Following a hint by Viridae I finally created a new account (renamed user 5).



What is this exactly meant to achieve? In an afternoon I make about 50 mainspace edits. All good quality edits in my view, the medieval philosophy article now at long last has a section on the early medieval period, but still missing the main and most important part. Some sensible introductions to some long-standing eyesores, a re-sectioning of the philosophy article to its original state.

What is going on in the head of this obnoxious little man?

A reply from Scribe on the blocked page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ren..._user_5#Blocked

Incredible. He knows that Wales refused to speak to me, despite the 'offer'. The evidence was oversighted - I have proof of that. Outrageous.

And now he refers to this thread!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198667324

As with bureaucracies everywhere, the process is vastly more important than the product.

As a further piece of nastiness, Scribe now blanks my original talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198664298

which he claims was a 'soapbox'. Judge for yourselves. Here is the old version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198641388

which if you read it contains an ''apology'' for an outburst that lasted all of an afternoon, and for which I apologised anyway. This incident is best forgotten. I have since downloaded all the 'evidence' where it is in a safe place waiting for a rainy day. In my view the whole thing should be forgotten. The editor I was ranting about has long kept away from the subjects I was concerned about. Why should it go to ArbCom? It would be a dark day for the enyclopedia if it did. Really.

To any of the administrators reading this: could someone PM me and we try to sort this out in a mature and above all ''reasonable'' way.



Well it's very very sad. You know I do love that encyclopedia and it was great to have a few minutes back there.

I know what you mean. I am happy I learned early on that it would be better if I -- painful as this is -- just "looked the other way" when it comes to stuff like this, since my real contributions to the project are too important to be banned by the cadre of "nitwits with a bit". Pledge allegiance to the database, not the current physical and social substrate that hosts it. Think long-term: the current management of Wikipedia is an unsustainable aberration. Eventually something will rip it apart.

Thank you for those words. Yet it is also the stupidity of it that gets me. I made one outside post onto my blog, which I deleted within 24 hours as Scribe asked. What I did not realise that there is some network which replicates the blog. Here is an example:

http://www.yogacara.net/taxonomy/term/111

Scribe saw this and accused me of reposting. Surely it is clear to anyone with half a brain that this network is just copying or scraping stuff from my blog onto their network - proof, it has loads of stuff that is not mine, plus the stuff of mine is just copies. I have no control over this. I explained this to Scribe 5 months ago, surely he must have understood. Yet he repeats the allegation again, on the talk page.

The other thing is that I was actually unblocked after the outburst, for which I apologised. Scribe subsequently blocked me indefinitely for what he interpreted as a legal threat, an offhand remark I made on Giano's page.

This guy is a highly-paid City lawyer. Are they that stupid? (Actually, some of them are).

Peter - you were blocked for harassment on your old account. You were asked nicely to desist and step away from the problems you were causing on someones ArbCom candidacy with quite frankly ridiculous accusations. Instead of stepping back, you took it upon yourself to move it to off wiki forums where you continously said you were going to contact authorities because one particular user was editing articles related to animals and sex - you took that as evidence he was sexually abusing animals! With the level of disruption and harassment you caused, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under any account name.

When you started contributing again today it was obvious from your edits that you were Renamed user 4 (what your old account was renamed to) so you were rightly blocked again. You don't make legal threats against other contributors with ludicrous accusations and ever expect be allowed to edit again. Your best bet is to contact ArbCom, but quite frankly, you need to find a new hobby because your behaviour in December was desturbing and not what we accept on the project.

Irony 101.

If anyone really really wants to edit on Wikipedia for any real life purpose, simply open an account and go nuts...editing. I am quite sure you will not be bothered. If you want an audience and a theatrical performance hosted by a group of teens and/or under-employed people that spend every waking hour of their lives typing, then go there, create problems, get banned and/or blocked and repeat as many times as necessary.

The latter is what we call insane where I come from. I used to repeat the same bad mistakes over and over, fully expecting to see different results. After all, I am ME!

Incorrect. That block was lifted.



I stopped. Look at the diffs (I have a collection somewhere) or look at the block log). I apologised to you, said I would stop (all this under duress).



That is entirely incorrect, and exactly what I was referring to in the previous post. The Yocagara network simply scrapes my blog and replicates. Can't you understand that?



This is not true.



That was not the evidence I meant. There were two diffs which were oversighted but i still have screen shots of those. There are hundreds of others which I have kept private and never published. Do you think I would be stupid enough to play all my cards in one go?



As I said, you have the chronology wrong. I was unblocked after apologising for a silly outburst. Just follow the thread on ANI is all I can say.



But I thought this sort of thing could be overlooked in the case of those making a valid contribution to the project? That article was festering away for 6 months for lack of any person with the right expertise to edit it.



Once again, I did not make anything that could be reasonably interpreted as a 'legal threat'. The situation, which lasted a day and a half, was exacerbated by your block which prevented 3,000 other users from editing (contravening WP:IP), plus the fact the old account had my real name, which some of those people saw. Harrassing people at their workplace is something WP frowns upon, why did you not take this seriously?



It would not be the best bet for the project or anyone. A lot of very nasty stuff will have to come out, I think it would be best for all concerned if we forgot about it. There were a lot of hot heads (not just mine, remember your block was lifted).

Also, I seem to remember Peter Damian calling attention to the paedophiliac "spankingart" site hosted by wikia, causing some red faces before the whole mess was flushed. After that little embarrassment, I'd expect to stay banned, and make time for a bit of being smeared while you're at it.

Sure, but that was paedophilia. I've mainly kept quiet about the animal stuff. All would have to change if it went to ArbCom. The editor I was concerned about has kept his nose VERY clean since the incident, so I say let sleeping dogs lie :-)

Here is one bit of evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4557792

here is another

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4559833

Scribe knows about these. Oh my goodness, they seem to have been deleted. You Ryan ? The Scribe?

But look, there's a whole lot more. Its just, I am hardly going to tell you lot in private when you can just delete it.

[edit] By the way, anyone with a grain of intelligence can find out what's in those oversighted edits. Or ask me.



[edit] I reminded Scribe at the time, who claims to be a lawyer, that it is very dangerous to delete evidence from databases in this way, without a proper record being burned and put in safe keeping. If this ever did get to the police, a lot of people are going to be in trouble.

[further edit] and btw I never went to the police about the paedophilia thing. The threat of publicity from this site caused good to triumph.

Peter - look at your block log. You haven't been unblocked. I lifted the original block because you said you would stop making legal threats, yet you continued and took it off site leading to yet another block, which still stands to this very day - this was pure harassment and very worthy of an infinite block. No need to start continuing these conspiracy theories - you made serious but completely false accusations and were sent packing because of it, I reiterate that Wikipedia doesn't keep editors that threaten to go to authorities because someone edits sex and animal articles.

Yes look at the block log, you idiot. You unblock here

13:15, 6 December 2007 Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dbuckner (Talk) ‎ (legal threat withdrawn)

Then Scribe blocks me AGAIN even though I had done everything you wanted.

14:53, 6 December 2007 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dbuckner (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (serious off-wiki campaign of harassment and attacks against another editor)

Look at the timing. I took a morning off work to remove everything I could remove, then I came to work. I logged on to check there was no block (I don't normally log on to WP at work) then BANG the autblock kicks in because of Scribe's subsequent block. All my colleagues can see my name when they try to edit and are laughing. You bastards. I did everything you asked, then you still block. Just follow the sequence on ANI. There are a lot of people arguing for and against. Then Scribe and Berry decide to reimpose the block. This is like during the war when you would confess or whatever to save execution, then you are executed. How can you look in the mirror.

I reiterate that Wikipedia doesn't keep editors that threaten to go to authorities because someone edits sex and animal articles.

I repeat, Ryan, what about the diff'd oversights. Anyone can work out what is in them. Why are you making a complete fool of yourself.

[edit] Come on Ryan. I repeat. Do you think it's fair to ask someone for evidence to support 'ludicrous allegations' and that Wales himself will look into the matter, like it's a big deal, then you oversight this as soon as the evidence (some of it, I repeat, some of it) is deleted? Do you think this is fair? Come on. Answer. Big boy.

I think they call that an auto-da-fé —

But you can call it your red-letter day —

Ay, there's the Rube …

Jonny

Let's put some of the evidence up here (I repeat, there is much more than this, and I have screenshots).

This

http://zetawoof.livejournal.com/8427.html#backstory

is from the LiveJournal account run by a whole pack of Zoophiles, mainly the ones who were involved in the WP Zoophilia article (the talk page of that article is an extension of the live journal group, which is itself an extension of the far more disturbing privately hosted bulletin boards where you get the disgusting porn and animal rape and torture. The posting here is a WP editor who is decribing having sex with his pet dog (moreover an underage pet dog). He even uses his WP name (ZETA = Zoophiles for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

So why are these accusations so ludicrous? Here is someone who is a WP editor, who has bullied animal lovers (the other sort) of the Zoophilia article in order to propagate his perverted pro-bestiality views, who has admitted to this illegal and immoral activity. Elsewhere he has publicly admitted to worse things, but let's leave it at that.

How dare you accuse me of doing anything wrong Postlethwaite you pompous ass. Get out of this if you have any sense. These people actually are very private and hate any kind of publicity they will not thank you for forcing me to bring this up.



Serious, but not false, as you see.

Seriously, you need to move on from all this. You're still standing by these accusations. I'm not going to suggest you spilling the beens on the information you have because I expect it to be as crazy as some of the things you've already posted. What am I even supposed to be looking at in the thread you post? It has nothing to do with the reason you were blocked - I read all the forums you posted to about this, I read that you were contacting the authorities and I looked through the diffs you posted to try and show your claims (which to be frank, gave no suggestion that the editor was abusing animals) - I'm not sure what led you to that thought, but it was just weird that you even came up with it. I'm sorry that someone feels the need to have sex with their underage (!?) pet dog, but at the end of the day - that's their business, not mine.

What? Why has it nothing to do with the accusations? The accusations are that a bunch of people who have sex with animals are editing the Wikipedia article on Zoophilia and skewing it to their perverted views. I just posted a link to a page which is by a person who admits to being a Wikipedia editor (i.e. he links from his WP talk page and is provably the same person) and admits to sexual abuse of animals. That person is one of the small group of editors, all zoophiles, who created the Zoophilia article as it substantially is now.

So I don't understand why this is crazy. You haven't commented on the paedophilia stuff, which was far from crazy (Wales personally ordered the site to be deleted).



No it is your business. That person is a Wikipedia editor, and can be proven to have contributed a substantial part of the Zoophilia article. How dare you call me crazy.


[edit] And you still haven't commented on the oversighted diffs. Why is it crazy to link to 2 oversighted diffs? They are provably oversighted. Why were they oversighted (on 8th December 2007, two days after the block logs you just posted? If all this was just crazy stuff, why were they deleted?

Ryan, out of interest, what is so ludicrous about it? Just curious

As to the 'legal threats'- would Wikipedia object to someone who genuinely thought an editor was committing a crime in real life, contacting the authorities? That would be sort of morally dubious at the very least, don't you think? In fact, admins themselves inform the authorities about editors, in some cases.

Not saying I necessarily believe what Peter believes, nor would I myself take the courses of action Peter sometimes says he will take as regards the police, but if he were to do so whilst acting under a genuine belief that a crime was being committed, people can only admire that, in a way.

Either that, or Peter is unhinged He has quite a rare personality type, but I wouldn't say he writes as if he were completely psychotic. I can see why he has reached the conclusions he has. Although I haven't seen all his evidence and withhold judgement, it is a slightly understandable train of logic, if possibly an overly simplistic conclusion to draw.

I felt I was in a similar position myself to that which Peter felt at the time, actually, on a site. This issue was a very different set of acts, and I actually had emails someone had sent me, where the bloke talked about what he was upto, and others where a survivor of his acts said how she felt about it. When I presented the evidence the large educational site deleted the account of the bloke concerned, a hebephile who had been upto various things, consensual and not so consensual, with young ladies from the site, whilst being 54 himself. He also worked in a college and had an affair with a pupil. I was turned upon for a while by some people as they thought it was not my business- personally if I hear from the woman concerned that someone is repeatedly taking advantage of young girls to the extend that their permanent opinion is that they were sexually coerced against their will, and using the site to meet them, and it has a negative effect on them for years afterwards, I would feel complicit if I turned a blind eye to it. Because if I ignored it and it happened to other women after that (which it no doubt would) I would feel and be guilty of not doing my bit to try to stop that.

So while I suspend judgement of whether anything is happening, I can see why someone might feel the need to say something if they believe a crime is being committed, as a general principle, rather than as regards WP:LEGAL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats

This bit "The Wikipedia community has a long-standing general principle that (almost) anyone is capable of reform. Accordingly, statements made in anger or misjudgement should not always be held against people for the rest of their lives once genuinely and credibly withdrawn."

So- what does Peter need to do to be allowed to edit again?

A WikiPrefrontal Lobotomy by a Certified WikiPsychiatryst might help.

And I do mean "Certified" in the nicest possible way.

Jonny

Isn't it obvious? Nothing he does will allow his return to the site, as given a collection of 2000 administrators, it will always be easy to find the small set (called a "consensus") that will support the block forever. Further, that any kind of "you can edit now, subject to ..." allowance will be rigorously enforced to the N'th degree, and a single violation of even the most trivial aspect of the allowance will lead to a re-block that will be even more difficult to remove. (And if you can be tricked or lead to believe something you want to do is not a violation, but then after the fact, deemed so, all the better!)

This isn't just speculation. All of the above has occurred. This is why the part about

"The Wikipedia community has a long-standing general principle that (almost) anyone is capable of reform. Accordingly, statements made in anger or misjudgement should not always be held against people for the rest of their lives once genuinely and credibly withdrawn."

is just pure bullshit. Wikipedia would do itself a favor and strip the whitewash and deal with it's users (and abusers) more honestly.

Yes I know lol, well what they'll say is that he didn't retract his view as such. I can sort of see their point that legal threats might deter editors from editing, such as I think Peter is saying he will keep quiet because the editor concerned is currently keeping clear of those articles.

On the other hand, it is sort of trying to police peoples' thoughts.

If Peter says he won't make what they consider to be legal threats again or something, I think he should be unblocked. Unfortunately he isn't saying that as I understand it. He's saying he won't be "disruptive" as long as the editor concerned 'keeps his nose clean' as he sees it. This obviously could inhibit the other editor.


So in my book, that's what would need to end.


But I disagree on principle with the sentiment that it's not someone's business and they should turn a blind eye if they believe a crime is being committed. It depends on your view of the crime concerned, obviously. I wouldn't tend to report alleged 'zoophilia' to the police simply because I don't have strong enough views about it to go through what is an arduous hastle. I mean the fetish is sort of ewwww, but to me doesn't require action from me the way hearing of a perceived rape would. It's more similar to hearing about Furries lol but maybe that's just me.

Sorry, what? Animals don't have the ability to consent to sex with humans. In most western countries, doing that counts as animal cruelty and should be reported to your national animal welfare association.

Yes I know, I'm just saying I personally don't feel as strongly about it as I do about human rape. But I respect Peter if he were to report it if he believes it's going on- it's sexual crime after all. In my experience, reporting what you believe to be a crime and seeking to get the police to do anything about it, is an arduous and unpleasant process, so I personally wouldn't do so unless I had strong evidence and felt very strongly about the issue and/or person concerned- that's all I mean.

To an animal welfare charity might be a different matter- they would definitely go round and investigate, I expect. Which might deter someone, even if no evidence is found which can lead to anything further.

It isn't a sexual crime, it's an act of animal cruelty which is covered under most animal welfare legislation in the west. It is the animal welfare organization you should report to, not the police.

Rape is not sex. Rape is violence.

In the UK, where I am, it's a crime too, I think http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...30/ai_n14606720 - isn't it where you are? It certainly is in some countries and people have been prosecuted for it.



It involves the act of sexual penetration without full consent. No semantics are relevant one way or the other as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone remember this?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article145635.ece

Wait, are you saying that you agree with Peter
that said event did indeed happen?

Huh? I thought you were saying these were
completely false accusations...?

lol I presume Ryan was responding merely to Peter's comment, as he mentions 'underage' dog (peter's words) and goes (!?) I presume implying that's an irrelevant/random thing to say.



Yes lol and more recently this happened, http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?...46&in_page_id=2 though not in the UK.

No, sex is consensual. Rape isn't about sex,
lust, passion. It's about power, domination,
humiliation, degradation.

Rape is no more like sex than pushing
bamboo slivers under a person's fingernails
is like a manicure.

This article explains more fully.

Yes, I know the argument but I personally am dubious about the use of semantics over this issue because I've also heard the statement "rape is not a sexual crime. It is a crime of violence" used by the opposite 'team'. They try to say it's not rape unless you're being violently raped (in their definition of it- usually involving being hit etc too.)


But that's just my own issue over the argument

I agree with Andrea Dworkin's argument to an extent, I think, though it could be a misinterpretation of an argument, she said all heterosexual sex in a patriarchy is rape or something. That's going a bit far, but I think non-consensual sex happens far more frequently than most people imagine, even in relationships.

The reason why Peter is blocked is not because of "pet dog" user, it's a different one and he seems to be bringing new arguments into the equation to defend himself, but that has no relevence to his indef. I honestly don't care about who wants to sleep with what, but I do care about serious accusations without any single scrap of evidence to back them up.

Rape, schmape. What is so difficult about this for non-cultists to figure out? This is yet another example of something that would be an open-and-shut case for a real encyclopedia published in the real world, but Wikipedia can't seem to see past their moronic rules against "legal threats" and "personal attacks" and "offsite harassment."

The WP article on zoophilia says things like this:

Yeah, right. This crap isn't "encyclopedic," it isn't "NPOV," it isn't "sourced"... and it absolutely is not true. This is "political correctness" claimed on behalf of some seriously disturbed people who are trying to push their seriously disturbed "views" on the rest of the world.

What this is is a perfect example of why Wikipedia should not cover "certain subjects" at all, period, in any way whatsoever. How can they possibly defend this?

Unbelievable.

Wait, you say you don't care, and then you say they are serious accusations?

It turns into a serious accusation when he stated he was going to contact the authorities.

Ah, I see. I imagine that animal cruelty is also a crime in the country where you live, so are you basically admitting that you don't care if people break the law?

How does that make it a serious accusation? That only makes sense if the authorities would then prosecute the guy for some crime. And if that's the case, what the hell are you doing obstructing justice?

That's the problem with it, and I believe I've commented on this on-wiki - The actual rationale for the "no legal threats" policy does not in any way justify including reporting someone to the authorities under the name "legal threats", and the only explanation I can find is a basic vindictiveness that some people read into the NLT policy that is not actually present in its text.

Threatening a user with off wiki action to the authorities is serious enough, especially considering there was no evidence at all. Escalating a situation from where an editor is editing a page in good faith, to calling animal welfare agencies simply because they're editing the article is completely out of order and clearly harassment - there was not one bit of evidence in this case that the user in question was harming animals, yet Peter carried on regardless with his threats of action. I honestly do not know what thought process he was using, but it was spurious to say the least.

So he calls the welfare agency. If the guy is in fact doing nothing wrong, they find that he has done nothing wrong and move on. What, exactly, is the problem?

Hang on here - let's back up a step or two. I'm guessing that Peter here says he made a connection between the WP editors inserting pro-zoophile material into the article, and one or more persons affiliated with this "ZETA" group? And you're saying his evidence for this was "spurious," or at best unconvincing on any level?

And now Peter is saying he has material to back up these assertions that he's withholding, but doesn't want to bring it to a public ArbCom case because it would only put WP into further disrepute.

So what's the difference between Peter here, and someone like, say, Will Beback? It seems like it's OK to bash people who support, say, Lyndon Larouche, six ways to Sunday (though I'm not saying I blame people for wanting to do that), but if you try it with people who are actively trying to tell the world via WP that it's wonderful to sex with animals, it's OH NOES! WP:NLT! WP:NPA! BAN BAN BAN!

I know, I know, "Wikipedia isn't perfect." Like we don't realize...

Pffffffffffff... Bwahahaha!!! This made my day. It makes it also clear that the idiot who added this was into something.

The reason behind Peters' block was nothing to do with ZETA editors, he was going to call the authorities because he presumed that FT2 had been abusing animals because of the mix of pages he edited - he didn't like the fact that FT2 edited Zoophilia and a Labrador page. Is that conclusive evidence for an off wiki harassment campaign and reason to starting contacting animal welfare officials? No. There was no POV pushing in FT2s' edits, it was simply the articles he was editing.




It's the fact that he shouldn't be escalating disputes to such a stage without any evidence whatsover.

So, let me get this straight. Peter was not banned for causing any harm, nor even potential harm. He was banned solely because he did something you think he shouldn't do?

Please tell me I'm missing something here.

Isn't whatever amount of evidence he has or does not have the welfare agency's business, and not yours? He is claiming now that he has evidence he did not share with you.

Nope, it's our responsibility when he's saying he's contacting authorities on-wiki - I would expect a fellow admin to understand NLT.



He made many clearly worded legal threats on and off wiki - c'est la vie.

Peter, why would you want to make better ANY part of that dreadful database, so long as snakes are running the joint?

But, besides that, you could have gone back with any number of made-up screen names and never been caught. I have three modestly active sockpuppets "ripening" now. There's been no discovery of them. No blocking. No retaliation. If you're there just to make a big drama scene, congratulations on your choice of a screen name. I had my fun doing that, too, with names like JossBuckle Swami.

But, really -- you should have your head examined, to discover why in the world you'd ever want to try to improve an article about medieval philosophy, when some punk in his mom's basement has more control over the final status of your account -- and that article -- than you do!

(Don't ask why I have sockpuppets in place on the site, but I assure you, it's not for long-term improvements to the database.)

The NLT policy is designed to stop lawsuits. This is because, in the United States, lawsuits against you are very expensive, even if you win them. And lawsuits can be brought by pretty much anyone who doesn't like you. Criminal cases, however, require evidence before they even begin. If the authorities find no evidence, there will be no case, so nobody is harmed.

NLT speaks of litigation, and there is nothing in it to support its extension to contacting authorities. (there's also nothing in there to support blocking only ONE of the two parties to litigation).

I do understand what policy says. Furthermore, I understand - and this is what you seem not to in this case - what policy does not say. I've commented on this on-wiki before. A lot of people distort the application of NLT to treat it as if we're somehow trying to punish people, or to "protect" one side (whichever side is more established, usually), when what the policy is actually there for is to prevent wikipedia being used for improper communication between parties of a lawsuit.

Or how about this - the next time someone makes a suicide threat or school bombing threat or whatever else, you be the one who blocks whoever notifies the police. I'll bring popcorn.

<obligatory cinematic reference>

"Enough is enough! I have had it with these

motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking website!"

</obligatory cinematic reference>

Contacting authorities was the first step Peter was trying to do in taking legal action. If you can provide one piece of evidence to suggest that FT2 commited a crime, then I might listen - until then, it's a clear threat, with no evidence to back it up and therefore an irrational threat to make on wiki. You should consider reading the facts of this case Random, and the completely unfounded allegations, coupled with him posting to multiple off wiki forums attempting to gain support for his cause. He was clearly harassing FT2 and was rightly sent on his way.