Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo Options

[GlassBeadGame]

But a year on from Jimbo vs Rachel Marsden - and two years on from Essjay - and three years on from etc... etc... - one would have imagined that a long term editor who has reached the lofty heights of the Arbitration Committee would have figured that out by now.

I did that because nobody else was trying to sort it out. Idealistic yes. Also prepared to back that with sleeves rolled up and hard work. My choice. What wasn't my choice was a crackpot theory that owed more to a cheap well-thumbed stroke-book and gullibility than anything else -- and an entire site willing to collectively lap it up and spread it on. That's what I figured wrong, isn't it? Ignoring would have worked with Damian alone, or Damian and a couple of others. It was the mass buy-in to his wet dream that I didn't allow for, right Kato? Not Damian himself.

What is most disturbing about your advocacy for at least tolerance of the view that sex with animals is under certain circumstances non-exploitative and perhaps in some sense a normal state of affairs is that it almost exactly parallels Erick Mueller's documented views that sex with children under certain circumstances is also non-exploitative and a normal state of affairs. The "Yuck" factor alone is deserving of closer scrutiny of the nature of people in positions of high authority on Wikipedia. Add to this Wikipedia's refusal to take any reasonable steps to apply child protective features or policies to the site, which has a huge level of participation and use by children and you have a very serious criticism of the site.

Maybe you think your views about sex with animals deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia in which adults of any sexual proclivities work side by side with children but I think not.

I'm also completely at a loss to understand whatever rage you have against Peter and why you are expressing this in vague sexual terms. It certainly makes me less willing to treat you with kid gloves concerning your views about sex with animals.

[FT2]

What is most disturbing about your advocacy for at least tolerance of the view that sex with animals is under certain circumstances non-exploitative and perhaps in some sense a normal state of affairs is that it almost exactly parallels Erick Mueller's documented views that sex with children under certain circumstances is also non-exploitative and a normal state of affairs. The "Yuck" factor alone is deserving of closer scrutiny of the nature of people in positions of high authority on Wikipedia. Add to this Wikipedia's refusal to take any reasonable steps to apply child protective features or policies to the site, which has a huge level of participation and use by children and you have a very serious criticism of the site.

Maybe you think your views about sex with animals deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia in which adults of any sexual proclivities work side by side with children but I think not.

I'm also completely at a loss to understand whatever rage you have against Peter and why you are expressing this in vague sexual terms. It certainly makes me less willing to treat you with kid gloves concerning your views about sex with animals.

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller? And of course "OMG THE CHILDREN"! And that's your concern? I nearly wrote a book on this and other forms of abuse, to identify for those who care, what's accurate and what's not. It doesn't make me an expert, it doesn't mean sympathy for abusers, it does mean that inaccurate hearsay does untold harm. Here's some examples:

Suppose in your self-righteousness, you go and write an article on a form of abuse, just the way you think it should be. Damn them all, cut their nuts off, full steam ahead on all preconceptions and hide anything that's known, that challenges that view. Trouble is... people who need to know the current state of research get misled. People dealing with it for real will lack access to current knowledge. "Everyone knows" is pernicious and evil compared to actual careful checking of knowledge. In your own way, you're abusing as much as any. Imagine if we allowed the article on rape to read that all men are evil and will rape women as soon as look at them. Or the article on drug abuse read that everyone who has just one toke will graduate to heroin. What about the article on homosexuality - "everyone knows" homosexuals groom children, right? 50 years ago that was exactly the state of common belief. And you'd have been right there railing for it. Not perfect arguments, but you get the point. "If we make dope even slightly less than evil then people might try it!" "If we tell kids about homosexuality maybe they'll grow up gay!" Would that genuinely help people who might look to an encyclopedia for current knowledge?

I'm sorry that research doesn't tally with your personal preconceptions. It didn't tally with mine. You think I expected to find that? But I checked - apparently a damn sight more carefully than you choose to. Go off and complain to the researchers and authorities in the field if their view doesn't work for you. Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?). There are papers that emphasize well the connection of animal and human abuse, to a shocking standard. But the view of the field is that their research for various reasons is not authoritative, nor well informed, about the topic of zoophilia generally, as opposed to abuse. If for you those are the same, then rest assured for most of the authoritative voices on the topic within science, they usually aren't. The voices of the field are not "fringe", nor minimal, but as best I can tell, the voice of every serious research in the topic since proper research started in the mid 90's. It surprised me, and I checked that out for myself. But if that's how it stands, then that's how it stands. I dealt with it. You might have to.

Go look at the article in 2004. A bit of definitions, a bit of porn, a bit of law, a bit of myth. Information for a parent, or a person distressed at their own fantasies? For researchers? Anything at all about the human beings or (in sad cases) the victims? Any useful data at all? Not a shred. I looked at Wikipedia for information when I heard of the site, there wasn't any, so I ended up adding a bit. So shoot me. What I added was well within common knowledge on the topic (for those who have done the research), and was cited on the talk page when asked ("ref" tags didn't exist back then but the obligation to write factually only was evident). Do many newcomers meet that standard on their first edits? I then pretty much dropped the topic unless it came up on my watchlist.

My next edit was 4 months later, as a result of issues identified during an edit war. You know how that goes: "damn, this does have issues, lets fix it". I haven't touched the article in any significant way for close to 2 years or more. Other early editors included Herschelkrustofsky, Zordrac, Mindspillage, Tony Sidaway, ... some seriously, some only in passing; all obviously suspect too, I guess. You don't like the topic? Nobody asked you to. I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

This post has been edited by FT2: Tue 20th January 2009, 5:53pm

[Peter Damian]

So let's start:

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skoppensboer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ation/Zoophilia

[GlassBeadGame]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller? And that's your concern? I nearly wrote a book on this and other forms of abuse, to identify for those who care, what's accurate and what's not. It doesn't make me an expert, it doesn't mean sympathy for abusers, it does mean that inaccurate hearsay does untold harm. Here's some examples:

Suppose in your self-righteousness, you go and write an article on a form of abuse, just the way you think it should be. Damn them all, cut their nuts off, full steam ahead on all preconceptions and hide anything that's known, that challenges that view. Trouble is... people who need to know the current state of research get misled. People dealing with it for real will lack access to current knowledge. "Everyone knows" is pernicious and evil compared to actual careful checking of knowledge. In your own way, you're abusing as much as any. Imagine if we allowed the article on rape to read that all men are evil and will rape women as soon as look at them. Or the article on drug abuse read that everyone who has just one toke will graduate to heroin. What about the article on homosexuality - "everyone knows" homosexuals groom children, right? 50 years ago that was exactly the state of common belief. And you'd have been right there railing for it. Not perfect arguments, but you get the point. "If we make dope even slightly less than evil then people might try it!" "If we tell kids about homosexuality maybe they'll grow up gay!" Would that genuinely help people who might look to an encyclopedia for current knowledge?

I'm sorry that research doesn't tally with your personal preconceptions. It didn't tally with mine. You think I expected to find that? But I checked - apparently a damn sight more carefully than you choose to. Go off and complain to the researchers and authorities in the field if their view doesn't work for you. There are papers that emphasize well the connection of animal and human abuse, to a shocking standard. But the view of the field is that their research for various reasons is not authoritative, nor well informed, about the topic of zoophilia generally, as opposed to abuse. If for you those are the same, then rest assured for most of the authoritative voices on the topic within science, they usually aren't. The voices of the field are not "fringe", nor minimal, but as best I can tell, the voice of every serious research in the topic since proper research started in the mid 90's. It surprised me, and I checked that out for myself. But if that's how it stands, then that's how it stands. I dealt with it. You might have to.

Go look at the article in 2004. A bit of definitions, a bit of porn, a bit of law, a bit of myth. Information for a parent or a person distressed at their own fantasies? For researchers? Anything at all about the human beings or (in sad cases) the victims? Any useful data at all? Not a shred. I looked at Wikipedia for information when I heard of the site, there wasn't any, so I ended up adding a bit. So shoot me. What I added was well within common knowledge on the topic (for those who have done the research), and was cited on the talk page when asked ("ref" tags didn't exist back then but the obligation to write factually only was evident). Do many newcomers meet that standard on their first edits? I then pretty much dropped the topic unless it came up on my watchlist.

My next edit was 4 months later, as a result of issues identified during an edit war. You know how that goes: "damn, this does have issues, lets fix it". I haven't touched the article in any significant way for close to 2 years or more. Other early editors included Herschelkrustofsky, Zordrac, Mindspillage, Tony Sidaway, ... some seriously, some only in passing; all obviously suspect too, I guess. You don't like the topic? Nobody asked you to. I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

The world does not need your amateur "scholarship" on the matter of sex with animals nor certainly not "Zordrac's" for that matter. I don't ask you to "improve" it. I don't wish to dialog with you about the content. You are not the giver of enlightenment on this matter. I am most concerned about the article, noted by Peter, that you linked from your user space. It is a direct parallel to "Muellerism" in respect to his views on sex with children. It ignores any notion of "position of trust" and says "no pain no foul." At least provide, and advocate for the use of parental controls to put your nonsense beyond the reach of at least some children.

Better still get off the internet until you can learn some editorial restraint.


Note: I refer above to this link, which was provided by wikiwhistle not Peter.

[wikiwhistle]

before they had no choice but to assume his silence meant it must be true. Personally, I don't think he is as bad as he's been painted, any more than a doctor interested in VD must be a syphlitic habititual user of tarts.

Not quite, IMHO. A professional interest doesn't look like this. How many people would have this 'zoophilia is romantic or harmless' POV?

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Tue 20th January 2009, 5:55pm

[Peter Damian]

You [FT2] make numerous comments with no published proof to back you up, or you use the lack of research as proof that no problem exists, which is nonsense. Many of your comments are simply your own feelings or intuitive insights, as you see them, into this subject. Without wishing to be unkind, I do find your arguments mostly lack merit scientifically and even logically. Please don't take it personally. But if your main contribution to this effort is to plead for as little as possible to be said on the grounds of your convictions that there is minimal risk, you are wasting your time. And I really don't want to waste any more of my valuable time going over the issue of risk (is there? isn't there?) with you any further. Skoppensboer 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[...]
As I said, FT2, you really are not well versed in this area and perhaps you should get a medical person or epidemiologist to debate this with me. The simple fact is that many humans illnesses can and do originate in other animals, and are therefore zoonoses, and these zoonoses are far more likely to infect people who are sexually intimate with infected animals than people who have no contact with infected animals, and their risk is at least as high as the known-to-be-elevated risk of those who own, farm, breed, kennel, slaughter or otherwise deal with infected animals. Skoppensboer 07:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[FT2]

The world does not need your amateur "scholarship" on the matter of sex with animals nor certainly not "Zordrac's" for that matter.

Well there goes Wikipedia...

I don't ask you to "improve" it. I don't wish to dialog with you about the content.

Then don't raise the topic.

At least provide, and advocate for the use of parental controls to put your nonsense [emphasis added] beyond the reach of at least some children.

Better still get off the internet until you can learn some editorial restraint.

You love personalizing it. That's your current tack. "Your" views, "your" nonsense". You're entitled to your view on what's valid content. My view (as a 2004 newcomer) was if we have an encyclopedia, and it has an article, and the public are invited to add missing knowledge, let that article be useful to researchers seeking information. My 2009 view is that "not censored" is right, for many reasons.

Presumably you'll edit conservapedia then, or encarta, and we'll put all the dangerous knowledge on a separate website with age verification only. Sex education to start at 16, and no mention of anything except missionary position and heterosexuality, to upset them. Are you living in the real world here?

[Moulton]

How about some education on due process, civil rights, scholarly ethics, and the scientific method?

[GlassBeadGame]

The world does not need your amateur "scholarship" on the matter of sex with animals nor certainly not "Zordrac's" for that matter.

Well there goes Wikipedia...

I don't ask you to "improve" it. I don't wish to dialog with you about the content.

Then don't raise the topic.

At least provide, and advocate for the use of parental controls to put your nonsense [emphasis added] beyond the reach of at least some children.

Better still get off the internet until you can learn some editorial restraint.

You love personalizing it. That's your current tack. "Your" views, "your" nonsense". You're entitled to your view on what's valid content. My view (as a 2004 newcomer) was if we have an encyclopedia, and it has an article, and the public are invited to add missing knowledge, let that article be useful to researchers seeking information. My 2009 view is that "not censored" is right, for many reasons.

Presumably you'll edit conservapedia then, or encarta, and we'll put all the dangerous knowledge on a separate website with age verification only. Sex education to start at 16, and no mention of anything except missionary position and heterosexuality, to upset them. Are you living in the real world here?

I am not surprised you cannot imagine positions outside libertarian Wikipedia and right wing Conservapedia. You are narrow and arrogant in your world view. You are not capable of doing a suitable job of providing information to children. You have no sense of limits or boundaries. You are usurping parental, even medical roles with wanton disregard and irresponsibility.

This material is on one of your own user pages. That seems like an endorsement of the content to me. Go back and hide in the drivel of atomized and annon content creation if you want.

[FT2]

(Snip) Skoppensboer (Snip)

You read rather selectively didn't you. This was the guy who tried to exaggerate statistics, his dialog repeatedly needing to be corrected due to "shock" wording and original research, whose editing was influenced by personal views enough to have invented facts without checking them, and who was so far removed from practical concerns to write that "The fact that animals do not carry human STDs is not worthy of mention". Tell that to some poor fool who tries, and can't ask anyone else about their fears. Still, we got a good informational article from it, that I haven't edited since, and which seems to be fairly balanced, so it worked out okay. The user you're citing stated of our combined work (1 2):

"If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic... exclusively and in such depth. I believe it may be unique. That is surely an achievement. Article now submitted for peer review, and comments received" - Skoppensboer

He finally concluded:

"I see you've been busy, and I like the solution... In the light of our co-operation on this page, it may be best to drop the dispute...."

Complaints? Or job well done?

This post has been edited by FT2: Tue 20th January 2009, 6:35pm

[Cedric]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller?

[ . . . yada, yada, yada . . . ]

I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

Keep digging. There's got to be a pony in there somewhere!

[Moulton]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller?

[ . . . yada, yada, yada . . . ]

I don't much like it either, but I'm a bit more willing to check out preconceptions and research than some -- and to avoid importing my own beliefs when I report to others what I found.

Keep digging. There's got to be a pony in there somewhere!

That beast looks more like a goat to me...

The Scapegoat - William Holman Hunt

[Peter Damian]

(Snip) Skoppensboer (Snip)

You read rather selectively didn't you. This was the guy who tried to exaggerate statistics, his dialog repeatedly needing to be corrected due to "shock" wording and original research,

Still, we got a good informational article from it, that I haven't edited since, and which seems to be fairly balanced, so it worked out okay. The user you're citing stated of our combined work (1 2):

"If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic... exclusively and in such depth. I believe it may be unique. That is surely an achievement. Article now submitted for peer review, and comments received" - Skoppensboer

He finally concluded:

"I see you've been busy, and I like the solution... In the light of our co-operation on this page, it may be best to drop the dispute...."

Complaints? Or job well done?

Not 'finally'. Do you really believe all this crap you write? The edit you link to is dated Dec 2006. But in June 2007 you edit war with him again. Perhaps you 'forgot' about that?

FT2, the points you make do not refute the point I made. If you disagree with me, I suggest you ask someone who is a true medical or psychological expert for comment. In the last decade, there has been a big swing towards evidence-based medicine (please read that wikipage). Under the new regime, much of the preceding research is inadequate, and not only in this area -- far from it! The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant. Much higher standards now apply for the publication of research, especially in august and pre-eminent journals. I think your understanding of this point is seriously flawed, especially when you point to journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology. This is not a recognised journal. It is not indexed by Medline and is not formally recognized in the fields of medicine or psychology. And lastly, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. From the journal's own website [1] we see they state: "Each issue contains (non-refereed) articles on topics related to the human-animal relationship, interviews with key figures in the field, book announcements, conference news and so forth." Skopp (Talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141138027

On your claim that he tried to exaggerate statistics, I have read his work and I know whose version I prefer.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 20th January 2009, 7:43pm

[FT2]

I am not surprised you cannot imagine positions outside libertarian Wikipedia and right wing Conservapedia. You are narrow and arrogant in your world view. You are not capable of doing a suitable job of providing information to children. You have no sense of limits or boundaries. You are usurping parental, even medical roles with wanton disregard and irresponsibility.

This material is on one of your own user pages. That seems like an endorsement of the content to me. Go back and hide in the drivel of atomized and annon content creation if you want.

It's always good to be told what I can imagine, by someone who's themself unable to imagine much beyond what the pulp media feeds them. Restores one's faith in human nature. It's easier to criticize than do anything about it, right?

That narrowness has written articles on everything from technology to history, movie plots to politics, human rights to law. It's been the one arbitrator to share and take so seriously the concerns many here had on BLP and spidering of "bad content on living people" when the chance arose. It's been a punchbag in order to avoid importing drama to the wiki, a decision I now see was well intentioned but completely mistaken. Bad mistake, eh?

As to the draft you mention, untouched since mid-2006, it's still in userspace - I got bored of it, moved on to other topics, or wasn't satisfied with it. Your "seems like" carries little weight; you've not been capable of distinguishing "writing about" from advocacy. Two short posts above; you couldn't avoid completely gratuitous personal assumption and OMG CHILDREN in either. "OH NOES!" I may go back to it some day, but I don't seem to like lingering in any given topic area too long. While you're waiting, consider the article on absorbent cotton (UK:"cotton wool"), which you can use either to block your ears -- or to smother provide protection for your children. While you watch "nice" tv, play games on the internets where children never go to sites other than disney, and share KM's popcorn. Your bleating "OMG KIDS!" and arguing for pulp belief, and explicitly objecting to having "scholarly encyclopedic coverage" (as you put it) is a bad idea that rarely works.

This post has been edited by FT2: Tue 20th January 2009, 8:04pm

[Peter Damian]

Flavius (NLP but illustrates my point that FT2 fails to understand the concept of reliable sources).

I've noticed also that FT2 is automatically accusing everyone that offers a critical view of being Headley Down. I've no intention of editing the NLP article (even though I could easily do so with the abundance of closed/private HTTP proxy servers around the world) and I ask only that this post remain in the discussion page to offset the self-righteous propaganda that FT2 has been spreading.

On reflection it was a case of "too many cooks" and this did not serve the interests of producing a good article. The problem now is that in the absence of any critical opinion (or its relgation to the sidelines) the article risks becoming a promotional "puff piece" for the NLP industry. I'm not offering myself as the antidote nor am I campaigning for the return of Headley Down. That notwithstanding both I and Headley and his/her many personas helped to "keep the bastards honest" (to quote the late Don Chipp). In my view Comaze and GregA were the best of the pro-NLP editors even though I feel that their commercial interests in NLP are skewing some of their views (but this is normal, we all have biases). Having Comaze and GregA edit the article doesn't alarm me. In my experience both had some understanding and appreciation of the notion of evidence and were quite clear thinkers. I don't feel I can extend the same assessment to FT2. FT2 carries an idelogical stench whereever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage.
[...]
64.46.47.242 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC) The editor formerly known an Flavius ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=94631169

And this one is perfect:

And BTW yes, this IS pertinent to zoophilia, for just as "bestiality" redirects to this page, so do these acts fall under the "zoophilia" rubric. To deny this shows that you have a political agenda on this page and you should therefore resile from further editorship for the sake of Wikipedia. Skopp (Talk) 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It took a while.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 20th January 2009, 7:56pm

[GlassBeadGame]

I am not surprised you cannot imagine positions outside libertarian Wikipedia and right wing Conservapedia. You are narrow and arrogant in your world view. You are not capable of doing a suitable job of providing information to children. You have no sense of limits or boundaries. You are usurping parental, even medical roles with wanton disregard and irresponsibility.

This material is on one of your own user pages. That seems like an endorsement of the content to me. Go back and hide in the drivel of atomized and annon content creation if you want.

It's always good to be told what I can imagine, by someone who's themself unable to imagine much beyond what the pulp media feeds them. Restores one's faith in human nature. It's easier to criticize than do anything about it, right?

That narrowness has written articles on everything from technology to history, movie plots to politics, human rights to law. It's been the one arbitrator to share and take so seriously the concerns many here had on BLP and spidering of "bad content on living people" when the chance arose. It's been a punchbag in order to avoid importing drama to the wiki, a decision I now see was well intentioned but completely mistaken. Bad mistake, eh?

As to the draft you mention, untouched since mid-2006, it's still in userspace - I got bored of it, moved on to other topics, or wasn't satisfied with it. Your "seems like" carries little weight; you've not been capable of distinguishing "writing about" from advocacy. Two short posts above; you couldn't avoid completely gratuitous personal assumption and OMG CHILDREN in either. "OH NOES!" I may go back to it some day, but I don't seem to like lingering in any given topic area too long. While you're waiting, consider the article on absorbent cotton (UK:"cotton wool"), which you can use either to block your ears -- or to smother provide protection for your children. While you watch "nice" tv, play games on the internets where children never go to sites other than disney, and share KM's popcorn. Your bleating "OMG KIDS!" and arguing for pulp belief, and explicitly objecting to having "scholarly encyclopedic coverage" (as you put it) is a bad idea that rarely works.

Self pity and orthodox Wikipedian non-sense. The world doesn't owe you an "encyclopedia."

[FT2]

Flavius...

That's this guy, right?

(Note: Woohoo and Katefan were appointed mentors on Feb 6; neither had any prior involvement. I had taken a break from NLP long before: Dec 1, 2005 - June 5, 2006 with 1 edit in that time.)

It's telling that the only cites you have are Headley and (possibly) editors banned with Headley.

(Snip) Skopp (Talk) 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think how you could make more of a fool of yourself, but it's hard, Damian. The background to this was Skopp's own OR and pov warring - specifically his response to being told to pack in his alarmist exaggerated-style editing, to which he stated "this conversation is about whether or not readers need to know that the expert opinions frequently referenced on the zoophilia page (and related pages) are not published in peer-reviewed journals..." Unfortunately this was a borderline pov warrior with a penchant for exaggeration and fabrication or OR which often had to be corrected.

Really, "poor old Skopp" was roughly the same as "Poor old Seus". Borderline pov warrior with a penchant for exaggeration, fabrication or non-checking for the first; SPA canvasser and open pov warrior for the second. And your third cite, a (banned) crony of Docknell's with a block log as long as your arm by two uninvolved mentors. At least Skopp's strong views contributed to one article and with effort he could collaborate; that's something the other two never did.


Your comment on me at arb election was "Very well-mannered, never rude, always civil. I avoid types like this in real life..." I trust you have an improved view now

This post has been edited by FT2: Tue 20th January 2009, 9:46pm

[Peter Damian]

Flavius...

That's this guy, right?

(Note: Woohoo and Katefan were appointed mentors on Feb 6; neither had any prior involvement. I had taken a break from NLP long before: Dec 1, 2005 - June 5, 2006 with 1 edit in that time.)

It's telling that the only cites you have are Headley and (possibly) editors banned with Headley.

I don't look first at whether someone was banned by you or by a cadre of yours. I look for clear and lucid argument, care with sourcing, a sound and robust understanding of WP:DUE, and (finally) whether they are qualified or not. You look for evidence of rudeness or previous blocks.

Flavius was a fine editor. I have been through practically all his edits, including the ones prompting the blocks that you reference.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 20th January 2009, 10:05pm

[dogbiscuit]

I believe tl;dr is the appropriate modern riposte is it not?

It seems though that FT2 has admitted what we all knew all along - that he wasn't being honest in his time on ArbCom, he was playing a character. All his public pronouncements were examples of exceptionally well-honed linguistic skills of someone trying to act a role of a careful thinker - when all along he's just some bloke with the same foibles (let's assume ) as everyone else.

The trouble is that it always showed - it was an unconvincing act that nobody believed - perhaps not even FT2 himself, as he could never trust himself to talk freely about - well - anything. It doesn't seem the right way to build an encyclopaedia to me.

[FT2]

I don't look first at whether someone was banned by you or by a cadre of yours.
(Snip)
Flavius was a fine editor. I have been through practically all his edits, including the ones prompting the blocks that you reference.

"Mussttt... please.... Masterrr!" goes Damian

The idea of WooHoo and Katefan (whom you probably never knew) being a "cadre" of any kind, much less of an unknown non-admin, is ludicrous. That, and Flavius being this sort of user.... that refrain of yours is sounding eerily familiar:

"I have made a careful study of all "Headley's" edits and I have made my own independent conclusions"

Yes, and they usually seem to involve allegations of fetishism and scanty clad males with whips and string vests, don't they? I to have serious doubts whenever you try and say you have "thoroughly studied" someone's edits. I doubt your "independent conclusions" took into account that every other editor who "looked" at Headley in depth -- even those strongly into "science" -- decided he was dishonest in the extreme. As indeed you yourself are. Dishonest apologies, dishonest self-defense, dishonest hiding that you knew Headley was your co-editor, dishonest representation of the extent of your defamation, dishonest description how many sites and bodies you contacted, dishonest denial of your allegations, and dishonesty in claiming you'd stopped making them and now regretted it. Your "evidence" when challenged is a post or two by a banned proxy of Docknells and two POV warriors.

Go back to Docknell. This thread's become mental masturbation, and at least in Master's hands you'll be safe - he knows how to spank a monkey properly.


And biscuit - calm is my norm. I'm calm now, and I'll be calm after this thread's done. I just don't usually feel obligated to respond to off-site drama. I prefer a quiet backwater life. I'm annoyed about having to do so now. A year of salacious idiocy and watching it being lapped up by others for kicks, will try any man's patience though. Just "ignoring" had turned out to be a really bad mistake, and it's had more than a fair chance (as has Damian); forget it.