Snowspinner muses about stalking and murder, He's "edgy" and "artistic" Options

[orthogonal]

I have mastered the art of surveillance. For the past four years I have meticulously watched the same woman through my telescope. I know every bra and pair of panties that she owns. I can describe, to the millimeter, the location of every blemish on her body. I have also learned endurance - I went the entirety of last March without touching myself as I watched her.

. . . .

In desperate situations, I have learned that I can kill another man. A month ago I went out and found a homeless man. I lured him to the railroad tracks and garroted him. The police have yet to name a suspect. I am confident that they never will. The experience was exhilarating, but not so exhilarating that I would consider myself a psychopath. I am confident I can keep my random murders down to one a month with minimal effort.

Source

I'm sure Fat Phil will explain he was just jerking around, not revealing his unsavory self.

(Of course, he'll explain that his plea to "give jackbooted fascism a chance" on his user page is just a harmless joke too.)

[everyking]

He's quite strange. Very misanthropic.

[Selina]

More like schizophrenic...

[blissyu2]

Yes, back in late 2004. He also mentions that he can speak Klingon, and it was regarded by commentors as a joke.

I think we are taking this too seriously.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

He also mentions that he can speak Klingon, and it was regarded by commentors as a joke.

Snowspinner may be the real-life model for Comic book guy.

[Daniel Brandt]

Yes, Sandifer appears to be an English Ph.D. student at the University of Florida. One of his papers there:

"Duh: An Epistemology of Stupidity" Presented at the 2005 EGO Conference at the University of Florida.
Abstract: This presentation will deal with a practical downside of open knowledge projects based around the ideal that "anyone can contribute," namely the fact that "anyone" can and will include a substantial number of idiots. The question, then, is what one does with idiotic contributions, to say nothing of what one does with idiots in the social communities that inevitably surround such projects. How does one maintain quality of content while still allowing people who are detrimental to the quality of the content to contribute? Does one sacrifice quality? Openness? Does one have to sacrifice at all? I will address the problem through the example of Wikipedia, a user- created encyclopedia that anybody can edit and write articles for with ease. Based on case studies and discussions with users of the project, I will offer a picture of how one open project deals with idiocy. From these case studies, I will offer several possible models of how one can establish a working relationship between the demands of knowledge and the demands of openness, and try to offer a new perspective on both open projects and on terminal stupidity.

One of his lines on his Wikipedia user page:

"Deficiency in judgment is that which is ordinarily known as stupidity, and for such a failing there is no remedy." - Immanuel Kant

[Selina]

Lol, superiority complex much...

[everyking]

"Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy.

[Daniel Brandt]

That's great. Thanks to Hushthis for finding that. "Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy. Someone should start sending copies of his WP cyber-bullying antics to other members of the faculty/administration there.

If I know anything about how grad school works, it wouldn't take much to put him in a position where he either decides to leave Wikipedia or decides that he doesn't need a Ph.D. after all.

[blissyu2]

Its a pity really. Snowspinner's views on Expert Users are a good thing, or at least close to what I would suggest. Wikipedia needs to move away from the culture of ignorance and to respect people who actually know what they are talking about. Sure, we can all edit on things that we know nothing about, but if there is an expert about, or even someone who knows what they are talking about more than us, then they should be given preference.

But for Snowspinner to extend that to referring to people by the archaic notion that some people are superior to others is just stupid. IQ tests were popular in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's but have long since been superceded by more accurate models, such as Gardener's Multiple Intelligences and the related EQ tests, as well as derivatives. The current normal belief is that we are all overall equal, but that we each are good at some things and bad at others. This of course is not only scientifically a better way of looking at things, but its also a nicer way to go and coincides with most religious beliefs.

So why is Snowspinner stuck 50 years ago? Because he's an idiot? Or at least, this isn't his field of expertise. Who is the joker that gave let him be a PhD student on it?

[orthogonal]

Let me just say that I don't think "outing" Fat Phil as Snowspinner would be the right thing to do. Let's not stoop to his level.

[Donny]

Let me just say that I don't think "outing" Fat Phil as Snowspinner would be the right thing to do. Let's not stoop to his level.

The user formerly known as Snowspinner now edits Wikipedia under the username "Phil Sandifer", and the user page of Snowspinner is a redirect to the user page of Phil Sandifer, so this doesn't really count as "outing".

[Sgrayban]

Anyone that writes stuff like this has some serious mental issues hidden very deep... and should be watched

[God of War]

Anyone that writes stuff like this has some serious mental issues hidden very deep... and should be watched

It doesn't matter if he is being serious or not. As it is written, without any disclaimers, this page constitutes "terroristic threats" (has nothing to do with terrorism). This is Illegal. People can and DO get arrested for stuff like this.

[Sgrayban]

Which still means he has alot of mental problems when they write this shit. If they enjoy writing it the way he did then there is a real threat that is waiting to be unleashed at some point.

[everyking]

To be fair to Phil, his blog is clearly intended for literary/artistic purposes and I'm sure a claim that it's "terroristic" wouldn't be taken seriously for a second. I will grant that it could be something of an insight into his mind that he would write that kind of thing, but I don't need his weird musings to tell me there's something wrong with his head; I've been pretty sure of that for a good while now.

[Sgrayban]

I'm not ignorant...... I was just a shocked as the Uni was and the police.

[blissyu2]

I am not sure if I trust Snowspinner's 2 latest Live Journal entries. I mean, is he allowed to report on something like that in such explicit detail in public? I am not sure if that is permitted. He even mentioned their names which surely is a breach of privacy. Something tells me that we are being set up over this, and that those two entries are fakes.

Of course, if it is true, then it raises another question. Was it right for him to be investigated over such a thing? I mean, lots of people talk about killing someone (teachers, especially high school teachers tend to be the main fall guy, but also parents, siblings, and step parents are high up there) but how many people do it? It must be like 1,000 to 1 for every person that thinks of killing someone compared to every person that did it. And even if we write it down, so what? Does it really mean that you are going to do it? Is it really worth an investigation?

We can say that its "just to make sure" but unless someone actually died, or there was some more explicit source of it, why are we worrying about it? It is the kind of thing that should be used as evidence if someone dies, but without something definite surrounding it, its just a wild guess.

But then, should he then get praise over being "wrongly investigated"? Absolutely not. Next he'll be saying that he is the poor innocent guy that was harassed. Bullshit. He was the stupid idiot that wrote such a thing and then kept it up there when it was like that. I suppose next he'll say that he's been libelled on here and that he is the victim.

I'd rather see us go after Snowspinner for his crimes on Wikipedia, not clutch at straws on something like Live Journal, where we don't know him very well. We are better off when we are experts on a topic, not novices.

And now perhaps we've made things worse.

[Sgrayban]

But actions, including history of the person, and state of mind are accountable. Any court of law will agree with that also.

[orthogonal]

Dear god.

Had I know this would get so out of hand, I'd never have posted a link to Snowy's story here.

Don't misunderstand me: I find Snowspinner an unsavory young bully, far to fond of throwing his weight around on Wikipedia, and perhaps capable of overly enjoying writing fiction about victimizing homeless people.

But the operative word is fiction.

Informing the police and his university about Snowy's screwy slash fiction, suggesting it's criminal evidence, goes too far. As I've said before, there's no good in sinking to Snowy's level.

Snowy's an online poseur, a big man when he's behind his keyboard. He's no real-life murderer.