Sociopathic behaviour, You have messages Options

[Peter Damian]

Just starting a collection of the little 'presents' that FT2 leaves on one's talk page from time to time. Qualifying criterion: they have to be very nice and polite on first reading, until you read more carefully and you taste the vitriol and poison.

Starting with the Christmas present that FT2 left on Giano's page on 25 December 2007. FT2 knew by that point that he had been elected to Arbcom and was flexing his muscles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...RC-related_page

Typical sociopathic remarks "I wish I didn't have to write this but I do." (Oh yes you jolly well are revelling in writing this). "Giano, this pains me". (Always use Christian name when saying things like this, and always say how painful it is for you to be inflicting pain on others). "You know fully and well, how to handle disagreement, and the norms the community expects and aims for. " (always mention the community). "I ask you this as a collaborator and colleague whose work on content I'm in awe of. " (I wish I didn't have to say this but I do).

And finally, don't forget to 'tweak' it at the end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180160544

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 5th July 2008, 12:11pm

[Peter Damian]

Another glimpse of the strange world that FT2 inhabits. If you go to his user page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2

you will notice a collection of 'endorsements' of the good works of FT2 by various editors that he has pasted together. One of them is by user Skoppensbauer whose product endorsement runs as follows:

"I'm getting a good feeling about this page ... This page may save lives, may help people avoid sickness and trauma. We can be proud."

"This is a unique page on the web. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic ... exclusively and in such depth. [...] That is surely an achievement."
- Skoppensboer 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) and 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) on the co-authoring of Zoophilia and health, which at one point went towards mediation before working out well.

Wow that looks good. Cooperative editing, unique article on the web, achievement, bla bla, could be from a flip chart at one of those dreary 'management' seminars that FT2 runs.

Nothing could be further from the truth. FT2 and Skopp (who is medically trained and educated to higher degree standard and really knows his stuff) had a massive edit war immediately beforehand and the case was only just cooling down by the time Skopp made the remarks above. See below. I particularly like the bit about 'logorrheic thicket of words', and also where Skopp accuses FT of being a zoophile. Would have got indef-blocked for that these days. Enjoy.

I stand by what I said. Your edits all tend to minimise perceived risk and your intention is clearly to give the entire topic a gloss of safety and normality, I presume for personal reasons. Let me ask you directly: are you a zoophile? We should be told. It would certainly help to explain your edits made without consensus-seeking. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using pornographic erotica forums for proof of what we should or shouldn't say here. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. As for taking a break, I'll take a permanent break if you agree not to gut the Health and Safety section again. I am also agreeable to spinning it off as a separate page with a {{main| tag linking it to the Zoophilia page H&S section, as I've offered before, and to which you have never agreed, your recent comment about this notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Zoophilia Talk page)

-----------------

I do not have the time to engage in a long explication of this kerfuffle here, and I see I'm already in danger of being overwhelmed by FT2's verbose style right at the start. I refer the mediator to the actual talk pages where I've made my points. I don't wish or have the time to rewrite them here. Needless to say, I deny all of the points FT2 tries to make above.

The issue I have with FT2 is that his/her editing always comes from one biased angle. Absolutely every edit he/she's made on my work serves to minimize and normalize aberrant behaviour that could threaten health. Yes, shock, but even in this non-judgemental world, some behaviors are still aberrant from a professional medical POV. I refer you to the various talk pages again. Please note that the quoted "negative" above is not my word. But I do have an issue with a disorder (for that is what the psychiatric profession all over the world classifies it as -- a "disorder") being presented as a charming alternate lifestyle, and with an article in which the health/disease section is almost non-existent, inane and frankly wrong, as it was. I tried to beef the health aspects up and FT2 has opposed me tooth and nail, if you'll excuse the pun. Read the various pages, & the discussions. FT2 has raised trivial objection after trivial objection, edited my work without any attempt at consultation, and he/she clearly has a disturbing sense of ownership of the topic on WP.

I wish to quote someone else's views on the Zoophilia page, and note that the problems highlighted in this quote are what got me started on the zoophilia page in the first place, attempting to insert balance, and even though I now have a separate page for the health issue, the party responsible for the tone of the original page is intent on pursuing me and keeping the tone in lockstep with the master article. Here's the apposite quote: "In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unnecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. .... this current article is still a terrible embarrassment to wikipedia. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.". [6 December 2006] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ation/Zoophilia

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 7th July 2008, 6:56pm