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]

Also note, in another nice touch, FT2 immediately 'archived' this discussion, thus if you look at the Zoo talk page at the end of December it is no longer there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96059752

even though it includes other much earlier edits from 4 November 2005 onwards. Thus if you hit any diff before or after December 2006, you would never realise it was there. And here we catch him in the act

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032

Beautifully selective.

[edit] Do read through the edits that FT2 'archived' as they are very blunt and funny. E.g.

I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages (Skopp)

There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 7th July 2008, 7:53pm

[Docknell]

Also note, in another nice touch, FT2 immediately 'archived' this discussion, thus if you look at the Zoo talk page at the end of December it is no longer there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96059752

even though it includes other much earlier edits from 4 November 2005 onwards. Thus if you hit any diff before or after December 2006, you would never realise it was there. And here we catch him in the act

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032

Beautifully selective.

[edit] Do read through the edits that FT2 'archived' as they are very blunt and funny. E.g.

I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages (Skopp)

There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other.

Yes FT2 is being shown up by a medical professional. He calls FT2's edits mealy mouthed. That basically sums FT2 up.

"If you are saying that research into animal-to-human disease transmission based on bestial activity is lacking, you are correct. However, veterinarian and animal husbandry workers handling urine, semen and other fluids have been infected, so it is a logical deduction that introducing the infected fluids into the human urethra (males) or vagina (females) or rectums and mouths (both) would carry not only the same risk as those exposed occupationally, but a far greater risk. I suggest to you here, and this may be prescient, that the inevitable future research on bestiality will show that I have been circumspect and measured in my statements, and that the risk is really very high indeed." Skopp

Its the sort of thing that FT2 deletes as a matter of course.

The NLP article is about the same.

Docknell

Also note, in another nice touch, FT2 immediately 'archived' this discussion, thus if you look at the Zoo talk page at the end of December it is no longer there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96059752

even though it includes other much earlier edits from 4 November 2005 onwards. Thus if you hit any diff before or after December 2006, you would never realise it was there. And here we catch him in the act

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032

Beautifully selective.

[edit] Do read through the edits that FT2 'archived' as they are very blunt and funny. E.g.

I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages (Skopp)

There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other.

This one's a peach. Hit FT2 square on.

" I really can't respond to all the interpersonal issues that you broach, FT2, because I'm not here to network with people and schmooze, and I'm prone to plain speaking and calling it like I see it. This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent, and then high-handedly reverse edits without discussion, even when asked to discuss, like you did recently. I'm simply interested in the page representing a fair version of the facts, especially in the Health and Safety area. I'd welcome mediation on this one topic, but I specifically want the mediator to be <b>knowledgeable in the medical/health area</b>. I suggest we ask for someone with a medical degree to make a judgement here. If that can be arranged, I'm more than willing to stand by what he/she decides." Skopp

Docknell

[Peter Damian]

This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent [...] (Skopp to FT2)

Surely this is wrong. FT2 has told us that his initial editing was 'minimal' and he only worked there to clear up a problem with an 'edit warrior'. Surely you are wrong, Docknell.

My initial editing on [[zoophilia]] was minimal, and sporadic, with none for some months - most of it arose in the context of an edit warrior which led to work being done there. I probably wouldn't have thought to revisit it again otherwise. But once attention was drawn there, I found it a facinating editing challenge, and have no qualms researching and improving the topic area.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 8th July 2008, 7:23am

[Docknell]

This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent [...] (Skopp to FT2)

Surely this is wrong. FT2 has told us that his initial editing was 'minimal' and he only worked there to clear up a problem with an 'edit warrior'. Surely you are wrong, Docknell.

My initial editing on [[zoophilia]] was minimal, and sporadic, with none for some months - most of it arose in the context of an edit warrior which led to work being done there. I probably wouldn't have thought to revisit it again otherwise. But once attention was drawn there, I found it a facinating editing challenge, and have no qualms researching and improving the topic area.

Mmm. Perhaps I should think again. True, FT2 has been working on a wide range of articles other than zoophilia. For example, here is FT2 working on the zoosexuality article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99791036

Its a zoophilia study though. Never mind!

Actually, FT2 treats the subject with only the best quotes. Notice FT2 has judiciously left out the phrases:


" The subject's desire to be transformed into the animal he or she has contact with can be understood as a narcissistic compound and is not related to lycanthropia."

"The authors are optimistic over the possibilities offered by this Internet research methodology."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15197450

FT2 really knows how to stay broad at the right time and select stuff whenever it suits:)

Doc