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

[Peter Damian]

The eccentric Defender of the Wiki leaves a message on FT2's talk page.

FT2 thinking it is a compliment leaves a long-winded and boring reply. Below - I think he has now oversighted it or something as it doesn't appear on the talk history. [My bold - FT clearly needs irony spectacles].

Thank you for making the difficult decisions
First, thank you for welcoming me to your userpage. You have very good manners.I feel as if I have found my home away from home. I digress...
Our mailing lists are abuzz with praise for your challenging yet necessary actions in blocking Giano. His persistant misogyny, which Thatcher pointed out, is of great concern to us. This behavior must not be tolerated. He has run amuck for far too long on our Project, as his block log indicates. I blogged about this debacle here. I nearly quit blogging for good, but your actions inspired me to keep up the good fight. Thank you for defending the Wiki. Godspeed. The Defender of the Wiki (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


As much as I'd like to accept something like this, I can't. It wasn't done "for" anyone, or for any group, or anything like that. It was done because it needed doing. I wrote WP:DBF back in 2005 and it's still a good recap of things. Giano is a user, not a "challenge" or anything, and blocking is never a game or anything to be done lightly. I wasn't aware of the "female" issue you and Thatcher picked up on, and I could care less on the politicking. An editor was under a remedy to be civil, and wasn't civil, chances got given, normal judgement and action follows, pretty much. That's really all. I don't agree with the strong words and portrayal in your blog (though I respect your right to hold them), I don't feel Giano deserves all the bad names it states, and I'm not inclined to support some call to arms as you seem to wish. The blog is more aggressive and overstated/overhyped than it needs to be. The only aspect that needed thinking about was deciding if the line had been crossed where some formal action was appropriate (as opposed to deferring action) and if his uncivil conduct was harmful to the project, and that was not at all difficult.
The best defense of the wiki (and this applies to Giano as well) is to not provoke division and to step by step cut down on pointless unproductive bad conduct by editors to editors, so that we can all focus on content writing, and genuine content-related matters worthy of attention, more.
My main wish is just that Giano will remember to be civil to others in a way that his gifts and desire to help does not come in parallel with a wish to verbally hurt the efforts and motivation of others too. And -- welcome. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 27th March 2008, 8:04pm

[The Joy]

I thought the Defender admitted he was Relato Somethingorother? Maybe I missed the joke as well.

[Peter Damian]

Maybe I missed the joke as well.

FT2 spent about 20 minutes replying to the defender

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t=20&target=FT2

under the impression it was serious. Then he realises it's a spoof, presumably when he saw the labrador bit. So he deletes it from his talk page, and history.

And what's with the zoophilia hoopla, anyway? Didn't you all see Mike Rowe artificially inseminating a sow on Dirty Jobs?

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

[Random832]

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

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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