That's unfortunate...

What's more, she's absolutely right - I myself am in tears at this very moment, filled with sorrow at the immense degree of boredom I feel over this non-issue.




You said it, man! I haven't felt this good since they invented Viagra!

It's actually somewhat important--responsible administration can't be executed through joke accounts based on cartoon dinosaur characters.

There I am puzzled. What exactly was it that changed your opinion 180 degrees? I have supported you consistently here and on-wiki and in private also. If you felt I was wrong at the time, why didn't you say so?

The threats you refer to occurred more than a year ago. Is it that you only recently found out about them? The email in question about 'activists' was sent to WJBScribe and Glen Berry in a moment of anger. Only one outside site was actually contacted, and within a day the entire thread had been removed at my request.

They were not cowardly. No one knows who FT2 is, even now, whereas my identity could be worked out from my (then) user name. The blocking admins left blocking messages so that it would be clear to the many people using Wikipedia at my institution what was happening. I was left unable to respond to these threats, o/a of the blocks.

So, Giano, you know I have always supported you, and I always will and I will continue to speak kindly of you. But this is a little distressing.

[edit]
I checked again, and this diff, and the stuff that precedes it, suggests you knew exactly what the issue was. Why the sudded change of tone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=176137862#Help

A wise man once said ""we have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies, our interests are eternal and it is those interests it is our duty to follow"

But seriously, for the second time this week, I salute Giano.

I've no idea what Peter did or didn't post. However, wikipedia has all too much of people who have a common interest/enemy clubbing together than loyally defending their allies, even when their allies are engaging in reprehensible behaviour. It's a social psychologist's dream experiment.

Just because someone has "supported you consistently on-wiki" ought to be no reason why you should support them if their behaviour falls bellow standard. The gang mentality is extremely unhelpful and extremely childish. Loyalty should extend only to me first giving my friend candid private advice - but if he fails to take it, all bets are off.

A little less loyalty would create a better working environment for all.

I quite agree. I am just puzzled why this has happened just now. The event we are talking about happened more than a year ago, and he seems to have known all the details. Why this sudden u-turn?

I couldn't fail to disagree less.

And so I am offering to let Bishonen adopt one of my own alter egos, Gastrin Bombesin.

EK: I know you do tons of useful work on WP, and I´ll support you for admin anyday...BUT: Bishonen/Bishzilla is straight on target in that post, (both for you and for Durova), IMHO.

I really wish you took WP less seriously; two of my favorite WP-people this year have been the The Fat Man etc, and Bish. They have played WP as the MMORGP game it (partially) is. And they make me laugh!

Lighten up, EK, please? WP is only a web-site...

Well, in one simple word, Pete : Wiki Status. You see, you were instrumental in removing the evil FT2 from ArbCon and turning him (and it) into a laughing stock, untrusted by anyone important. Also, you are well-known, here and the other place, as the most most moral and, er, ethical editor/man in the whole world, what with all the pro-censorship/dislike of rampant sex/anti-filth posts and all that.

But what has Giana done lately? Nothing. Zippo. He feels he's been ousted by a superior Wiki-warrior, and, let's face it, he has. No more Mr. Top-Dog Wiki Critic for him. He's become a caricature of himself. I fear some of the dry rot and mildew from those rusty old barns he (unfortunately) writes about is beginning to affect him too.

Same old game, Pete. They build you up then knock you down. I'd say more, but I don't want to be seen as someone who just wants to stir up shit and/or cause trouble, or anything. There's enough of that sort of thing going on already, damn them all to hell.

Steady there, dogbiscuit.

I'd like to see you get your head around Metz's Grand Syntagmatique or Baudrillard! Media Studies is as vital and complex as other humanities - and is as relevant as courses such as English Literature or History. In fact, few scholarly fields are more relevant to understanding Wikipedia, so anyone with a Media Studies background should be welcomed at that place. It seems that a bogus assumption of what Media Studies involves began to permeate the media itself, to fit a political notion of a society "dumbing down". Don't fall for it - it ain't true - media studies is perfectly legitimate. (I didn't get a degree in media studies by the way - It's just a bugbear of mine when I see it disparaged! Feel free to split this off)

Specific experience rather than a generalisation

I agree with the sentiment. But Giano already knew this about Peter.

Actually, on my wiki-page (to me) Peter said :"relevant organisations" one assumes he meant the RSPCA etc; in his private email to FT2 his exact words were " I am posting at various activist sites,
and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this" So you can draw your own conclusion on how much I previously knew. However, following Peter's helpful link to my archived user page (above), I see I was awarded a "Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award" by no less a person than Merkinsmum, for my coments to Peter. I wonder what she thought Peter was referring to? Have you any idea Wiki-whistle?

Giano

Peter, re-read this exchange from a couple of months ago between the two of us - and vow not to get fooled again.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=142621



You were just a pawn in the "Giano Wars", Peter. Just another expendable footsoldier to be jettisoned when tactical demands take a new turn.

Giano's role in this whole FT2 revenge drama has merely sapped time, taken up space on this message board, and diverted resources away from resolving genuine problems on Wikipedia. Equally, SlimVirgin's reinvention as anti-corruption crusader, and her role in the demise of FT2 was in reality just another power-play in this lunatic interpersonal soap-opera.

At this stage of the game, nobody should have fallen for it. But plenty of people both here and on WP did.

I predicted that Charles Matthews and Jehochman would play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern last year during the Arbcom elections. With NewYorkBrad announcing their demise when all the dust had settled. In the end it was FT2 who was the ultimate fall guy.

This year, it can all start again, replayed with perhaps a different cast - or even much of the same cast?

I'm still completely confused by this.

1. Giano knew pretty much the whole story from over a year ago. He received a number of supportive emails from me when he cried that FT2 was beating him up too bad. I have always supported him 100% over here even at times when I didn't feel he was quite right (for example the recent thing with the email headers seemed obviously cooked up). He has also posted a number of emails expressing his disgust at the content of some of FT2's edits.

2. So why the extreme attack just now? Why call me 'cowardly' when I am the only one who has the guts to connect their real name with such a disgusting business. Check this Google

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=edw...2&start=10&sa=N

There you see my real name is inextricably bound up with FT2's false one, even unto an Encyclopedia Dramatica article with my real name (a rare honour, no?).

What's your real name, Giano?

I'm not going to judge between Peter and Giano.

But there's something important here. There are real issues with wikipedia. Issues particularly to do with BLP. Those are issues that the community really needs to focus on, and have also been of long and legitimate concern to this board. (Indeed that's why I cam here originally.)

The soap opera stuff, which is mainly about the power-politics of the Role-Playing wikipedia are just one massive distraction. I mean, who outside the bubble should care about FT2's attitude to animals, whether his edits were oversighted, or whether Lar did or didn't tell his wife about Slim's friend? It's all horseshit that concerns egos, personalties and pride of people who ultimately have the option of turning off their PCs.

It is understandable that wikipedians who feel wronged take it personally, it is not understandable why anyone else should care much.

My regret is that people with obvious tenacity and popularity like Giano, who have skills in making people listen to them, seldom or never turn their energies towards things that might matter to people outside the cult circle.

No, you really don't have the faintest idea about the real issues, do you. The issue is about the ownership of the Zoo page by a group of individuals led by FT2 who had an agenda to normalise the practice of bestiality. This group persistently bullied and tag-teamed against numerous editors who wanted an impartial view of the subject. Precisely the same issue applies to the Pederasty articles, and to [[Ayn Rand]] and Sociology, junk science and all the rest. I have been campaigning about this for a long time in case you hadn't noticed. See my articles here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FLAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TABOO

So while it also has plenty to do with power-politics, namely the fact that a person like FT2 with his advocacy for not one but two partisan fringe groups (the other being NLP), there is an issue of principle here. How does Wikipedia protect itself from fringe groups infiltrating its power structure and taking control? Any thoughts in your head, Doc. No, I thought not.

Sorry Damian, don't believe you. Not one significant thing you have said about your actions of December from then till now has been truthful.

• You claimed you "never" alleged participation. Quick test, you called Radiant! "another" dog lover. If he was "another" practitioner, whom did you believe/claim was the first?
• You claimed you were blocked by admins who subjected you to a "hate" campaign", but the truth is all you were asked to do was to stop acting up. You were unblocked on giving your word you would do so. Even your final block of December 2007 was to be unblocked on reasonable conditions. Would you categorize that as a "hate campaign"?
• Please reconcile this at RFAR ("I don't recall any allegations about a cult (this was another editor)") with this ("He is an adherent of the NLP cult, and a large number of the people who supported him at the election are either NLP, or other cults, or members of, er, certain fringe sexuality groups"). Then scan the list and indicate which are the "large number" of users who are "cultists" or "members of". How many do you think would be a "large number"? 40? 80?
• You claimed the edit was being used as evidence, and was deleted to prevent its use, but omitted to mention it was also being used in a blog post to "activist sites" and "organizations" (plural) where you were "spreading the word" as a means to identify a target. You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation. So... did you not think that other copies of your blog post might still be circulating...? Or is defamation and harassment just a game to you?
• Please reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your prior claim to have already contacted "organizations" plural. You were also asked where you had posted it to (by WJB, same post) and preferred to stay blocked than to answer and withdraw the matter. You broke your word repeatedly. Anyone reading your words is quite entitled to assume anything from SPCA to ALF, and certainly multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

And so on, and so on. You're mendacious, Peter. You fabricate and lie like some people fart - obnoxiously, habitually, loudly, and badly.

Name one reason your halo-polishing claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest.



You identified yourself as "Americanlinguist". A wide range of people (wiki and real-world) know who I am too, why wouldn't they? I'm not paranoid, just realistic that some people are not safe to give personal information to. A lot of others since I started editing have mine too.

Ha!

There's a simple answer to your question: it doesn't, and it structurally can't. Get over it.

Wikipedia is biased in 100 ways, and has various pages of minority interest (and not so minority interest) controlled by cliques of fringe and not-so-fringe POV pushers.

Without going into cultist pages, just try some neutral editing on Intelligent Design, or Messianic Judaism and see how far you get! Powerful users have been getting away with this for years (jayig anyone?) and always will.

Of course, you can fight a righteous fight against it, but you'll soon give up, as we all do.

However, there's a difference. If wikipedia contains biased, slanted, and controlled content, there's plenty of other things out there to ballance it, and so it's harm is minimal. (Probably no more "harmful to truth" than Fox News, and there's lots of fine content on uncontroversial issues to balance it). However, biographical articles on people otherwise unnotable on the internet can do real harm.

The details of any one episode of the recurring soap opera is probably of little interest to those who have never heard of the characters ensnared in that particular kerfuffle.

What's durable is the abstract structure and the recurring emotional features of the generic soap opera.

What makes sense is to factor out these invariant parameters, because that's the distilled fuel that perpetually drives the drama engine, from one block to the next.

We've mentioned this before, so it's not exactly a new pheromeme, but perhaps another random observer will awaken on this episode.

Narcissistic Wounding and Narcissistic Rage are staple elements of these banal soap operas. One can find copious examples of these bloody dramas going all the way back to Cain and Abel. And one can find modern analyses of these shreklisch dramas ever since Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote the first realistic novels to insightfully caricature these perennially dysfunctional communities.

The unspoken history behind the Lar/Slim affair illustrates the failures of WMF's governors much better than this FT2 episode. It should be told some day.

Why not?


At the end of the day, this is a minor issue at best. Wikipedia has far bigger problems to deal with than a pro-bestiality slant in a handful of infrequently-read articles. Your gripe with FT2 was and remains personal, and you are attempting to use the zoophilia issue as a lever to accomplish a goal which does not directly serve any interest save your own.

While I might see your point, isn't that rather a slippery slope? Someone could (rather laboriously) construct a line of reasoning as to why not everyone is a king and therefore your userid is disparaging thus making you unfit for adminship just based on that. (I don't agree, I'm just sayin...)

Purely names based analysis may not be a good approach. I recognise that may not be the only issue with the Bishzilla persona. However, I happened to find it amusing though, rather than a major issue, it's important to not take ourselves TOO seriously... my own avatar here and elsewhere is a feeble attempt to remind myself of that.

No, until WP requires real names only as identifiers, I think this is a dangerous course.

I have said many times I bitterly regretted that remark, made in a moment of anger, and a number of other remarks made between Dec 5-6.



Poisonous messages were being left on a group IP containing my real name. As I've said many times, and as you should know. The final block conditions were not made public, but were in an email from Scribe.



I have explained the chronology many times, to you, to Arbcom and many others. The blog was quickly deleted (evening of the 6th Dec, from memory, I can verify exactly, later, and I notified Scribe who can confirm).



I said, if you read my post properly, that I had made contact with only one site. I.e. sent a message and received a reply. ASAIRS is defunct, as I am sure you know.



And you have not answered my question about User:TBP. What is your view on the ethics of confronting poor Seus Hawkins by a sockpuppet like that?

[edit] I have also said many times that the account given by WJBScribe, which is evidently neutral, should be made public. If that is not possible, FT2 wo uld you accept a request for it to be sent privately to you?

Time time and time again you refer to these public unblock conditions placed on-wiki at a time when negotiations were going on in private. Can you not get that through your head? Scribe was happy that most of the conditions were met, except for the apology, and except for providing diffs to the edits. All this had been done, including the blog being deleted and THEN the oversights happened. This must be the fourth time I have explained it to you, yet you still continue with this theme?

HA!

Factions come and go, alliances shift, players join and lose interest but the factionalism continues. That's politics. WP is no more immune to it than any other human endeavour. When you're on the winning side, it's easy to forget, and say "this is different, no factionalism here! Just good guys doing the right thing". When you're on the losing side, on the outs, it's easy to overlook everything else and focus on just the factionalism, and the "injustice" of it all.

And yet, despite being somewhat dispirited about that fact, which is inescapable, I remain optimistic about WP as a whole, as I do about so many other things we humans do. Great things are accomplished in many arenas not because of politics, but despite it.

Will WP come out all right in the end? I don't know. But if it doesn't at least what it created is freely licensed and can be used in a new effort.


Nice avatar. Are you supposed to be Indy, or the whip?

A side note, I built the flying wing set last night. I found mistakes in the instructions. Another illusion shattered.

I think it's easy to determine which accounts are joke accounts and which are not. My account is not intended for humorous purposes, it is not based on a character, and it is my only account. I don't really care about the name itself, I care about the fact that adminship is being exercised through a secondary account that uses a special idiolect for comedic purposes and pretends to be a dinosaur.

A little satyrical humour does no harm, in fact I think it is good for WP. I see Bishonen has posted a reply to you there:

"Everyking, how you and Durova can bear to waste the community's time and your own time now the arbcom's time on the idiotic "problem" of Bishonen/Bishzilla is a mystery to me. You're even boring Wikipedia Review to tears on the subject, for god's sake! Nobody else cares! Unless it's time to add FaisalF to the club. Anyway, please stop worring, I've decided to stop using the sock altogether, I think she's had enough of a run. You'll have to get a new hobby. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC). "

C'mon Everyking, she's right, this is not like you, where's your sense of humour - mine is often sorely tested, but about the only thing that keeps me there.

Giano

I can only see a problem if "idiolect" was being used to address aggrieved BLP subjects or "members of the public", other than that, I can't see it any more problematic than "Can't sleep clown will eat" etc

How is it "preventing defamation" to hide part of the true editing history of the person involved? "Defamation" implies that something is being said that is not true, which doesn't fit the situation when people were having attention called to particular true edits, which were then suppressed to stop this.

I'm sure you do, but your personal regrets aren't what I'm asking.

Did you 1) make claims at any time of criminal sexual abuse, and then 2) spend most of 2008 explicitly lying by claiming you had never done so? Is it also not true that far from having any "regret", bitter or otherwise, you were busy continuing to imply this to other people as late as 16-17 September 2008 when you wrote Jimbo "I have not speculated about his private life" and Jimbo replied "You just did, in this very email thread".

(This referred to your email of Sept 16, "I don't care what he gets up to in his own time", I believe -- if you were not still implying, why would you need to "not care"?)



That's also not an answer. The "poisonous messages" can be seen in your block log. They were this and this. Evidence of a "hate campaign"? Laughable. Not that you would ever know what a "very nasty hate campaign" was, right? Do you still want to claim this was accurate? You haven't shown a solitary word to that effect.

You'll need more than "someone at work might have seen my block log" to support this complete fabrication of a "very nasty hate campaign". There was - but you were the one doing it, weren't you?



Not an answer. Did you at least tell people that you were also using that same edit to identify your defamation target to multiple "activist sites" and "organizations", or at the least, that you had openly told multiple people you had done so? Like hell you did. Don't you think if you had made that clear instead of trying to avoid acknowledging it, some people might have had a rather different view of it? Of course they would.

But you didn't want that, did you? You continued claiming the edit was removed to hide evidence, or to bias the election. You spun conspiracy theories about how it was removed, all the time knowing it had in fact been used to create serious defamation and that (rather than anything else) was probably the reason.



"I have contacted the relevant organisations". You do recognize a plural when you write one, don't you? And past tense? Are you saying this post was a deliberate lie to the community, then? Was this one supposed to be a lie, too? Intended to cause others to take you more seriously, or to over-react? You succeeded, didn't you. You indirectly caused many people to take it "seriously", all right. Like a WMF oversighter, me, Giano, people who read your posts, most of the admins you spoke to, and Jimbo himself.

You know what they do here if you shout "Bomb!" in an airport? Even if you claim it wasn't that serious later or you didn't really have one? They rip your balls off, Damian, if you have any, and lock you up anyway. Either way you're guilty - you meant it, or you're a fool.



"Poor Suess". My heart is dripping pathos right now. Do you really think anyone here wears their heart on their sleeve? You probably knew the background on TBP and Suess (just looked up to check I have the right incidents) and knew she was an SPA canvasser all along, but still try to push a case here because it suits you to portray her that way; you also apparently find it easier to focus on accounts involved and ignore the content. This is Emotional Cliches #101, Peter, "Make A Martyr Of Them". You lied (according to Thatcher's assessment) about Phdarts too which was rather transparent ("Later, he admitted knowing").


Do you really want to be flagellated for sin, like your fanatic namesake? And a mistress to "punish" you for being naughty? Do you like making sordid libels like this? Have you got issues around sex like your namesake? He liked a touch of the whip and punishment too, didn't he? You're a crap liar Peter, and that's been your approach right up to date - do it, then deny it while still doing it.

You offer no real response, no compunction, and you sought to mislead others to back your campaign. A token crocodile tear of "bitter regret" that's as likely maudlin self-pity for doing it so badly, and zero regret for the deeds you did. You lied - badly and loudly. Isn't that true? Do you yet have even one reason why your claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest?

Uffda!

See: Narcissistic Wounding and Narcissistic Rage.

You see, FT2, you can write with impressive lucidity when you want to.

It's a funny thing, hysterical in fact, and only just struck me, that all the time FT2 was being wrongly promoted as that rather underdressed massochistic gentleman, in the leather thong and ornamentation, Peter Damian's alter ego was exactly that sort of person. That's rather a perceptive point FT2, and kinda scary that no one noticed it before. Shudder, suddenly feels cold in here.

Giano

It's a pity you woke up so fucking late Giano. Apologies for the swear, but I've had a year of this bs and exactly like Poetlister suddenly people are going "ooohhhhhhh......"; I'm not exactly applauding. We have some slow learners, or what?

(Except KM who I'm sure knew it all along and likely thrived on watching. Popcorn any good, hun?)

And more a pity you tied yourself onto the fanatic's bandwagon - he leads, you gallop, right?

This is a good, short assessment of Wikipedia's current situation. Whenever any of you reading this gets too upset that certain articles are under complete lockdown by groups of editors, like the two Doc mentions above, just remind yourself that Wikipedia is an entertainment website. That's it. It's a hobby, or should be anyway.

Write some good articles that you can be proud of. Perhaps engage in a little admin drama to try to keep the project's admins honest. But otherwise please don't get too worked up about this stuff, except perhaps the BLP issues since that can have real-world ramifications as Doc points out.

Damain was wrong to threaten you in the manner that he did, but the fact you are in this predicament is largely your own damn fault. Qui tacet consentire videtur. The fact you have belatedly decided to set the record straight is good, but don't blame others for not denying what you could not be bothered to.

Giano

Could one of you proceed to http://wikipedia.org/ and remove the word "encyclopedia" in 10 languages, please? Because it's sure as heck holding itself out to be something other than "an entertainment website".

AAAGGGHHHH!!
POPCORN BAD! POPCORN BAD!!!
RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!!!

Oh yes, remember to copy and save your favorite Wikipedia articles and images to your PC's hard drive. That way, if Wikipedia goes belly up you can repost the articles to Citizendium or another wiki (or your own personal website) and you won't have lost all that hard work you've put into them.

LOL! I'm not saying that is true -at all-, but it is sort of funny in an 'ooh err mrs' sort of way. And the choice of name of course proves it. However I truly think a lot of people have issues around sex. We've all either not got over our inhibitions, or didn't have many to start with but gathered them over the years after abuse or destructive relationships. But that's a different issue.

What I will say FT is that you make yourself an easy target. Do you want to be a martyr for 'zoo rights'? Not saying you necessarily are a zoophiliac, but if you don't want people to think you are, why do you link to your subpages on

zoophilia and society
zoophilia and religion
List of studies into zoosexuality
research into zoophilia
An article claiming how all sex with animals might not be sexual abuse
zoosexuality and emotion
zoophilia and the media

on your talk page, which a lot of people might visit when they first encounter you on wiki? If they're on your talk page, they're not primarily there for you to use surely, at least on some level I think you want others to see them.

I suggest you remove these links, you can find all these from the list of your own subpages, its the same as I decided not to have a userbox with my religion on, on my userpage, in case people assumed I was a POV pushing and dangerous weirdo at a glance. I'd rather deceive them for a few weeks before they realise that.

I don't follow these dramas with anything other than a passing interest. But it I see repeatedly the statement "I'm not saying you are..." and on the other side "...are you saying I committed some crime?" Seems the door is well opened* so I wonder, has FT2 ever said whether he has engaged in sexual activity with animals (not the human kind that is)?

* Please no puns about closing the barn door after the horse...

Just say Neigh to horses!

Well even if he was, he wouldn't, would he? Not even a full time zoophiliac would come on an unrelated site and say "say it loud, I'm a sheep sh*gger and proud" I think it's technically a crime, for a start.

Hi FT2

Talking about fanatics and what they do to push their point, can you clear this one up for me? I know some may paint me as a fanatic for rooting out your dodgy editing and weird fringe arguments, but this seems relevant to a lot of your patterns of behaviour on WP and WR.


Here is a snapshot of you (using a sockpuppet), to remove negative press (BBC news in this case) about zoophilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=25718121

You moved it to zoosadism, however the actual article states very clearly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/741856.stm

"Dr Vizard says bestiality and zoophilia can also be signposts in a child's progression to other sexual crimes. "

Now I know you did not get blocked by Bishonen for adding that information to WP. But since we are on the subject of fanaticism, could you please explain why so many of your activities, edits, and proclamations follow this sort of pattern?

Docknell

Live and learn. Unless you're a sociopathic jerk who could care less.

A few drama-dealers cut the actual pharma products with cheap toxic household chemicals of salacious innuendo, then passed them out on the wiki-street as valuable and informative to people who took their word on it. And who cares who gets hurt because drugs.... are... such... fuuuun. Yeah.

This has shown all the ethics of the entrenched narcotics dealer: "who cares as long as I get my rake-off". The morality of the mob. And the back-pedaling is about as transparent as an Enron board-room meeting...... or a fetishist's saranwrap.

I'll admit I underestimated the need to defend myself. I thought it was all too inanely stupid and chose quiet dignity instead. "Let them go and they'll let you go", or "Don't react and they'll tire of it". It was quiet on-wiki and there's no reason to import dramas into the project. I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I? It wasn't dignity, but punch-bag, that I created. But nothing that I underestimated, nothing, holds a candle to the willing urge of some to have a party on tenuous grounds at others' expense -- or to wittingly or unwittingly endorse malicious hearsay for kicks. Mock my wordiness if you must, but I tell you this, I never considered hearsay and preconceptions, and I considered every arbitration case in full recognition that it would impact real people and each had the best I could give.

>_<

Drama extends over here.

OK nice bit of drama there FT2.

Could you please try to reconcile what you just said with your past actions in writing this (its mostly your piece of work) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

When you first came here, you accused me of being one of the people on that list you conflated. Anyone can access this information and check up on the diffs.

For the most part, the diffs seem to show editors working towards clarifying the NLP and the zoophilia articles with strong reference to peer reviewed studies and NOPV policies. They also seem to be avoiding defending themselves against your accusations.

They avoid defending themselves, just as you claim to have done, and at the same time they are getting blocked and banned left right and center. If you didn't "learn" from your own actions and accusations, then you would have to be utterly braindamaged. Basically, in light of your diffs, what you just wrote is utterly unbelievable.

There are also some really obvious outlandish accusations from yourself there, where you take totally unrelated personal attack accounts (different parts of the world according to the ip numbers) and try to associate them with critics of zoophilia and neurolinguistic programming.

So it seems quite odd that you now throw claims of people spreading malicious hearsay and of you being ignorant and naive of behaviour at WP. You are indeed your own worst enemy. Your little drama just backfired on itself and clearly shows how sociopathic you are as an editor and admin.

Docknell

I know why I'm not the world's most popular admin, and that's fine, it's part of Arbcom. But I seem to need a bit of a hint, why you're one of the most despised POV warriors from 2005-2007 to be banned from Wikipedia. Remind me again, will you?

Not one user back then had a single good word to say for you, even the ones who usually like drama. Epithets like "the most dishonest editor" were used more than a few times to describe your many pov war socks and personal attack socks. You rarely if ever argued except to sew divisions and dissent, or to cause pain to the users who got in the way of your games. But despite 3 years of effort, you never did find how to push my buttons, did you?

Your sole interest here at WR hasn't changed from your interest at WP 2006, when I first removed you from the wiki, on guess what topics... NLP and zoophilia. And retaliation games. What a surprise. You pushed the same boring line to DPeterson (banned), Jean Mercer (rejected the invitation to edit war for you), some guy whose post is on-wiki a year or so ago, and Damian. Finally you found someone who needed a Master and off he went, "Yes Master... Must Trust Master".... Tolkein would have been proud.

You have never said anything except to stir problems for the project. You were already sanctioned at Arbcom before we met. I've kept you off your pet subjects for 3 years now, and doesn't it just gall you. If you like sadomasochism, flog Damian a bit. He likes it.

FT2

I won't comment on the substance of all the arguments presented, but FT2 I think your reaction is refreshing and is something that should have happened a long time ago.

As you say, live and learn.

Quite. And don't I just know it...