Well they were there, I promise you. But if you click on either of these two below you get the "database did not find the text of a page that it should have found" message.


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

(Revision as of 08:23, 11 July 2004 (edit) (undo) FT2 (Talk | contribs))

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

(timestamp lost, probably between 12:37, 11 July 2004, corresponding to edit #4559831 and 15:31, 11 July 2004 corresponding to edit #4559834)

Apparently this kind of deletion can only be done by an 'oversight' function which is the following users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deskana (O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654 (O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redux (O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nichalp (O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taxman (O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling (O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UninvitedCompany (O)

But why on earth would anyone delete them in the first place?

It looks like the page has been deleted and selectively restored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&page=Zoophilia

Maybe the revisions were removed then?

At first I though that too. But the deletes were made at some time between Friday 7 December 2007 and Saturday 8, which does not fit the dates on the log.

I see. In any case, I think your list of oversight-enabled users is a little short.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/oversight

* Blnguyen ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Cary Bass ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Charles Matthews ‎(oversight, Administrator)
* David Gerard ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Deskana ‎(Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Dmcdevit ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Flcelloguy ‎(oversight, Administrator)
* FloNight ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Fred Bauder ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Jayjg ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Jdforrester ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Jimbo Wales ‎(Founder, oversight, Administrator)
* Jpgordon ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Kirill Lokshin ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Mackensen ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Morven ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Neutrality ‎(oversight, Administrator)
* Nichalp ‎(Bureaucrat, oversight, Administrator)
* Paul August ‎(oversight, Administrator)
* Raul654 ‎(Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Rebecca ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Redux ‎(Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* SimonP ‎(oversight, Administrator)
* Taxman ‎(Bureaucrat, oversight, Administrator)
* The Epopt ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* Tim Starling ‎(Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator)
* UninvitedCompany ‎(Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator)

If FT2 really made those edits, they are not accessible to normal people. The only deleted revsisions from the article consist of some idiot anonymous user posting the name and phone number of some random chick. Those should probably be oversighted too. Thanks for bringing this to my attention...let me hit up the oversighters.

You're not revealing the contents of a deleted revision, are you? Everyking was desysopped just for pointing out that he could.

Or maybe that was just their excuse when they really wanted to de-op him for being critical of wikipedia.

Like John Awbrey they banned him officially because it was hard to understand what he said, but unofficially it's because he was trying to stop SlimVirgin and Jayjg's Habara Fellowships from corrupting wikipdia.

To see what was in the edits, take a look at this diff (Wikipedia diffs simply compare the two versions they see as specified by the 7-digit record numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=4555850

This shows three revisions. The first is the addition of "'''" or "'''dogsex''', and corresponds to the SECOND edit that was deleted. The second is the long section that begins 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle' and which is a romanticised version of the 'zoo lifestyle' this corresponds to the FIRST edit deleted.

The third addition is the added link. Now if you look at the comment it says 'added link to site with no commercial sales/porn', made by URL 66.185.0.212. Obviously this editor only added the link, not the first two. Well, you will object that this cannot be proved, but in fact there are later edits made to the article that proves who was the author of the 'lifestyle' section.

It cannot be proved who was author of the second (dogsex) addition, which is unfortunate, and it is unfortunate also that the comment has gone with it. The comment was '"added "dogsex" to "farmsex", being the two terms commonly used in pornography". One has to ask, how anyone gets to know what are the commonest terms used in animal pornography. I suppose one could argue that it was for purposes of research, but I think that was claimed in a recent celebrity case, and it was overruled.

I'm expecting more edits to disappear after this post, but, to anyone who is thinking of doing so, I have now captured all the relevant edits to this article, and also to the various requests for arbitration that go with it, with screenshots, so go ahead, delete away. I think that will be much more interesting.

Apologies for the repellent nature of all this, but this has to stop. I have two children who used to use WP regularly for homework purposes. Not any more, until this nasty business is cleared up.

Alas this "nasty business" is unlikely to clear up, as it's an ineluctable emergent property of the now-entrenched design philosophy of Wikipedia. It's an unsustainable design philosophy, so it's only a matter of time before the system collapses of its own internal rot.

Wikipedia is not censored. As with so much of Wikipedia, "censored" has a slightly different meaning from normal English. It means that pornography is OK but criticism of admins must be removed.

This is a perfect formula for maintaining a cadre of loyal 15 year olds.

I was asking about this user during the start of the elections and I received this:





(Latest | Earliest) View (newer 50) (older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

10:34, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Chastity belt‎ (missed bullets)
10:33, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Chastity belt‎ (Added links to "orgasm denial" and "sexual abstinence")
10:31, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Erotic sexual denial‎ (Added "long term" section, removed "stub" status)
10:15, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Sexual abstinence‎ (tweak to previous edit)
10:14, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Sexual abstinence‎ (typo & additional link)
10:11, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Sexual abstinence‎ (typo)
10:08, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Sexual intercourse‎ ("what distinguises ... is the ability to have sex" --> "that they also have sex". Its not a matter of "ability" so much as a matter of behaviour. Also changed women-->female)
01:54, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 2‎
01:48, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Doctor Who‎
01:46, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Doctor Who‎ (typo + newline)
01:45, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Doctor Who‎ (Added sentence explaning Time Lord 'reincarnation', which is important for understanding series continuity across multiple actors.)
01:36, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Zoophilia‎ (Added source note as suggested by paranoid, also added reference to Nancy Friday's books in the "books" section)
01:15, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) User:FT2‎
01:07, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week‎
00:57, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:44, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:43, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:39, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:38, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:23, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:22, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:22, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
00:21, 22 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
17:08, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Operation Spanner‎ (Added outline of the legal basis for the Spanner case)
16:03, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
15:54, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
15:53, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
15:50, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎ (One more edit of previous post )
15:09, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎ (removed long post (duh!))
15:07, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
15:05, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
14:12, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎ (this and the last couple of edits = addition of a post to the discussion)
14:01, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
14:00, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zoophilia‎
13:33, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Zoophilia‎ (moved "extent of occurance" to its own subsection - too long to fit in the summary at the top of the page)
13:28, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Zoophilia‎ (paragraph break and minor wording change for clarity)
13:22, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Zoophilia‎ (1) Added a little psychological info on zoophilia, 2) did some research to find out how common it is, and added the results.)
13:02, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m List of BDSM topics‎
12:58, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Chastity belt‎ (Added extra info on design)
12:55, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Sexual abstinence‎ (Added small section on chastity as an enhancer to a relationship, and as used in BDSM.)
12:41, 21 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Sexual abstinence‎
01:03, 12 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Zoophilia‎ (Removed inadvertant double link to same website and combined the 2 descriptions)
00:46, 12 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Zoophilia‎ (Added useful link)
00:36, 12 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Sponsorship‎ (fixed faulty link)
00:33, 12 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Sponsorship‎ (Sponsorship has a secondary meaning, so replaced the redirect by a summary of both meanings.)
00:31, 12 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Self relations‎ (Self relations moved to Self Relationship)
00:30, 12 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Self-relations Psychotherapy‎ (Addition of "Self Relationship", reflecting the therapeutic work of Stephen Gilligan and others)
12:24, 11 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Sexual intercourse‎ (layout tweak to previous edit)
12:21, 11 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sexual intercourse‎ (Sex for pleasure? - discussion)
12:11, 11 July 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Anti-Americanism‎ (An intersting page for those interested in such matters)
(Latest | Earliest) View (newer 50) (older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions"


From the start, FT2 seems to have had a real interest in the Bomis sexual type information.

Surely Bomis wasn't into bestiality!