Encyclopedia Britannica, which offers a completely different definition. It then goes on with a goofy "legal persons" quip before toeing the PETA line 100% with the "food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment" mantra.

The References section has a book list starting with feminist animal rights books then going into a list from animal-rights-library.com

It's like you're asking the guy in the $5000 suit to make his own copies. Come on!

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

G'night everbuddy
Drive safely …

Ja Ja

Posted by: Cla68

(Sorry, lecture mode)...Assuming Good Faith doesn't mean that you can never doubt the intentions of another editor, but I personally don't see any reason why you couldn't have AGF in that instance with Tryptofish. Although he was pushing your buttons, his idea about changing the article wasn't completely ridiculous or foolish, so it needed to be handled courteously and honestly.

Posted by: Kato

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Peirce&diff=114034808&oldid=113656293

This thread is descending into farce.

Posted by: Noroton

I'm not so sure, given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Sanders_Peirce/Archive_3#.22Jon_Awbrey.22_problem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Sanders_Peirce/Archive_3#Organizational_mess. Compare the list of socks listed at the top of that first link with the participants in the earlier discussion shown in the second link. Or compare that list with the editors in the article's edit history in the months before SV made the edit you refer to. At the very least, it doesn't seem like a clear-cut case of SV simply trying to annoy JA. He was socking.

Posted by: Random832

Then say it. Who is he? Games like "What are your other accounts?" don't help anyone. Say who you think he is and provide the evidence.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Too late.......


Damn, that's funny.

So, they thought Jon had his socks arguing with each other?




Stick a fork in this thread. Done.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

It's not a plug for Singer's book. The Spanish parliament decided to accord apes rights in the way suggested by Peter Singer's Great Ape Project (GAP). GAP was explicitly mentioned by them as their aim. I'm just describing what their decision was, and it was a revolutionary one, so it would be odd not to mention it in the lead.

As for the definition, that is what animal rights is. It's not an unusual definition, or one that any academic studying AR would disagree with. In fact, the first version of the first lead paragraph was written by an academic who specializes in AR.



It is not toeing the PETA line. PETA *is* an animal rights organization, so obviously they're going to use the same definition as everyone else.

And what's goofy about the legal persons issue? That is the aim of AR -- to recognize non-humans as legal persons.

The Wikipedia article is entirely descriptive of the scholarly debate about AR. The idea that it's only my POV is just wrong.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Yes, that's a fair point; it's a little breathless. I've edited it to remove two of the proponents. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_rights&diff=280635485&oldid=280558221



I've wondered about that myself. We could start with the philosophy of the modern movement, but I wanted to show how the ideas had evolved. Maybe I'll try turning it on its head and see if it works. Ideally, I'd like to get it to FA status. The only reason I've not tried it is in case people turn up to oppose it only to cause trouble, or that people will think it's an inherently POV and fringe topic. But it really isn't anymore.

These are good points, though, thank you, as was your point about it perhaps not emphasizing enough that this was always part of the natural order of things. I think we did emphasize that more before, but the page got too long, so I split some of the ancient world stuff off into a different article.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I'm not quite sure how judging editors by their cumulative records is a sign of MMORPG-ing rather than encyclopedia-building. I think that in any organization or activity, if someone does something that's against the rules or the group norms once, one might respond "sorry, but just so you know, it's not considered appropriate here to do X; from now on, please do Y instead." But if he or she does X a dozen more times, after repeated requests to do Y instead, then one might respond very differently, perhaps even with an invitation to kindly take the X'ing somewhere else.

Of course, in a given situation, it may be legitimate to ask whether X should really be against the rules, or whether doing Y is actually better than X, or whether the anti-X policy is being applied equitably, or even whether the person giving the admonition is himself or herself guiltier of X than anyone else. But if your suggestion is that every day or every edit a user should start fresh with no one recalling what he or she has done before, I can't agree with that. (And I suspect you don't really either; if there were a thread here about whether SomeWPAdmin is an "abusive administrator" or not, wouldn't you be likely to make a comment along the lines of "I don't like that he did Z, but on balance his work is positive, so this looks like an isolated incident," or alternatively "he's always doing things like Z, he shouldn't be an admin"?)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Dontcha just hate it when lawyers try to do logic?

Ja Ja

Posted by: Lar

And do so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SSP, not here. Doing it here is just another example of using the "court of public opinion" instead of the accepted dispute resolution methods. Which you (SV/HFO) have already been warned about.

I think the animal rights philosophical discussion is interesting but it's not what this thread started out about. So perhaps it is another example of diversion?

Posted by: Moulton

Creative Rule-Making 101 — The Bill of Attainder Exercise

Prove or give a self-referential counter-example...

For any Adversary, A, there exists an Idiosyncratic Practice, Z, such that if a rule could be crafted to make Z a bannable offense, then Adversary A (and only Adversary A) would be banned under the novel rule making Z a bannable offense.

Posted by: The Adversary

Mods! Thats it. Enough. Can I have my old name (="Surfer") back, pleeeeeeease?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Your argument has merit. It's a bit of conundrum, how to save the baby of the encyclopedia while dispensing with the bathwater of MMORPGism. Perhaps the right corrective measure would be to first attack the problem of cabalism; maybe admins should have to run for re-election periodically.

Posted by: Son of a Yeti

Ever heard of WP:OWN, did you?

Posted by: Noroton

SV, this sounds like a reasonable point. It also doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Why not agree that you could have handled it better, and let's just move on? Congratulations on passing through the Wikipedia Review Good Article gantlet.

Posted by: Emperor

Look higher. The redirect notice, the first thing people read, is about Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation.



"Rights" are about drawing a line in the sand. It's something that utilitarians like Singer don't do. Balancing interests is not about rights. If Peter Singer knew for sure that he could save Aunt Millie by killing twenty rats, he'd probably do it. True animal rights believers think that we have no business killing rats to save Aunt Millie. The rats have a right not to be killed for our purposes.

Of course if your definition of ''animal rights'' is that whole unreferenced "interests" and "consideration" mishmash, then carry on. Britannica doesn't say that, though, so you'd probably be better off removing Note #1.


The whole bit about animals are not here for food, entertainment etc. is classic PETA all the way. I might as well go write "Beef, it's what's for dinner" in the beef article.



Well for one thing, your whole http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_person&oldid=277971134 article doesn't have the word animal anywhere on the page. For another, it's legal jargon that's essentially meaningless to most people.

But hey, if you're already happy with the article, if you already believe that it's "entirely descriptive", then why did you ask for my opinion?

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

Fair point, and I do agree. Will try to sit on my hands in future.

Posted by: Kato

What you should do, short of quitting Wikipedia altogether, is limit yourself to writing new material, rather than trying desperately to protect the old for the rest of your life. Because if you opt for the latter, you will fail. Badly. And spend the rest of your life trapped in a Task of Sisyphus that is exponentially antagonistic at every turn.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

I welcome the feedback. Part of the problem here stems from calling the article "animal rights" and not "animal liberation." I tried a few times to have our categories and templates changed to Alib, and I was hoping to have the article changed too -- and I forget all the arguments, but people felt Alib sounded more POV -- even though it was explained that they're not identical ideas. Alib is much more inclusive -- all AR advocates are alibbers, but not all alibbers (e.g. Singer) are AR advocates. But it made no difference; I was overruled on that more than once. And to be fair, animal rights *is* a much more widely used term, even if it's not always used properly.

What's happening now within the movement is that the "purist" animal rights people (e.g. [[Gary Francione]]) are arguing as you are -- that people like Singer and groups like PETA shouldn't be called animal rights advocates, because they're really only radical animal welfare advocates. The reasons given are as you said, namely that both would be willing to consider sacrificing animals depending on the cost-benefit, whereas an AR advocate would not consider it at all. If the purist position takes hold, so that the movement as a whole splits, or stops considering groups like PETA as animal rights, we may have to consider renaming the article, but I personally don't think it will take hold. Too divisive.

I removed the dab plug for Singer's book, by the way.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Super! I get the impression, though, that you're the kinda gal who could still type even if your fingers were between your keyboard and your arse. No offence - I'm just saying.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Mr Kohs reminds me of my home town heritage.

Animal rights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartlepool#Monkeys

Posted by: Cla68

SV, referring to your statement earlier that, "It's annoying that people turn up to articles other people have worked hard on, and start picking them apart...", I think you're going to have to get used to it. It's a wiki. Articles deteriorate, or change, over time, especially controversial ones. It's one of the weaknesses of the wiki model, or strengths, depending on your point of view.

Posted by: Hell Freezes Over

You left out the crucial part of what I said. It's annoying when people pick articles apart *in order to push another editor's buttons*.

Posted by: Obesity

Now, Slim. Weren't you paying attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith?

You're very naughty to infer such malice. I believe I've lectured you in these matters before.

Posted by: Noroton

If only we could find a better outlet for your creativity. Oh, wait -- April 1 is just hours away. I'm counting on you, big guy.

(Please keep in mind that you'll be representing all of us superheros, tomorrow. Don't go out with dirty tights.)

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Admins have buttons too, don't they? For instance, Crummy (amongst others) seems to have a big, red button labeled "Push For Help" when things get tough. Don't shoot me; these things have to be said.

Posted by: Obesity

Crum375 was a character from the 2006-07 season and hasn't controversially tagteamed in ages.

Ever since Poetguy's http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19767&st=0 (and perhaps even before than), he has been remarkably well behaved, as has Slim herself (for the most part) since she was ritually defrocked last year.

Where on earth have you been? You need to get with the times.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

The oldies & the goldies. Slimmies greatest hits.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Less Socking !!!

More Defrocking !!!

Ja Ja

Posted by: Milton Roe

Guess what, SV: other people's edits to your WP:OWNed articles, are not all-about YOU.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Mod's note: Proab vs. Gomi combat moved to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23561&view=findpost&p=164541

Posted by: gomi

You can see the actual evidence http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23566.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

One thing that strikes me about the whole "monkey gender" controversy is that it ignores the rather glaring Original Research, where the tableau is said to "epitomize the idea of animal ownership." It seems to me that the idea of animal ownership could just as easily be epitomized by the lady on TV, presenting Fancy Feast to her cat on a satin cushion, or some guy with his beloved seeing-eye dog.

Posted by: Cla68

SV, Tryptofish is obviously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_rights#Epitome. The problem is, you're reacting just like he expected that you would. I would advise letting him make some small changes to the article if other editors support it, which some appear to do.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Where's the pathos in THOSE? The whole point is to emotionally polarize the article.

Sheesh.

Posted by: Cla68

I admit that I thought that Tryptofish's picture of the healthy-looking dog licking the laughing boy's face as the "epitome of animal ownership" was funny.

Posted by: Milton Roe

But there are so many others that jerk chains even better:

Posted by: Cla68

SV, you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARisker&diff=284122439&oldid=283840336 that your questions for Tryptofish are about trolling, not http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStephen_Bain&diff=284105335&oldid=282803132. However, in your post to that account's talk page, you asked about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATryptofish&diff=279831680&oldid=278114240. That sounds like your making, at least implied, an accusation of socking.

Also, you say that Lar has been attacking you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnimal_rights&diff=284036195&oldid=284020949. Where on wiki has Lar been attacking you?

To be fair, I believe you are being trolled. When I was researching for the ArbCom case I saw that a couple of years ago there was an account who appeared to be trying to antagonize you via several of your animal rights articles. I don't remember the account's name. If you believe that Tryptofish is that account, you can say so here, because it's off-wiki and Tryptofish and the other account's name are anonymous account names, not real names.

Lar, Bainer, and Risker are correct in that if you're going to imply that socking is going on, you need to do so in the appropriate forum on wiki. Otherwise, Tryptofish should be treated as a good faith editor because so far he/she seems to be following the rules.

Posted by: Milton Roe

See http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23681&view=findpost&p=165693 on the antics of "Resaunaut." WR is hardly above (below?) commenting on obviously socking or SPA accounts.

Tryptofish, by his/her edits, looks like a righteous biologist. If he/she is trolling SlimVirgin, it's because after a long time on WP, Trypto has identified SV as some bio-POV pusher that needs to be poked with a stick, to see what it does.

Good luck, Trypto. They're Africanized, you know.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

That's just part of the ritual banning dance.

Posted by: Moulton

The Sock Hop

I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I feel like I may have forgotten this before.

Posted by: Milton Roe

For SlimVirgin's sake, we should have a little window that opens up on WP, every time you hit the "edit" tab, which starts out with a warning. Something like:



I think that would help Slim out when Slim starts getting all bothered over somebody messing with her hard work.

What do you all think of this idea?

Posted by: Cla68

To be fair, it is frustrating when someone edits an article that you've spent a lot of time on in way that you think is unhelpful. For example, someone recently edited an article that I'm currently working on to try to get it ready for FA nomination with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=283679350&oldid=283536990 which, to be honest, I don't fully agree with. But what am I going to do about it? I'll probably rearrange it a little in the future and work more with the editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea#Recent_Edits about it on the article's talk page.

That's the way you have to do things in a wiki. Reverting other people's changes with edit summaries that say "per talk" or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals&diff=277079430&oldid=276984176 when you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Quotes_throughout_article seems to miss the point of how the wiki is supposed to work.

By the way, Tryptofish appears to have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_Liberation_Front#FBI_quote_in_lead for using the FBI cite instead of the DoHS cite for the lede at ALF. As he points out, the DoHS cite is a draft document. In your response, you don't address his point about the source, but instead seem to be saying, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnimal_Liberation_Front&diff=281548329&oldid=281544528 so therefore the article should http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_Liberation_Front&diff=next&oldid=281731389