Your first email to me was on 30 June 2008. They mention nothing of this. Or do you mean PM? I am genuinely confused.


Your first PM was on 26 March 2008, concerning Durova. You include the comment "Thanks for your supportive words - it is very sad I have to come to WR to be able to see things in perspective". This was in recognition of the fact that I supported your point of view then, and have continued to support you until now. To the point of breaking up a friendship with someone here because they attacked you.
Your next PM was on 17th April, as follows:


I have always defended you here and on-wiki with unswerving loyalty. I will try and continue to do so. So I don't quite understand why you are suddenly given me the Rottweiler treatment. I have apologised and said I regret those things 'bitterly'. Shall I say it again? It is not quite saying 'oops' after treading on someone's toe.

Peter, you were used in an attempt to take out one enemy; now they are hoping to flip that enemy in their quest to take out a greater one. They're more than willing to sacrifice you in that quest.

You will quickly discover that many of your "friends" don't actually care about you, but only aligned with you because you were against one of their enemies.

Which is, of course, how scholars and people of good will go about writing an encyclopedia.

I'm a little curious about how you yourself feel about this, KM - you've known Dave Gerard online since before Wikipedia, going back to Usenet and all that anti-Scientology stuff, right? You probably know as well as anyone that Dave has few (if any) qualms about resorting to dirty tricks and clever deceits in the service of whatever cause he happens to be defending at the time. I myself wouldn't be here at all if it hadn't been for one of them, in fact.

Back in the Old West days, when the Rule of Law finally arrived on the former frontier, and previously lawless towns became cities with police and judges and so on, a lot of the old shoot-from-the-hip gunslingers had a difficult time adapting because their skills were no longer required. I suppose some of them may have managed to become authors and movie-script consultants, but only the literate ones. Dave is more of a bile-slinger (and sarcasm-slinger?) than a gunslinger, but IMO the same issues apply - where would he go? What would he do after Wikipedia?

It just seems to me that Dave has a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia as chaotic and drama-ridden as possible, so that he himself doesn't become obsolete.

She's right, you know, Pete. You were once a white knight in a really good position on the board. Now you're being set-up to be sacrificed in a gambit to "get" the Black Queen. Probably. Heh!

Wow. I really don't know how to see this; for the past however many months you've been complaining about FT2 and this issue and kind of defending Peter Damian, and then suddenly when FT2 resigns Peter Damian should have been banned a long time ago and he was so cruel to poor FT2??? what. If you're really saying what I think you're saying, you're a manipulative dick and I no longer have any sympathy for you.

I worked on the Astrotheology (now deleted) article and got called, among other things, an Atheist, which further escalated into accusations to have a sole purpose to troll Wikipedia. Obviously, from your actions in ArbCom you believed it too along with the rest of the junk.

You seem to have understood, when you asked is it fair to believe that you have interest in zoophilia is because of a personal taste.

So let's have this said formally. Am I hereby acquitted of being a criminal sexual abuser and cultist, in your most insightful and penetrative gaze? Can I go back to being "an editor who likes tough articles", who has awareness of that topic area via anti-abuse work, and who also positively salivates at the prospect of good quality information? As opposed to say, a cultist POV pusher who likes to get his leg over in weird ways? I mean, I've lived with you saying things for a long time now. But if that's what you're saying then let's hear it properly.



What seems to happen is, your "mind" doesn't seem to conceptualize "neutral" when your emotions get in the way. It tends to reason along the lines "I don't want it that way, it shouldn't be that way, so it can't be that way."



Virtually every last email to me, every post, everything you alleged on Wikipedia and wrote to "activists" off Wikipedia at that time, was about "the other matter". N'est-ce-pas?



Deleted, not oversighted. And no, it was about as incorrect as it gets, as many in the community told you at the time: 1/ The media didn't care, 2/ when you tried to make them care, they still didn't much care, 3/ the community still didn't care, 4/ your entire success has been to use David Gerard's mistake to get one article written by Cade Metz, and his interest was the use of Oversight - otherwise even he wouldn't have cared.



I'm sure you are, but this is still completely a "political" apology. It's worthless. You need to make good by actions, not words - and probably a lot of them over an extended period. You "apologized" every time the heat round you grew or when you wanted something, and it didn't change a thing. Crossref The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I doubt you mean a word of it now either - except the regret that you didn't do it differently and with more success, more subtlety, less backlash. Am I roughly right?

I would accept a genuine apology. My apology after Orangemarlin was to take the backlash for the committee without arguing, and spend 6 months trying hard to get Arbcom process modified so it couldn't happen again. Was that fair? No. But it was right. And not making a public deal of it to get "capital", just doing it anyway to try and ensure it could never go that way again, quietly and in private.

That's an apology to the community. That's what genuine regret looks like, Damian.



"Lets walk away from that umm.. unfortunate feedback - next slide and next hanging party!"



I blanked the evidence page I prepared. But any user who wishes to check your actual allegations (on wiki and to third parties) to confirm they were actual allegations/implications of criminal activity, contrary to everything you have tried to claim since, can do so.



/no comment/



Which, of course, they were. You took up editing them because you believed I cared about the topic, a mere 3 days after your unban -- and you made sure to post little "Dear FT2" love-notes to my talk page about it just in case I might miss the point or not realize you were trying to "get" at me

No, you are a cultist POV pusher. See my entire re-write of the Neurolinguistic programming article. And see pretty much any talk page of the Zoophilia article.

I have no view on the leg-over bit, apart from what I said above - there is no evidence that I have seen of anything other than bias and promotion.

In any case, if you see my talk page, I am taking an extended Wiki vacation. The politics has got a bit too much for me.

As a legacy I leave you this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why...rth_is_not_flat

I hope it helps.

Entirely incorrect you don't know what you are talking about. A third party asked Metz to phone me from San Francisco. I said I would talk to him on the understanding he focused on the oversighting and policy aspect and I emphasised that the issue was of 'promotion' not 'practice'

I also complained to him afterwards about the lurid tone of the article. He can confirm this.

David has fingers in many pies. He is, as many of us know, quite active in Uncyclopedia, and we learned recently that he was in some way involved in several shock sites (lemonparty being probably the most notable of these). I think David has a very high personal drama demand, and keeps himself engaged in multiple dramaturgies in order to satisfy that need. The effective death of USENET must have hit him hard; that's a lot of lost opportunities for drama.

He should get a ham license and hang out on 75 meters; he'd fit in well there.

Gosh Kelly, you are so perceptive, yes it's true! Bishonen and I sit up all night plotting against David Gerard setting traps for him to perform illegal oversights, perform illegal checkusers and so on and he falls into the traps each time - you've spotted that gullible soft eager to please streak he has. Oh hell, we had not counted on your Miss Marple like razor brain seeing through us. The truth is if Bishonen had not brought the whole sorry saga to a close, by blocking FT2, it would still be dragging on - she is a daft woman, she should have allowed it to fester on damaging more and more people think of the scores she and I could have settled if she had. However, there is a plus, the arbcom are looking at Gerard's role, I am told, and as you know I have huge influence over the Arbcom so I expect he will be hung drawn, quartered and flogged naked off the site. This has been my intention since I first evilly encouraged FT2 to write about bestiality.Now you've foiled the plot - Damm you.

Giano

Careful, Kelly. This guy damns a fig tree and it withers.

I'll take my chances.

Since praise is too seldom offered here, let me say that I was taken back by the wisdom and perception of the above. I don't agree with it 100%, but nevertheless it has incite and perspective.

Thanks.

Yes Giano is often incite-ful.

That's exactly what I think, and have told him so. He seems to think he deserves slagging off and will just sit there and take it. For instance, the comments by RHMED to his talk page mocking him, he left up for ages. I think it will make him prone to depression or something, if he just lets people walk all over him in their comments.

Not so- you said you might report him to the RSPCA or something. That implies you thought he did something to animals they should know about.

I for one think the edits were somewhat erm...disturbing and he seemed to exhibit a knowledge of what might well be the inner life/self-justifications of someone with this issue. I showed someone the edits and within a couple of sentences they'd made up their mind. Maybe it was just an unfortunate impression the edits created. There was the block over "chocolate labrador", for 3RR too, although I think he was actually reverting a vandal, it shows someone taking particular care of that article.




Who are they trying to get at now, do you think? Not disagreeing with you, just I can't see their target yet. I too am surprised G has turned on Peter. If they're after David G, why not go straight for him? Or is it just that FT was the easier target?



Oh come on, these were some of your first edits. People don't even know about the wiki rule of Neutral Point of View when they join the project. They write about something they're fired up about, usually with a point of view. For instance, they might post a link to their own site, or in my case my most serious IRL enemies had written vanity and POV articles about themselves and how wonderful they are, so I joined to contribute to the AfDs

No not so that is a complete fabrication and you should know that from the Dec 2007 email I copied you last week. For goodness sake.

I said I would be contacting the appropriate organisations, by which I meant some of the organisations that had expressed concern about the Zoophilia article (e.g. ASAIRS). I talked to a couple then W Scribe asked me to stop & I did. Then they blocked my anyway (partly o/a of a crossed wire with Scribe which I had explained before) and then they oversighted.

The Zoophilia article was and still is a disgrace.

I hear your pain. What say we set up a small sanctuary for poor old FT2 on WR? A virtual soup-kitchen, as it were, where he can come in out of the cold and have a cup of tea? And a biscuit if he's good.


"Chocolate Labrador"? This just keeps getting weirder. I'm scared.

Assuming you mean "eager to please" himself, I don't think it's so hard to spot...

Seriously, though, there are such things as "targets of opportunity." And if in the process of catching one fish you manage to get a hook into a bigger one, that's more a case of working events to your advantage. It doesn't necessarily mean you must have plotted to get the bigger fish all along...


Well, her having foiled the plot (such as it is) would only be damnable if there had been plans to take lurid photographs of the hanging, drawing, quartering, and flogging, which would now tragically have to be scrapped.

Like I mentioned earlier, Dave is a very clever deceiver, manipulator, and deal-maker - to get concrete evidence of wrongdoing on his part is actually something of an achievement, given the way he operates.

Appropriate organisations, now that depends on interpretation of appropriate, your exact words, from that date, to FT2 were "I am posting at various activist sites, and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this." or am I mistaken, is that a lie are they not your exact words? (the higher case emphasis is yours)

Giano

That is consistent with my intention to contact ASAIRS - an organisation set up to combat Zoophiliac propaganda on the internet. As I said, I stopped this shortly afterwards. (and ASAIRS is moribund, anyway).

And why, if the edits were not bestialist propaganda, as I think they were, should FT2 have any difficulty with this? I wanted a second opinion of the edits, and I was particularly concerned that Wikipedia was prepared to appoint to a high position a person who was promoting this propaganda.

It seems Giano you do not view this as propaganda. In which case you could not view the message as a realistic threat.

[edit] I also discussed the issue at 'Veggie boards' but there was no great interest as it turns out that a number of these vegetarian eco-warrior types are themselves quite keen on these sorts of activities - FT2 will recall from his experience of the Zoophilia talk pages that this has happened once before.

[edit] Here indeed it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...401710#Advocacy

A sad user called Seus Hawkins tried to contact a Vegan society in Queensland. FT2 (as sockpuppet User:TBP) has a good laugh at him when he found out that some of the vegans were quite approving of, er, the leg over part.

activist sites

The words you used were "activist sites" that is a plural, what were the other sites? Activist, now there's nasty word, and as for Propganda - Oh just don't go there, you don't know the meaning of the word. Now sites with an "S" what other sites? You are fooling no one.

Giano

It is blatant propaganda. You are fooling no one either, O Giano. The oversighted edits were not the only edits I had a concern about. Shall we talk about some of those?

[edit] If you read the edit to my previous post, you will see there were two sites.



Veggie boards?

And here is someone else who feels it is all propaganda.

Have a pleasant evening. Night!

Giano

(snip)

Sorry—I was trying to refresh, not post.I'm hopeless with this mysterious site, I give up. Bishonen.

Just click the edit button of your post, Control-a in the edit window, and replace it with something appropriate like "oops'.

There is an interesting comment by JoshuaZ at RFARB#Bishzilla regarding the exposure of his deceptiveness and subsequent humiliation. He has accused someone in a position of authority of leaking secrets to Greg -


Who's "we" Josh?

edit: I was reminded that Josh is referring to this leak that originated from the arbcom mailing list.

The JoshuaZ sockpuppeting post

Why not ask Bishzilla what to do?
Bishzilla not post while try to refresh. Mysterious site Wikipedia Review not intimidate Bishzilla. Bishzilla not hopeless and give up intimidate Tokyo, etc.

FT2

It’s impossible not to see the huge discrepancies between your statements and your behaviour.

People are not calling you a dogshagger to your face. Nobody is taking you to court for abusing labradors.

What has happened is that folks have noticed you have been trying to take them for a ride. Your extreme and indirect verbosity and inclination towards the defence of the fringe psychocult of neuro linguistic programming are only indicators of your approach to your abuse of Wikipedia.

The research that people have placed in WR shows significant evidence of you promoting fringe beyond reason.

The many links in the FT2 section of WR show evidence of you trying to push fringe argument and you trying to stifle majority ethical reasoning. The evidence shows you trying to drive off editors who simply provide research to correct your obviously fringe pushing antics.

There are a lot of people who have seen what you do, and are simply sick of your abuse.

Doc

I have seen scant evidence of ethical reasoning in the Wikisphere.

And ethical reasoning has never been in the majority, on Wikipedia or anywhere else on this planet, since the dawn of civilization.

Hi Moulton

I am pessimistic about WP, but optimistic about the world. Legal systems the world over have their faults. However, there are intelligent and reasonable ethically based rationales that put the welfare of animals in terms of fiduciary duty (duty of care). WP should start to work towards making sure those views are presented correctly.

FT2 and others do seem to have worked hard to occlude those views, and other ethically based views against the spread of general misinformation by psychocults such as neuro linguistic programming.

People don't base their objections solely on the "yuk" scale when evaluating pro-bestiality arguments. There is a strong ethical base to many people's gag reflex.

Doc

Since the ArbCom is obviously not going to desysop Bishonen/Bishzilla, it ought to at least put an end to this joke account adminship nonsense. I made the following request in my statement: "I call on the ArbCom to require that Bishonen use admin powers only on her main account. The Bishzilla account has a comedic nature that is not suited to the role of adminship, and furthermore it was the Bishonen account, behaving as a serious user, that passed RfA."

Personally, I think that anyone who believes it's appropriate to exercise adminship through a secondary joke account is unsuited to adminship on any account, without even considering Bishonen's conduct in the recent incident or past events.

My bold. Yes that is exactly it- not only the yuk factor (although that is quite intense, as animals don't even usually wash, plus it would be quite brutal) but for most of us we see our pets having a relation to us that is more like kids. Not that they think it through that much perhaps, but they are not in a position to give full consent for many reasons, not least that they are almost entirely dependent on us for their food and shelter; also, they have the reasoning powers perhaps of a young child.

Jesus H. Christ. How a humourless sod like you managed to get yourself de-sysopped is a complete mystery. Sounds to me like you'd fit in well there.

Bishzilla slightly exaggerates reality to make a statement that demonstrates the true nature of governance of Wikipedia. I believe the account is a net positive.

Quite. With that limited mentality, it's amazing that God lets any of them breed at all.

Disgust is undoubtably a motivating factor when classical moralists declare some practice to be "an abomination in the eyes of God."

But ethical reasoning is considerably more sophisticated than a preachy rationalization of a moral war on disgust.

Ethical reasoning involves an insightful reckoning of long-term consequences, and eschews practices that will send those poor young animals into tearful years of adult therapy.

Disgust and ethical considerations are often one and the same. Think of one's reactions to hearing of rape, incest etc. Not saying they're necessarily the same in this case. When disgust is not aligned to ethics, it often is more akin to the feeling of something that's physically a turn-off or a feeling of being disturbed/ creeped out, perhaps.

Not quite. Children often do things that are quite disgusting. So do mentally disturbed people. So do old people, actually. A nurse told me that old men in a ward would often masturbate in front of her.

But you don't blame them for it, at least (in the case of children) you don't blame them in a deep-down sense.

On the other side, there are things that are not disgusting in any visceral sense that people deeply disapprove of regard as deeply wrong.

Cleary Giano felt it was deeply wrong of me to send that email to FT2 December 2007. But he didn't find it disgusting in a visceral or 'yukky' kind of way.

Our sense of right and wrong is closely tied to that of responsibility and freedom of choice.




Augustine, City of God V . 14

How on earth do you know in what way I find things disgusting? However, let me tell you one of the things I do find disgusting: petty, prisy little Anglo-Catholics preaching second rate morality in order to hide their own failings. Your threats to FT2 were not just disgusting, they were nauseating and cowardly - like your subsequent self-justifing squeeling and shrieking here, on finding that I do not universally admire everything about you. I had some sympathy for you untill I found out just how deep you were prepared to wallow in shit - you have behaved in such a way as to make one beleive you are completely lacking in moral fibre.

Giano

About 25 years ago, American Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, published Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. He takes a systems theoretic approach to the age-old philosophical question of Free Will, pointing out that if we have enough insight to anticipate the likely long-term consequences of a course of action, we can make wise and intelligent choices that lead to a more desirable future outcome.

JK Rowling repeats that wisdom through the character of Dumbledore, who mentors Harry Potter on the matter of choices that define our character.

Ethics is about crafting and employing reliable mental models that anticipate the benefit or harm that flows from a decision. Peter Senge develops that notion into The Fifth Discipline: The Theory and Practice of The Learning Organization.

The art of devising Ethical Best Practices is an essential learnable trait of any successful organization.

It perplexes me why Wikipedia has ignored and eschewed that seminal contribution to the sum of all human knowledge, wisdom, and insight.

Yes that's the prob. If you are not with PD 100% you are against him. A lot of people are like that. However, the timing of you having a go at PD is interesting, in as much as you were trying to get something done over the FT issue so didn't feel able to criticize him till now.

What was in this email? I must've missed it. Was it more threats to report FT to someone?

This is great! I gotta get some popcorn!

Disgust is moral reasoning played out on the time scale of evolution.

Come on, Giana. Quit shilly-shallying around. It's important to get these things off your chest. Tell us how you really feel about Pete, for God's sake. No holding back, mind.

But exercising adminship through a primary joke account is OK?

I mean, this is the site that (until recently) had an admin named Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and don't forget current admins with names like Blood Red Sandman (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Butseriouslyfolks (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cantthinkofagoodname (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (T-C-L-K-R-D) , David Gerard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Evil saltine (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Faithlessthewonderboy (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Goodnightmush (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Hamster Sandwich (T-C-L-K-R-D) ... should I go on? I'm barely into the H's.

Bishonen, angrily responding to my statement, now says that she is retiring the Bishzilla account. Shouldn't she also announce that on the Bishzilla userpage and request the removal of Bishzilla's admin rights?

Hi Giano

Looking at your essays on WP and comparing with the sort of statements you make here; it seems to me you are starting to sound quite "lower 6th".

The subject of this thread is interesting. Bishonen seems to have done something pretty useful about the problem of FT2. FT2 was always under self-imposed threat because FT2 made obvious promotions of fringe and harmful sexual practices, fringe pseudoscience, and obviously worked hard to find ways to wield power and continue the protection of said obvious fringe biases.

If that statement makes me a prissy anglo catholic type to you, that is just your view. In the UK we generally punish bestialists for abusing animals. It follows that people here have a serious disregard for those who promote the practice as if its some sort of erudite and fashionable lifestyle.

I make no particular claims to being popular, intelligent, or literary. But I know what scientific findings are, and I know who really needs a good clout for abusing privileges, spreading misinformation, and generally trying to lord it over the prols.

I've been following this situation pretty closely for a while. When I read FT2 had been generally discredited as an admin, and then blocked, I suddenly found myself in a very cheerful and positive state of mind. It was as if somebody somewhere had got something right for once.

Doc