Kelly, hun, your stint on the internet obviously taught you little. See the things in my posts with lines under them? Those are called "links", or "hyperlinks" if you're fussy. They show you stuff. The small thing on your table near your rightmost floppy limb is called a "mouse"; you move it to the "link" and "click". It will show you some text.

I think I have to point this out for you, because if you had cared to read the posts I made, you'd see they contain "links" to stuff called "evidence" and "citations" of a good standard, which you can read (you do know how to, right? You aren't having this explained to you by your kid brother?) and which will inform you. Or allow you to contribute intelligently and with a reasonable clue, for one thing.

But what should one expect from a lass who (if memory serves) declared last year she's done nothing in the last 2 years except trolling? Go microwave another bowl of popcorn, and don't worry your pretty head anymore about the big world, 'kay hun?

Told you he'd have something to say about popcorn. I rest my case.

This has become on of the most toxic threads in WR history,
yet it did accomplish one public service: it showed FT2 at his
prevaricating worst.

Oh, and btw, if you guys aren't careful, I'll start posting links
to certain deeply insane furry-porn websites. There are
millions of them. Proving that it's not an uncommon fetish
(although still quite disgusting).

popcorn and porncop …
popcorn and porncop …
go together like horse
and marriage …

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Well, now you are truly back.

next verse is something about a furry with a singe on top —

but i think i'll hand the mike over to milton & moulton, inc.

and get my ja-jas out of here …

Too easy for Wikipedia:



Bonds and gags and kids in a hurry
To find hentai sex with a furry
Lumps and chunks of porn in a slurry
With the crud— on top!

Apparently a friend of FT2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=100412113

Has a long history of conspiring with a certain group of editors to prevent, and in some cases ban, those who dislike the Valentine aspect. Self-admitted 'fencehopper' - this is Zoo code for someone who does it with other people's pets. Usually while pet-sitting, so be careful who you let into your house. Yes, I have screenshots.



I have no quarrel with FT2 beyond what he is, or was, doing to the encyclopedia. I have a particular dislike for editors with a fringe viewpoint, or cranks, and I have a history of running them off the project quickly. When I first encountered FT2 in Feb 2007 he struck me as a particularly dangerous crank, namely one who wasn't quite as stupid or ham-fisted as the usual variety, possessing a considerable degree of native cunning. Moreover he specialised in not just one but two cranky areas (Zoo and NLP). And I really disliked (once I checked out the edit history) his history of getting good editors blocked or banned. There really are an incredible number of editors who came off badly in 'close encounters with FT2'. Also worrying was the EssJay-like influence he has over certain gullible members of the admin community. I don't know how he does it - his manner is so obviously self-serving and that it is hard to see how people could be taken in - but he undeniably has this influence. And it clearly extends to Jimmy, who should know better at his age.

Hope that explains the 'grudge', which is not personal at all, how could it be, this is the internet, and I have no idea who FT2 is, and don't care (even when I tried to contact the external sites, it was to try and discuss my concern about the Zoo article and its propagandist tone.

[edit] Another interesting editor here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drum_Scope

Looks very much like a Headley sock. Question: will FT2 try to block him, or get someone to block him? As I have always claimed, Headley is not a bad editor (althought not a brilliant editor for all that, sorry Headley) and FT2's pursuit of him certainly does seem like a grudge.

Note who's placed a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on his talkpage. Such a civil way to say "we're watching you". Based on his contributions so far, he should expect quite a few other templates in the near future.

That said, Zetawoof is a polite and conscientious editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia

and (you may be surprised I am saying this) the subject is a lot more complex and difficult than you would believe I have represented it. I just think that if Zoophiles are going to be editing Wikipedia articles, they should declare this up front (as he, to his credit, has done).

Actually there are a few socks on that page now.

But that polite and conscientious editor re-added the the complete nonsense you removed and restored the article to it's Valentine status. Now there is that awkward impasse status where nobody wants to do what is clearly needed. All it needs now is an embedded ogg file of Barry White playing in the background. I worry about you Peter, you accept too much of the culture of Wikipedia. Sometimes disgust is more appropriate than AGF.

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

Discredit wikipedia from outside of its control structure, maybe?

Not edit Wikipedia? Nothing is worse to your long term well being than to work in an environment that is incapable of making distinctions on this level. Of course "sex with animal" POV pushers are all polite and "helpful." They have found a home in which there disgusting ideas are welcome. You validate and legitimize them. Better to criticize from outside Wikipedia.



Well we certainly seem to agree.

That's what I just did lol and it was so much more fulfilling! I doubt Peter would have to publish via lulu.com though. However while I'm researching the next one, it's th perfect excuse to be on WP.

I am hopelessly addicted, as I have mentioned before, re the need for rehab or recovery or something like that. This site is like methodone.

Yes as I have said I am writing a book but I have a substantial block at the moment and Wikipedia is displacement for that.

Well, you have worked very hard trying to bring sanity to some of the darkest corners of Wikipedia. You are our Van Helsing.

s/displacement for/an obstacle to/g

Wikipedia is ultimately disempowering for the majority of its users - even those nincompoops who believe they attain positions of power or leadership through their titles in the wikipedia structure. Looking around the wikipedia/wikia landscape, I see much independently-produced content lifted and stuffed into a monolithic block, where every piece of information is force-fit to a corporate form and ideology.

I encourage you to make your escape.

And he needs a weapon more powerful than a crossbow.

Better yet, write a book on the evil implications of Wikipedia......

For example: whenever someone asks on Yahoo Answers or similar sites
whether bestiality is legal, the answer is usually no......but the Wikipedia
zoophilia articles are frequently quoted.

What a clever and sneaky way to indoctrinate the sexually-confused adolescent
into the Animal-Sex Club. Nice going, FT2 and Zetawoof. Bastards.

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

DSM III, which is far more definitive than either a dictionary definition or one purported (I have no interest making my own determination of his bona-fides) researcher's distinction, includes in your own quote, the completed act of having sex with an animal. You want to ignore this and retreat into the justification of "just thinking about sex with animals" as some kind of mitigation. You are creepy beyond belief.

It appears like backtracking too I have to say.

I agree that the definition is crucial. See the my essay on taboo subjects below (WP:TABOO). If 'Zoophilia' really does not mean the ''practice'' then we will simply change the title of the article to 'bestiality', since it is clear that nearly the whole article is about the practice. E.g the section '''Books, articles and documentaries about zoophilia'' lists books about sexual crimes, case studies of preferential bestiality, 'Sex between humans and animals'. 'Forbidden sexual behaviour' and so on. I have no problem changing the title of the article to 'bestiality' if you or any of the other regulars on that page object to the definition.

The point is, the article is about the practice.

Glass Bead - the original in DSM-III contains the word "or" (= this or that). The intro correctly contains the word "or" (= this or that). Damian removes the "or" to misrepresent it (= only means this). You get upset when this is pointed out? Go back to Conservapedia and rant there about the evilness of science and how it should be used to prove gays are evil or evolution doesn't work. I'll see you defending Intelligent design next time, right?

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

So stop acting like a prima donna and just say "yes, I agree that edit of Damian's was inaccurate". That was the only point being made.

Mary had a little lamb
Its fleece was white as snow.

The lamb turned out to be a ram
Mary had a little lamb.

You are a fringe POV pusher and dishonest hack. WP will shelter you to some extent, much to it's dishonor. PD ought to disengage in any process that permits you an opportunity push this rubbish.

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.



Duh.



This from the man who forged a quote to make it look as though premier linguist George Lakoff had endorsed Neurolinguistic programming.

To please FT2 I have modified the definition, while still placing emphasis on the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266203148

Well then you should add a depiction of someone thinking about having sex with animals for every depiction of someone having sex with an animal to decorate that Valentine.

Excellent.

Which is odd since in simple terms, I'm the one citing the mainstream sources, while you're the one basically implying that we shouldn't reflect science here (and that anyone who would want to report the science honestly and in full rather than "what everyone knows" is evilnezz, because it's a horrible subject).



Would you rename homosexuality to anal sex (a common misconception) or men who have sex with men? I thought not. There is a subject covered by significant reliable sources called zoophilia, and it is not just about sex. There is also a somewhat narrower topic about bestiality that is all about sex, but is also covered by zoophilia as well and currently handled in the same article.

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it, but it's probably not needed. There's only so much one can say about sexual acts at the best of times, and a second article on the actual mechanics is pretty unnecessary. Documenting the article subject is one thing but should not need to descend into gratuitous discussion of the actual physical actions. Covering zoophilia generally as an umbrella article (including both practitioners and fantasizers per mainstream definitions), animal sexual abuse, and health aspects (human and animal, no article really covers the latter well yet), are probably more useful ways to do it than trying to split into 2 articles as zoophilia vs. bestiality.



This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.

Bullshit you are doing a vanity piece on a topic that you are obsessed with and Wikipedia, in it's typical inability to show restraint, is indulging your irresponsible and disgusting behavior. If you need help locating the needed depictions of people thinking about having sex with animals to round out your Valentine a good starting point might be hivemind.

This is an interesting discussion. I just noticed PD's participation on Talk:Pedophilia, where he made a clear distinction between the act (which would be abusive--covered at child abuse or something similar) and the desire, which [[Pedophilia]] is apparently about. I guess he thinks that Zoophilia should have a similar structure.

Given that, I guess he would ask you whether [[Child sexual abuse]] should be likewise merged into pedophilia.

[Sorry to butt in here, but I literally looked at Talk:Pedophilia two minutes ago.]

All this one article or two, or seven ......... it's all so unnecessary. Why not just redirect all that animal-shagging crap to this? Tells it like it is, that does, and some will like the pic.

It seems to me likely that some people will edit these articles as a way of focusing attention upon the subject matter and obtaining erotic satisfaction. The article become a kind of fetish trophies. Continuous edit wars, revision, discussions and multiplication of articles provide an ideal canvas for this type of purpose.

Wtf? lol. We could redirect all of this to [[Sick fuck]]. Just joking



My mate thinks it's gross that I'm involved in these articles now, and is mocking outrageously. He keeps saying, "research purposes," that's what they all say" as I'm forced to read stuff about this.

You're not going to win this argument in this forum, FT2. It's probably best if you leave it with your last statement.

I might add that I find it disturbing that the number one search result for bestiality or zoophilia is a Wikipedia article that is effectively influenced by a 22 year old college student who's been having sex with dogs since he was 15 and jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

BLA BLA BLA BLA...MORE BLA BLA BLA BLA ...Drama and other minutia Ad nauseam (this spelled correctly see Websters, larua. The little realized fact by the typical Wikipediot, is; if it was not for the google juice and the high search engine placement of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would but just a self generating drama engine for Sociopaths, Napoleon complex sufferers. This will go on, endlessly unless Wikipeida is discredited and dismantled.

A bit too bitten to make a good Buffy.
More slayin' and less parlayin' please!

Ja³

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

I think he will be here soon. If any of you banned users are on the article, do you think you are improving or worsening the unbanned one's attempts to improve it? Or does it make no odds?



I can't get those webcite urls to work. I found a copy of the page though. Won't link as it reveals more personal info than he'd probably want to share. At least there aren't any pics of people in action.

I already said that over 100 posts ago. As ever, he's not listening.

FT2's increasingly shrill justifications remind me of the advice that an old trial attorney once supposedly gave to a new attorney: "When the law favors your case, expound upon the law. When the facts favor your case, expound upon the facts. When the law and the facts favor your case, expound upon both. And when neither favors your case, pound on the table."

What I find most striking about "Zetawoof" is from the earlier link you provided, tarintino. In it a fellow traveller says:



and Z is not upset at the loses this guy suffered by not forming a caring relationship with another person, be it heterosexual or gay. No he is most concerned that this devastated person has responsibly put his former victims beyond further abuse by neutering:




Such are the twisted, selfish and uncaring views of this abusive and exploitative bastard. Presumably this is the kind of advice he would impart to the young person that FT2 is so very proud to have turn to Wikipedia for advice on these issues.

yea ..........ad hominem posts do get rather tiresome, and most often contribute more heat than light

Ugh. Damn.

Last night I saw the documentary Manda Bala. It spent a lot of time talking about the prominent Brazilian politician Jader Barbalho. A more corrupt man you won't ever meet, at least according to all the Brazilian police and prosecutors the film trotted out. Yet Barbalho had managed to fight off every legal challenge. He even was prosecuted and jailed, yet he managed to get the charges dropped by appealing to friends in the superior court. He used his massive media empire, including the primary newspapers and broadcast outlets in Belem, to get himself reelected to the Senate--after resigning in shame.

There's also the matter of billions of dollars that Barbalho managed to launder and make disappear....not to mention a long list of people who were jailed or "disappeared", to make Barbalho look good.

They even managed to get Barbalho to show up for an interview. He talked to the filmmakers for a few seconds, realized they were out to document the truth, and left in a huff.

(Ironic that the Wikipedia BLP about him isn't very detailed, and appears to only cover events up to October 2002--he was jailed shortly after that. I wonder if I just discovered a BLP that was "sanitized" by one of Barbalho's lackeys? Needless to say, type his name into Google, and this BLP is the top hit.)

And guess what, it's supposedly illegal to sell or show "Manda Bala" in Brazil.

Wikipedia is like Brazil. A huge, utterly corrupt country, overwhelmed
with corruption and crime--none of which is obvious on the glossy surface.
And FT2 is like Jader Barbalho, an utterly smooth, serene, lying sociopath.
Like Barbalho, he would have no power, if he didn't have toadies
(like the utterly pathetic Zetawoof) to help him with his dirty work.

Obviously this thread has become entirely about FT2 and zoophilia, but I need to point out something relevant: Bishzilla's admin rights were transferred back to the Bishonen account a few hours ago, and the account's user page was deleted. As far as I'm concerned, then, this situation was an all-around success: FT2 was forced off the ArbCom and Bishonen decided to stop playing silly games with the responsibility that was given to her by the community four years ago. I recognize that my viewpoint on the latter is not popular, but I don't think you can seriously criticize admin abuse while arguing that Bishonen should be allowed to play games with her adminship. My viewpoint is consistent: adminship is a serious responsibility and it should be exercised only by people who behave like serious adults. I don't much care that Bishonen happened to be on the right side of this wikiwar in political terms; occasionally I can let something slide for political reasons, but the nature and conduct of adminship is central to my criticisms and I won't make any exceptions for that.

While looking at the logs, I noticed this interesting detail: "Bishzilla" actually bestowed rollbacker rights on the Bishonen account last year. It is disappointing that nothing has changed since then to make this account-swapping, self-promotion nonsense impossible. There isn't really anything, aside from shame, to keep from Bishonen from playing this game all over again. You can lose your adminship for political reasons, but not for treating it as a joke.

No comment on any of the rest of it, but what's the issue with the alternate account (whichever one it is at the time) having rollback?

It's the fact that she bestowed it upon herself. Everybody else has to be approved by an admin; she approved herself.

Well, she IS an admin. So theoretically competent to have rollback and competent to decide who gets it.

On the other hand the rule is one admin account per person... no matter how many socks or bots you have, only one can have admin sans special approval (not given by yourself).

It's an interesting conundrum. Is rollback like adminship?