Proabivouac's question, (split from "hi") Options

[FT2]

1. I had already checked those diffs, please don't accuse me of not checking facts. If you look at the whole series of edits it is clear that SLR has not changed his mind. He is trying to balance both sides of the issue.

Er.. No. You don't issue a "stern warning" and tell people emphatically about a different diff you hadn'tr spotted before, saying "this IS disruptive", if you're "just balancing both sides". He was quite happy to say "nothing wrong here", and even "maybe some people are picking on him", and then switched. His messages when he did do not contain any of the sentiment of the former that would show what you feel. he doesn't say "this was minor" or that it was borderline, or anything of that kind. he came down firmly on a completely different view, as did others. The bottom line is even the unblocking admin concluded it had been a blatantly disruptive post.

FT2 - "As an editor with no prior involvement in your circumstances I have reviewed the recent edits you made, at the request of others, for an independent double-check on them. This is my view: It may be that you feel roughly treated by others, or in the past. But... this is clearly a disruptive edit, and its purpose is to make a point ... This isn't a matter of censorship, or attack. It's a clear and simple matter. You know it's inappropriate and unhelpful. You did these edits anyway. You knew that you already had problems... and you edited in an unhelpful manner anyway, based upon your personal grievance, instead of simply settling down and accepting you have made mistakes (who hasn't?), learning from them, and setting the past aside to do better. I take no pleasure from this block, my feeling is other editors working on policy pages should not have to have hassle because you feel upset, or have to deal with knowingly unhelpful edits because you feel wronged. Thats not fair to them. So I am blocking you for a week."

Slrubenstein - "[This] is an example of a violation of wp:point, and it ''is'' disruptive editing. Do not do it again. If you don't understand why not, ask me." (link)

If you think he didn't mean this, ask him, don't assume.

2. On not checking facts, you still haven't discussed the misattributed quotation from Lakoff. See the other thread.

Discussed on-wiki I thought (not 100% sure, I'd have to check). Quick answer - long ago. nested quote, I got it wrong, it got fixed quickly by others in one case, overlooked in another, not habitual, and the few hundred cites that are accurate got ignored to pursue that single one.

Meanwhile have you tried applying the same scrutiny to the diffs on Headley? No, otherwise you'd have some rather more direct questions for him, too, instead. I see none, although in his case the evidence is very great, very well documented, and from many users over several years. Why?

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

This post has been edited by FT2: Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:13am

[FT2]

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered.

And some of us don't.

[quote Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.

Not really. Are you noticing that people who post in a respectful genuine manner get replies, whether they are banned, hostile, or aggressive, or even whether - like Greg Kohs - they have posted provocatively on other occasions, and it's only 1/ Docknell and 2/ people who post without hope of their post being helpful to dialog, that I'm paying less attention to? As you write to me, is the general rule.

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who - for me - comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)

[Docknell]

(Snip)
Q: Is there perhaps any way you could actually answer a question one day?
(Snip)

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

Oh joy! You just answered a question of mine! Well, sort of answered…. Badly…and as hillariously as NLP powered zoophilia promotion.

Q: Do you really think a testimonial from a misguided WP editor is going to cut any slack with people who actually focus on the reality of diffs? This is WR not WP!

And you say you are unlikely to answer a question that has been proxied from myself.

Q: Which postees here do you think I am asking to post questions to you about?

This isn’t Wikipedia you know! Postees can pretty much say and ask what they like here (or at least post whatever diffs they like without reproach). Again, it’s very funny that you seem to think WP customs apply here.

Q: Are you stressed over what I have posted?

After your seething reply, well…..I imagine some people can sense it. I would like to imagine you wiping the spittle from your screen, with Detol.

Q: Do you mean rules broken in answering, or not answering?

I think that one got muddled in your spittle somewhere. Never mind! Lets just say, I imagine that’s what Garry Glitter said when he was caught up and downloading “erotica” from the internet. Promoting such stuff on the web got him banned from using the web in the UK. You got promoted to arb despite similarly unethical proclivity. Not aiming to judge btw, its just that what you see as attractive, I suspect others would gag at the thought. Y'know, majority voice and all.

Q: What were the results at Crufts this year btw?


Doc

[Kelly Martin]

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who - for me - comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)

I have a policy of ignoring anything that is explained by referring to anything that begins with "WP:" or is identified by a string of capitalized letters lacking inherent meaning. In general, I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd refrain from using cultspeak here. You're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

[Docknell]

[quote name='FT2' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:11am' post='125953']
[quote name='Kelly Martin' post='125945' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:54am'][quote name='FT2' post='125931' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 4:49am']From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.[/quote]
Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered.
[/quote]
And some of us don't.


[quote name='Kelly Martin' post='125945' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:54am'][quote Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.
[/quote]
Not really. Are you noticing that people who post in a respectful genuine manner get replies, whether they are banned, hostile, or aggressive, or even whether - like Greg Kohs - they have posted provocatively on other occasions, and it's only 1/ Docknell and 2/ people who post without hope of their post being helpful to dialog, that I'm paying less attention to? As you write to me, is the general rule.

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who - for me - comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)
[/quote]

Oh yeh! Cos that's just the kind of guy I am!

Y'know! Neurolinguistically programmed to be cool and groovy! Just like all the WPedians that I know must be tuning in to this channel, just for charidy!

FT2

(not really, its me, Doc, or whatever FT2 wants to call me at the pottylical moment)

[Docknell]

Hi FT2, you said:

Snip:

Not really.

Snip:

I like that one! Is that something you learnt at the NLP academy? If so, I would like to ask for copyright from you on that one. I understand you may have wanted to trademark it, but I promise to say "FT2 said that!" every time I recycle that fabulous exclamation.

If I make any money on it, I'll be sure to reimburse you

Doc

(PS, awsome stuff! Don't let me steal your thunder! Its too powerful for me to handle by myself anyway! Dynamite!)

[Moulton]

FT2, I suspect you missed seeing this last night because you posted something else barely a minute after I posted this question to you...

FT2, besides the long running RfAr that is nearing a conclusion, there is an overlapping RfC/ID filed on 10 June 2008 by PouponOnToast to consolidate dueling RfC's and RfAr's previously filed by competing factions.

This consolidated RfC has a curious feature — namely, I am the only respondent actually named in it.

And I am also the only would-be participant in the RfC who is blocked from participating in it by the adversarial editors of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.

Would it not be appropriate to unblock me for the express purpose of responding to issues raised in RfC/ID?

This forum software has the unfortunate feature that it doesn't present messages that appear in the intervening time while you are writing one of your own.

So I'd be grateful if you would take a moment to go back in time and respond to me.

Thanks.

[Proabivouac]

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

Whom you allow to take credit for your work is completely irrelevant here, FT2. If TBP isn't you, you have wrongfully claimed his work as your own. In the real world, that's a much bigger deal than Wikipedia sockpuppetry.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 3rd September 2008, 12:51pm

[Docknell]

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

Whom you allow to take credit for your work is completely irrelevant here, FT2. If TBP isn't you, you have wrongfully claimed his work as your own. In the real world, that's a much bigger deal than Wikipedia sockpuppetry.

Go ooooooon! If FT2 throws another wobbler at this one I am going to have another brandy. FT2 is just the most amazing liar I have ever come across on the web. FT2 deserves an Oscar and a half at least! A round of applause for trying so hard with your pants still down, FT2!

Meryll Streep, eat your heart out. FT2 is here!

I wonder about those enactments with FT2's pets. I suspect among the hurt and abuse, there must have been some glimmer of furry admiration and respect (abject fear) (after the bleeding had stopped) (and just before the dispair had sunk in completely).

Its ok folks, this stuff just happens with the most unfortunate deviants, and only when they get access to telephones, satelites, and the web (and Wikipedia).

Normal people can rely on humour to get them through the day, even when a loony is making disturbingly napoleonic noises next door.

Doc

[Peter Damian]

This is beginning to get surreal. FT2, do you have any sense of how many people are reading this? How is this helping your cause, whatever that is?

Discussed on-wiki I thought (not 100% sure, I'd have to check). Quick answer - long ago. nested quote, I got it wrong, it got fixed quickly by others in one case, overlooked in another, not habitual,

Not really. It wasn't a long time ago. You set the page up on 12 August (less than a month ago).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

On that page you say 'had Damian done his work, he would have found the following existing pages that cover the question of evidence and cites'. And then you linked to the page containing the misattributed Lakoff quote. This was part of the evidence you submitted for an AfD process. And there was no nested quote. You clearly attributed it to Lakoff.

and the few hundred cites that are accurate got ignored to pursue that single one.

Oh right. I should have looked to find an accurate citation of yours and pursued you with that? This was the second quote by Lakoff that you misattributed, and the second one I looked at. I looked at the Lakoff ones first because they were potentially significant (he is eminent linguist whose apparent endorsement of NLP would have been big surprise).

But in any case I have a long list of unreliable sources, those two were just for starters. More later.

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. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Zoophilia Talk page)

Sounds familiar?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 3rd September 2008, 2:40pm

[Peter Damian]

FT2 deserves an Oscar and a half at least!

Not really. Oscars are awarded for good acting. Good acting elicits a suspension of disbelief in the audience. Here, just disbelief. Is anyone convinced by this? I see a number of the audience are here. Or are they just fascinated by car crashes and train wrecks?

[Kelly Martin]

Or are they just fascinated by car crashes and train wrecks?

Ding ding ding ding ding!

[Vicky]

Oscars are awarded for good acting.

Not always. They are often a popularity poll among Hollywood staff. For example, John Wayne got his Oscar on a wave of sympathy for his illness, and for one of his worst films. Some of Hollywood's greatest actors never won one.

[Peter Damian]

Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

I just noticed the link (an endorsement by a user at FT2's election). Let's look a little more closely at that. It's by an editor who when the edit war with User:Ciz (2005) took place was sixteen. She says 'I like to hope I'm more mature than my age would seem' but her stated interest in Horror stories and movies, puns, marvel comix, obscure rock bands 'and of course, editing the Wiki' suggests that no more mature than her age would seem after all. Oh yes and she calls herself a Satanist and has a pink user page so we are really getting away from the stereotype Wikipedian here aren't we.

The edit war referred to is with yet another person (Ciz) who FT2 managed to evict from the Wiki - I exchanged emails with Ciz and he is a nice, retiring guy who is a little bit obsessive, who nearly suffered a nervous breakdown after trying to maintain a more neutral point of view on the Zoophilia article. FT2 claimed it was vandalism and edit warring. Was it? Ciz only made 21 edits to the article. Here are some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8527205 FT2 removes a NPOV tag that Ciz had quite properly placed there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8475397
Revision as of 01:38, 16 December 2004 (edit) (undo)
Ciz REMOVES "professionals and people who know genuine zoophiles and their partners personally over a period of time (whether knowingly or unknowingly) often find it hard to see abuse..." which is entirely POV and unsourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8475603 Teh 16 year old Satanist REPLACES the edits Ciz removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8469920 FT2 REMOVES
"There are others who respect and care for animals but still believe that having sex with animals is abusive, no matter the reason." with the comment “rvt more Ciz vandalism”. Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...1&oldid=8271423 FT” REPLACES
"Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings." With the comment “verified mainstream research - Ciz, do NOT remove information that doesnt suit your POV please. Discuss on the talk page if you feel this is unsupported.” – this ‘verified mainstream research has yet to be cited!

Oh yes and that was part of the first edit that FT2 made to the encyclopedia and which WJBScribe later got oversighted (but I won't bore you further with that). Ciz had no chance because there was a whole group of self-admitted zoophiles editing the article, and he got royally beat up. At the arbitration organised by FT2, they could say things like, everyone is fed up with this user. Also it’s hard in such a situation not to lose your cool, and Ciz did in a couple of places. And he had to face abuse from others. E.g. look at the article talk page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...a&oldid=7664626

'Steele the wolf' (they all have tags like this) says “This is coming from a rabid anti-zoo, asairs pawn ..” (ASAIRS is a now defunct organisation that campaigned against zoophile sites and got many of them closed down. Ciz replies “I dont like animals being molested. If that makes me an anti-zoo, then fine”. Steele calls him “intolerant and a hypocrite”. And so on. Steele was one of the Zoophiles that FT2 later defended at arbitration. E.g. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._against_Steele

Later FT2 thanks Steele

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=102133957

for the rFA support. It was well earned says Steele.

[Milton Roe]

I just noticed the link (an endorsement by a user at FT2's election). Let's look a little more closely at that. It's by an editor who when the edit war with User:Ciz (2005) took place was sixteen. She says 'I like to hope I'm more mature than my age would seem' but her stated interest in Horror stories and movies, puns, marvel comix, obscure rock bands 'and of course, editing the Wiki' suggests that no more mature than her age would seem after all. Oh yes and she calls herself a Satanist and has a pink user page so we are really getting away from the stereotype Wikipedian here aren't we.

Indeed user: Premeditated Chaos (former 16 year-old ) seems to be a typical Brit punk-rocker with horror interests. But nothing really stands out. If you want a Brit-pop axis score, you start with the two people I've found who most define it: David Gerard and Sceptre, who have an astounding 1400 articles they've both edited by hand, most of them on pop subjects. Add any third to get a Brit-pop score. For Premeditated Chaos you get:

#1 X-Men:_Evolution - edited by 3 of 3 users
#2 Vanilla_Sky - edited by 3 of 3 users
#3 The_Matrix - edited by 3 of 3 users
#4 Tea - edited by 3 of 3 users
#5 Sexual_harassment - edited by 3 of 3 users
#6 Scorpion - edited by 3 of 3 users
#7 Rent_(film) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#8 Portal_(video_game) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#9 Open_source - edited by 3 of 3 users
#10 Nupedia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#11 Nirvana_(band) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#12 Marilyn_Manson_(band) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#13 Leet - edited by 3 of 3 users
#14 Joseph_Priestley - edited by 3 of 3 users
#15 Fancy_rat - edited by 3 of 3 users
#16 Eric_Cartman - edited by 3 of 3 users
#17 Computer_virus - edited by 3 of 3 users
#18 Blog - edited by 3 of 3 users
#19 Batman - edited by 3 of 3 users
#20 50_Cent - edited by 3 of 3 users
#21 2007 - edited by 3 of 3 users

If you instead add FT2 to Gerard and Sceptre, it's a different list but again nothing stands out:

#1 Windows_XP - edited by 3 of 3 users
#2 Wikipedia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#3 Wikimedia_Foundation - edited by 3 of 3 users
#4 Watership_Down - edited by 3 of 3 users
#5 Torchwood_Institute - edited by 3 of 3 users
#6 Time_War_(Doctor_Who) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#7 The_Holocaust - edited by 3 of 3 users
#8 Story_arcs_in_Doctor_Who - edited by 3 of 3 users
#9 September_11_attacks - edited by 3 of 3 users
#10 Robot - edited by 3 of 3 users
#11 Prostitution - edited by 3 of 3 users
#12 Narnia_(world) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#13 My_Bad - edited by 3 of 3 users
#14 Margaret_Thatcher - edited by 3 of 3 users
#15 Lysergic_acid_diethylamide - edited by 3 of 3 users
#16 Leet - edited by 3 of 3 users
#17 His_Dark_Materials - edited by 3 of 3 users
#18 Hal_Turner - edited by 3 of 3 users
#19 George_W._Bush - edited by 3 of 3 users
#20 Doctor_(Doctor_Who) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#21 Diana,_Princess_of_Wales - edited by 3 of 3 users
#22 Copyright - edited by 3 of 3 users
#23 Cole_&_Dylan_Sprouse - edited by 3 of 3 users
#24 Casino_Royale_(2006_film) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#25 Bonobo - edited by 3 of 3 users
#26 Blog - edited by 3 of 3 users
#27 Beatrix_Kiddo - edited by 3 of 3 users
#28 Asperger_syndrome - edited by 3 of 3 users
#29 2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot - edited by 3 of 3 users
#30 2006_definition_of_planet - edited by 3 of 3 users

If you just put in FT2 and Premediated Chaos, it gets a bit darker:

#1 Zoophilia - edited by 2 of 2 users
#2 United_States - edited by 2 of 2 users
#3 Torture - edited by 2 of 2 users
#4 Serial_killer - edited by 2 of 2 users
#5 Satanism - edited by 2 of 2 users
#6 Pornography_addiction - edited by 2 of 2 users
#7 Otherkin - edited by 2 of 2 users
#8 Moral_panic - edited by 2 of 2 users
#9 Leet - edited by 2 of 2 users
#10 Jews_as_a_chosen_people - edited by 2 of 2 users
#11 In_Bruges - edited by 2 of 2 users
#12 God - edited by 2 of 2 users
#13 Glossary_of_contract_bridge_terms - edited by 2 of 2 users
#14 Flatulence - edited by 2 of 2 users
#15 Evolution - edited by 2 of 2 users
#16 Closeted - edited by 2 of 2 users
#17 Cindy_(dolphin) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#18 Charles_Manson - edited by 2 of 2 users
#19 Blog - edited by 2 of 2 users
#20 All_your_base_are_belong_to_us - edited by 2 of 2 users


But really not much zoo stuff here, just horror. Nothing like the FT2+TBP combo, which is totally zoophile-oriented:

#1 Zoosexuality - edited by 2 of 2 users
#2 Zoosadism - edited by 2 of 2 users
#3 Zoophilia - edited by 2 of 2 users
#4 Rainbow_Bridge_(pets) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#5 Neuro-linguistic_programming - edited by 2 of 2 users
#6 Mr_Hands - edited by 2 of 2 users
#7 Loss - edited by 2 of 2 users
#8 List_of_unusual_deaths - edited by 2 of 2 users
#9 Kenneth_Pinyan - edited by 2 of 2 users
#10 Hani_Miletski - edited by 2 of 2 users
#11 Great_ape_personhood - edited by 2 of 2 users
#12 Ethology - edited by 2 of 2 users
#13 Enumclaw,_Washington - edited by 2 of 2 users
#14 Emotion_in_animals - edited by 2 of 2 users
#15 Edgeplay - edited by 2 of 2 users
#16 Death - edited by 2 of 2 users
#17 Animal_love - edited by 2 of 2 users
#18 Animal_loss - edited by 2 of 2 users
#19 Animal_cognition - edited by 2 of 2 u

[Dzonatas]

Don't mean to derail this thread about my case, I actually thought FT2 would answer Proabivouac's question first -- given the take on the situation. I just want to respond to the statement FT2 made since it appears there is theme of concern about FT2 here in this thread.

(Snip)

Did you know my daughter was harassed on-wiki? Of course you should know, because you are expected to have looked at the evidence. And, you say it was not beyond the community's ability to appropriately sort out.

The Arbitration case is here. It opened on 6 June, and by 11 June, the position was that 6 of 6 arbitrators felt the community had dealt with it (5 "decline" and 1 "other", no "accepts"). Every user commenting had endorsed the handling by the community with none dissenting. You stated back then that "my daughter was treated with insolence" - that's now been upgraded to "harassment" 3 months later. Your post of June 7 got precisely no agreement from any other editor on your talk page (section: "Show support:").

Arbitration is a last resort, and I cannot see a single dissenting voice that suggests I might have gauged it grossly wrongly this time around. You will notice from other cases I am unafraid to disagree with other arbitrators if I feel it right. On this ocasion I didn't.

Ok, so, somehow you categorized insolence as "not the same" as harassment, as, you, stated above, have said that harassment is an "upgrade" from insolence. I wonder why you didn't even seem to take the concern to heart and not worry about if insolence is a greater expression or if harassment is a more egregious expression as why you would look further in the case or not. Did you ask my opinion of "insolence"? No, you already started to argue (with me or) about it before you even showed concern.

You stated elsewise about hurtful statements, but I see you really don't care if someone on Wikipedia says hurtful things in any way at another Wikipedian or non-Wikipedian. You rather argue if "insolence" is "harassment." Well, lets look at the definition of insolence:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:insolence

Looks like insolence fits in the realm the realm of harassment. Even worse, consider how you now ignored the when, how, and why my daughter was treated such way, and how you rather go with the ad populum fallacy, you have also (en)joined in on the cause of insolence.

As an ArbCom member and your prose, I actually thought more highly of you FT2, but appears you completely ignored the more serious nature of what has happened. I take it you or your family don't have a daughter being outed and harassed on Wikipedia, so you wouldn't have the faintest clue what it is like. I would think as a ArbCom member, you would try harder, but here you clearly showed you didn't.

It opened on 6 June, and by 11 June...

Notice those dates you said, then look at this comment you made:

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

Notice that June 7th does fall before June 11th. No statement on the RfAR indicates any email sent, so this would be the first to confirm any email was sent, and that it has been ignored for months.

I couldn't make a statement on the RfAR because I was blocked shortly after jpgordan made this statement:

This seems almost too obvious; why can't the community take care of this quickly? I'm waiting a bit before I accept, hoping it will become unnecessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Which, Moreschi uses that as the reason for his block -- not because of what the community says.

I've blocked this user indefinitely as his contributions contain nothing but trolling and tendentious time-wasting. Two years ago it was [[Joan of Arc]], now it's [[Astrotheology]]. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=217557162] for further evidence as to why this is necessary. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice, he didn't point to AN/I, an RFC, or any other dispute resolution process. He pointed only to the RfAR right after jpgordan made that comment.

Your statement that that the block was a community decision is false. There are no facts to support the block as a community decision. There is only the admins unwilling to overturn it because, as they stated, they don't want to go against ArbCom decisions.

Your post of June 7 got precisely no agreement from any other editor on your talk page (section: "Show support:").

Here is the last edit on June 7th: link.

The "show support" section (first presented as a petition) got added on the June 10th. The page was protected on June 10th -- the same day! No one could show support on that page since the page has been protected ever since. Your argument about "precisely no agreement" is absolutely wrong -- proven beyond doubt -- and quite unfair . I'm sure you'll hate that fact, as nobody wants to be wrong.

Honor depends on if you can accept being wrong here, and then doing the right actions afterwards. Maybe even show the right kind of fair and just support. I'm sure the ad populum fallacy could be well avoided if you state the facts correctly.

What Durova brought to RfAR is nothing new. She began Wikipedia on the Joan of Arc article, where I was editing and article with other editors. She opened a mediation case pretty fast after starting. Same one she used at the RfAR. She bring stuff up over and over until it sticks (or until someone gets annoyed). If any of the RFCs or mediation cases she did against me didn't fly then, why should they all of a sudden be credible as new evidence to quickly block me before I could make any statement at the RfAR?

There was absolutely no reason to quickly block me.

My daughter got harassed on Wikipedia, and you, as other ArbCom members, have helped Durova cover it up with illogical arguments (as shown above).

This shows you believe it is right to harass people on WIkipedia and even non-Wikipedians. This show you rather protect you own butt then care for what may be done to people's family.

This shows you support hurtful remarks made on Wikipedia despite what you said.

I'm not here to find you wrong FT2, yet it shows you avoid questions -- the reason I posted in Proabivouac's thread.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:39pm

[Moulton]

Would it be possible to do an Umpiric Peer Review here (or on-wiki at Wikiversity?), in accordance with established protocols for Scientific and Journalistic Peer Review of disputed theories or accounts?

[Jon Awbrey]

From yourself — unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself — unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered.

And some of us don't.

Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.

Not really. Are you noticing that people who post in a respectful genuine manner get replies, whether they are banned, hostile, or aggressive, or even whether — like Greg Kohs — they have posted provocatively on other occasions, and it's only 1/ Docknell and 2/ people who post without hope of their post being helpful to dialog, that I'm paying less attention to? As you write to me, is the general rule.

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who — for me — comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)

I'm sampling only about 1 in 20 of these now, but this one is too rich to pass by.

Reminds me of that new Apple Ad —

FT2 playing the Bill Gates Look-Alike on His Kiddie Throne —

I banish you … banish you … banish … banish …

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 3rd September 2008, 6:02pm

[Peter Damian]

I just want to respond to the statement FT2 made since it appears there is theme of concern about FT2 here in this thread.

Concern? Where?

By the way there is no such policy as [[WP:DENY]]. It's [[User:FT2/DENY]].

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:54pm

[Jon Awbrey]

I just want to respond to the statement FT2 made since it appears there is theme of concern about FT2 here in this thread.

Concern? Where?

By the way there is no such policy as [[WP:DENY]]. It's [[User:FT2/DENY]].

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

Not To Bee Co-Founded Wit WP Ab-User:DenyColt —

Hey, wait a 2nd — on 2nd thought I think I may have fingoed a hypothesis …

Jon