Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:29, 4 July 2008

The empty talk page

Tuscan villas

Hi Hinnibilis, thanks for your message. The question you made me is much easier than you might think, infact translating the pages about tuscan villas from Italian to English will be as easy as to copy and paste! Yes, because we received an authorization from this website to copy the text (text only, no pictures) to wikipedia, and the site has a translation to english too!! The pages in Italian 80% comes from that website, so I think it could be a great starting point for en.wiki too! All you need to do is to use is OTRS authorization Ticket#: 2006072410011624

You can find coordinates and sometimes picture in the equivalent pages of italian wikipedia.

You can read a copy of the authorization here here. If you have further questions just let me know. --Sailko (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't make translations, but if you list me the sentences you did not understand maybe i can help --Sailko (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you can list me the terms hard to transalte, I will try to help :) --Sailko (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for your comment; your help with that article and its many related pages is most welcome. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Brave man

I see that you are wading into the mire. Good luck, I wish I could say you will be in good company. As an aside, however, the tradition of chaste pederasty is an old one, and recognized as such. On a different note, I see you have a penchant for Tuscany. I too was drawn to it last winter, looking for pederastic artwork, to be sure. Do you think that is where the phrase "a city on a hill" was created? Cheers, the not so rebellious Haiduc (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, have you actually looked at the edits I have made? Hinnibilis (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy editor. You must be retired or independently wealthy. Good luck on editing the pederasty articles. Too bad you feel obligated to project the child sex chimera where it does not belong. And watch your step: pederasty and child sex are two very different things, and I do not think that you want to make the mistake of suggesting that homosexuality (which is where pederasty belongs) and child sex are one and the same. But I forget - you reject the validity of queer studies and think it needs to be relegated to future generations.

I do see that you have been busy deleting material at Pederasty wholesale, references and all. Please do as you see fit. When the dust settles I will look things over and restore any material that I can reference to published works. Some stuff may be lost and possibly should be lost - if mine, I started editing there a long time ago, before we started to pay close attention to references, and if written by others, who knows where it comes from. Anyway, I look forward to the process - remember, a forest fire is good for the forest. Haiduc (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on FT2

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.

Your attacks on FT2 somehow assuming his actions are caused by his support of pedophiles are completely over the line please somehow edit your entries or I would block you. FT2 does not deserve such assertions. Blocking socks used to circumvent blocks and bans are routine duty of administrators and checkusers. If you think somebody was incorrectly blocked on the first place then you should argue his or her unblocking. Sockpuppeting and uncivility would not only harm those goals Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Given you've decided to continue your off-wiki campaign against FT2 at WR and now brought it back on-wiki, I've blocked you indefinitely. The level of posting you've made about FT2 is shocking, it really is. Given that your original account was blocked indefinitely for exactly the same thing (and still remains blocked), you obviously haven't learnt your lesson. You were asked to step back and you didn't, so blocking is the only thing left to be done - users which harass other editors aren't welcome here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement on my block

On 27 June I was asked by Thatcher to help deal with pro-paedo bias in historical articles.

I read your post on WR. I have just dealt with a rampant sockpuppeteer User:Burrburr and friends, whose main activity is to remove such pro-pedo edits from dead historical figures. I suspect he was correct on substance but the abusive sockpuppetry (80+ accounts) was unacceptable. It would be a good thing for a knowledgeable, non-sockpuppet using editor to perform the same sort of review, as long as it is done civilly etc. The pro-pedos will find it much harder to revert someone of relatively higher status (most of Burrburr's accounts edited for only a day or two, so it was easy to label them as vandals or "single purpose accounts" and deprecate their edits). This is, of course, harder to do with an established named editor. Thatcher 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, it was being claimed with very little properly sourced evidence that Jules Verne was a paedophile. I did so with the help of an editor called Phdarts whose contributions I looked at and judged worthwhile. I made a considerble number of edits to the

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080629&limit=200&target=Hinnibilis

Most of the corrections were to absurd, ungrammatical or plain incorrect claims. Some of my comments:

• "rm politics reference - wrong chapter and is misquoted anyway"
• "rm absurdly general and unverifiable statement"
• "rm original research"

in which I was helped by PhDarts. There was no opposition at all from the pro-paedo editors.

Then I caught this edit to Haiduc's page

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=222250643&oldid=221444762

"Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "

This 'third party intervention' was not long in coming. Phdart's account has been blocked for sockpuppeteering. He was, as I suspected, a reincarnation of the banned Headleydown, but I did not have a problem with that. He was editing under my supervision, and had made many strong contributions to the encyclopedia under other accounts. (FT2 has pointed to some abusive edits he has made, but haven't we all).

I complained bitterly on FT2's talk page and have also contributed to a thread on paedophilia subjects to the Misplaced Pages Review. I did not accuse FT2 of being pro-paedophile, I said that he was 'in effect' enabling the pro-paedophile lobby on Misplaced Pages. I do not see how editors with expert knowledge of this subject area can possibly continue to work under these conditions.

I see that my edits have apparently been reverted wholesale. Hinnibilis (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad blocks

I see this is being discussed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad_Blocks

But under what strange assumption have I been 'harassing' another user? I accused FT2 of 'in effect' enabling pro-paedophile editors by blocking me and about the only other person prepared to put an end to nonsense claims like 'Jules Verne was a paedophile'. Yes, true. Another set of organisations I am contacting is the many Jules Verne societies. Oops but is that a 'legal threat'? Let's see. Hinnibilis (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

More discussion on ANI

Ryan has posted on ANI as follows. Since I cannot reply there, I reply here.

Ryan: Peter has been blocked previously on a different account for a harassment campaign against FT2 off wiki.

Comment: This was hardly a 'campaign'. Consisted of one off-wiki post on a blog that was deleted the next day. Arbcom has the full details.

Ryan: Now he resurrected a new account to evade the block and ended up getting blocked again by Thatcher - after discussion, Thatcher decided to unblock.

After discussion with Arbcom. The details of the discussion were private, and have never been disclosed by me or Arbcom or anyone else.

Ryan: Now, Peter has continued this off-wiki harassment campaign, turning to soapboxing his ideas about FT2 on WR.

The basis of the original 'ideas' have now been admitted as true by certain members of the Arbitration committee. The new 'ideas' are simply that in effect, FT2 is enabling the paedophile lobby.

Ryan: Today he decided to bring the harassment back on-wiki, claiming FT2 made a CU block to "support the efforts of paedophiles" - the gravity of the harassment is large, coupled with the fact that he has a previous account blocked for exactly the same thing.

As I have said a number of times above, I said that the effect of this action by FT2 is to enable the pro-paedophile lobby. Please attend carefully to the grammar of the statement. The effect is that already the Pederasty article has been reverted, hideous mistakes and all, such as quotations from Aristotle that never existed. Hinnibilis (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Naeri's comments

Naerie says "Ryan, stating what the effect of an action will be is different to stating what the intent of an action was. Peter was stating the former, not that latter. His comments on WR are irrelevant; I don't like them but they are not actionable onwiki. Naerii 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC) "

Precisely. At least one person understands this distinction. Hinnibilis (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone is reading this

Could they please ask Ryan to strike his comments about 'sex with animals'? It was agreed with Arbcom exactly what my allegations were (namely slanted editing of Zoophilia articles). It is OUTRAGEOUS what I am being accused of here without any chance of reply. Unbelievable. Hinnibilis (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The exact nature of my allegations are spelled out precisely here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16722&view=findpost&p=86619

"Since Ryan Postlethwaite has raised this issue on the forum, I would like the opportunity to say that I am NOT alleging that FT2 has engaged in criminal activities of any sort. The burden of proof required in criminal court is very high, and there is consequently an equal burden on anyone making any criminal accusation or allegation." (WR 18 March 2008) Hinnibilis (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at ANI still goes on

And still I have no chance to repudiate any of this nonsense. "The things I said off-site". What things? Hinnibilis (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone stop Ryan posting this f---ing nonsense on ANI

Ryan says:

Hold on a second, this doesn't look like a secret arbcom decision - it just looks like he's talked to a couple of members about it. I don't for the life of me understand with why the block log says "after discussion with arbcom" - it's certainly clear that it wasn't after collective discussion and a vote to check the consensus - I doubt anyone else other than Flo and FT2 even knew about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, why would Flo be emailing me this, for example

---

Original Message -----

From: "FloNight" <xxxx@gmail.com> To: "Family" <xxxx@btinternet.com> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: Re: Misplaced Pages e-mail

> Ed, > > Can you send the statement to me. I'll forward it to the arbcom mailing list. > > I think that someone (likely Thatcher131) will be contacting you about > unblocking your account so that you can return to article editing > while we discuss your concerns. > > Sydney

>

Can someone stop Postlethwaite, he is completely out of control. Hinnibilis (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Or this (from Flo)

I'll contact FT2 and ask him to not make comments on your talk page

per your request.

Maybe you should consider achieving your whole talk page with an edit summary saying that you have read it. That is a suggestion not a request, your talk page your call. But it might help.

I hope now that you are unblocked that you will go back to editing

articles.There was much goodness in your contributions.

Hinnibilis (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Remarks

On May 1 I emailed Arbcom-L proposing two unblocks that I thought might be controversial; one was Peter Damian. I received an email later that day from FloNight informing me that both blocks were already under discussion by Arbcom. I received a second email from Flo at about noon on May 2 asking me to unblock Damian. After unblocking, I joined the Arbcom clerks IRC channel and had a conversation with FloNight and FT2. FT2 asked for a delay until he got an answer from the rest of the Committee on certain concerns that he had (as an attacked party, not as an Arbitrator). But it was too late and I thought a temporary re-blocking would just make a bigger mess out of the situation. Out of these discussions with FT2 and Flo I later sent Damian an email outlining my concerns; he felt the email was abusive and that it showed evidence of a "dread hand" in the shadows, or something. (My reward for going out on a limb, I guess. Damian had no way of knowing that I proposed the unblock without knowing that it was already under discussion.) I assume FloNight spoke for Arbcom, who knows these days. I am completely in the dark as to any communications between Damian and Arbcom, including any conditions or agreements that may have been reached.

In response to certain off-wiki comments about my role in this situation, I think a couple of people need to talk to Moulton about "theories of mind." I am "gloating" and supporting pedophiles while at the same time I am pursuing an "anti-pedophile editor witch hunt." In fact, what happened is that in responding to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SqueakBox, I found that Burrburr (talk · contribs) had used sockpuppets (99 of them!) mostly to make edits relating to pederasty by historical figures, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive437#Indefinite_ban_of_User:Burrburr_et_al.. I am not in a position as checkuser to ignore some sockpuppeteers because I like their edits. No one wants that, right? I try to be as impartial and unbiased as possible when carrying out this sensitive task. But, as it happens I do think that Burrburr was on to something, and his edits deserve at least a second look. So, when I saw Peter Damian bring up Jules Verne on WR, I offered him some encouragement. As I said later on User talk:FT2, I lack knowledge of this area, so all I could do would be to edit based on my own opinions or to blindly revert any account I was suspicious of. I think that is bad editing, and I encourage any editor who knows the historical sources and who is willing to edit this messy area to do so.

I don't quite know what to make of the block and of Damian's recent on and off-wiki comments. I will review it tonight and comment further later. Thatcher 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding oversight Noting here, for lack of a better place: As of the May 2 discussion referenced above, I was informed that the oversight log was limited to actions within the last 30 days, due to some technical problem that the developers were involved in. I don't know if that has been fixed or not (as I do not have oversight myself), but it may be impossible at the present time for anyone to look up the diffs that were allegedly oversighted that form part of the earlier block/unblock cycle. Thatcher 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

About

Keep the indef, it's about time you guys got serious about protecting Misplaced Pages's editors. An apology is just the beginning. . .frankly I see Misplaced Pages getting along just find without PD's edits. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Villa_Cetinale - new article written last month.
• Medieval_philosophy entire article straddling the two blocks.
• Jacopo_Zabarella complete rewrite of an existing but plagiarised article.
• Scholasticism - rewrite
• Isagoge entirely new article - amazing Misplaced Pages never had anything on this.
• Formal distinction new article
• Second scholasticism new article.
• Paul Engelmann - new article
• Stonborough House - new article

All these were written since my return to Misplaced Pages in May 2008. Hinnibilis (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And why is a restriction imposed on paedophilia-related subjects? I never wrote on those before, this was only at the request of Thatcher. Hinnibilis (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested Lar is proposing a block on NLP. I have hardly touched this area of pseudoscience. Does anyone here understand why NLP? Hinnibilis (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't NLP an area of interest to FT2? To paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi, "This is the Arbcom result on OrangeMarlin you are looking for..." Minkythecat (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. Check out the original author of each of the NLP articles. There is a lot of stuff that has not even come out yet, and which will come out if I am allowed an RFAR. Hinnibilis (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On G Berrys comments

Many thanks for those, G. Hinnibilis (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On whether there was a deal

I'm suggesting you walk away and leave this to others. Call that an edit restriction if you like... whatev. To everyone else... Let's back up a bit on trying to understand this. I see diffs from you that relate to things from last year. I see Thatcher's comments about stuff that happened in May... doesn't that supercede all those diffs from last year? If there truly was a deal in May, agreed to, that he had to stop saying things offsite as well as on, then I would say yep, he blew that. But if there was no such deal, then I don't think the offsite stuff is open and shut. Have to see just HOW egregious it is. (I'll opine it's bad... but bad enough? someone else's call, not me.) This page is a mess, but if the pieces are all there already, one post that pointed to them all would be good. Otherwise I still think there's some confusion here about what exactly the current deal was or wasn't. Maybe Thatcher has a better handle on it. I dont' want to hear about anything that went down prior to the unblock, it's all past history to me except as background, it's not justification for a current block. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There was actually no deal. There was an implicit understanding that certain things were 'too difficult' to deal with on or off wiki. FT2 seemed to be doing a good job and I was impatient to get back to editing, life goes on. The thing that was 'too difficult' was the matter of the oversighted edits. To summarise the whole case: I was claiming that some of FT2's edits were 'promoting' Zoophilia. Note I use the word 'promoting': as I have commented elsewhere, promotion is utterly different from practice. I was asked to provide diffs, and when I did, they were instantly oversighted.

All of the wrangling since December 2007 was over whether these edits existed in the first place (oversighting is a method of deletion that airbrushes them out of existence). In May, a Misplaced Pages bureacrat admitted that they had been oversighted: end of story. There was no agreement not to contact FT2. (I won't say 'harass' - someone please refer to what I actually said on FT2's page. Best.

Ryan is making a complete fool of himself - this as Lar says should be left to others. Happy to take off-wiki before any more is made public. Hinnibilis (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hinnibilis, honestly, please drop your crusade against FT2, it does not worth it. Admins have to interfere with all of those battleground articles and quite often it means that you have to make edits that may appear as promoting some bad agenda. Honestly, if something is cleaning toilets, no need to allege he is doing it out of love to feces, it is bad as it is. I have not worked much on sexuality related matters but I work and admin on Eastern Europe + Mid East related themes and believe me I was accused (on and off wiki) of being:
  • Stalinist
  • Nazi
  • Rabid Russian nationalist
  • Russophobe
  • Anti-Semite
  • Zionist
  • Polonophobe
  • Romanian-phobe
  • Azeri-phobe
  • Armenian-phobe
  • Estophobe
  • Ukrainophobe
  • CIA agent
  • KGB agent
  • Homophobe
  • Iranian earth worm (me personal favorite)
• and probably of being something else as well. Usually it causes just hearty laugh but sometimes it hurts. I once even threw a small hysterics after being accused to be a FSB-paid Internet brigades member. FT2 is doing a lot of work in equally controversial areas, honestly there is no need to harrass him for this on or off wiki, especially when he is sort of down due to the OM mess.

• Regarding oversighting. It is unusual to oversight simply unhelpful edits without strong violations of privacy, etc. Still I do not see any crime in oversighting edits of a good editor that can may be misinterpreted as supporting something as disgusting as zoophilia. It is not a secret that FT2 sometimes have troubles expressing his thoughts from the first time. If you find that he makes a controversial edit please ask somebody (e.g. me) to mediate. If I were you I would promise not to harrass FT2 and would say sorry to him. Then I would try to argue your case with the blocking admin. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced

Per my comments here and the preceeding discussions, I have shortened your block to one week, including "time served." There are no conditions, but it might be wise to avoid discussing FT2 in the future. If the assumptions of bad faith and jumping to conclusions you have engaged in regarding him continue, support for the next unblock is likely to be scarce. Thatcher 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Alex

Thank you for the time you took to reply. Only one thing to say: on the point about these oversights being common and perfectly OK, well then surely if that's fine why can't the Arbcom just publish that this is what happened. I did suggest some while back that this was one of a number of easy routes out.

On the 'campaign' against FT2, this all started with Ryan's block. I had kept any public discussion with this quiet, as ARbcom had asked. Hinnibilis (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just to make clear. It is not common to oversight in such a circumstance. In fact it is the first time of a such use of the oversight tool I have heard of. On the other hand, as I said I am not sure if it is a violation of any policy. The log for the oversight actions is only kept for 30 days so it is almost impossible to investigate anyway. So lets bygones be bygones Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Then let someone from ARbcom say this. It has already been admitted to me in private, and now people are questioning whether I am telling the truth or not. Add to this the fact that what was oversighted was material I had been asked to provide diffs of. Why on earth should I let bygones be bygones, when it has now gone this far? And yes, it is a clear violation of policy. Hinnibilis (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Specifically, given that someone from Arbcom has seen the email where it was admitted that the edits had been oversighted, let them make a public statement. Hinnibilis (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Thatcher

Thank you Thatcher but please quote me correctly. I did not say that FT2 was supporting pedophiles, just follow the link you gave. I carefully wrote

The effect is to support the efforts of paedophiles, isn't it?

And this was precisely the effect it had. You asked me to help on this issue, I complied, then FT2 blocked a co-editor. If that editor is Headleydown, so? Good editing and contributions to the encyclopedia come before anything else.

However, if you say that FT2 will step down from arbitrarily blocking of 'Headleys', that is a very reasonable solution.

The main thing I would like now is an RFAR. Due to a stupidity of mine I emailed the wrong 'Flo' so my anger was entirely misdirected. I deeply apologise for all of this, mostly an embarrassment frankly. The real Flo has now replied and we are on track. I will not mention the December issue again, hopefully we can clear this matter up and get on with writing an encyclopedia. Hinnibilis (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than the quote marks around "pro-pedophile editors", which is not a phrase you used in the linked remarks, I believe my paraphrase was reasonably accurate. I may not be sufficiently educated to detect a significant difference between "acting to support paedophile editors" and "acting with the effect of supporting paedophile editors." (Is there a fine distinction there between effect and intent? Maybe that's it.)

I did not say FT2 should step down from blocking sockpuppets of HeadleyDown; sockpuppets of banned users may be blocked on sight. If, when I checked Phdarts against Burrburr, I had had the right background knowledge to recognize HeadleyDown's IPs, I would have said so at RFCU and he would have been blocked by the next clerk to check the page. There's no real difference. However, I do think that if there is ever a fresh review of the original ban on HeadleyDown, then FT2 should recuse as arbitrator, as he was a participant in the original dispute. I also think that the view that sockpuppets of banned users should be permitted to edit as long as as they make "Good" contributions is untenable. Who decides what is "good?" You like Phdart's contributions, AnotherSolipcist objects to them. Is there some value-neutral way to decide whose view of "Good contributions" is correct? If not, then the dispute (whether it be pro/anti pedophiles, or Armenians and Azeris, or Irish Republicans and Unionists), is simply grafted into a new forum. We have no mechanism to decide that NisarKand's sockpuppetry is good but Beh-nam's is bad, or that Sussexman is good but Vintagekits is bad. As a checkuser, it would open too many cans of worms to try and judge which sockpuppets to block and which to look the other way for. Thatcher 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a very clear distinction between effect and intent, yes. One might do something without realising it had that particular effect, which is clearly different from doing something with the aim or intention of it coming about. FT2, as far as I know, has never gone near any pedophilia-related articles. Hence my wording.

On banned sockpuppets editing under the aegis of another editor, I don't really see the problem. My view is that 'Headleydown' is the name for a group of editors who have run afoul of FT2 at one time or another. You say "Who decides what is "good?" You like Phdart's contributions, AnotherSolipcist objects to them. Is there some value-neutral way to decide whose view of "Good contributions" is correct?". I reply, who decides whether they are blocked? It is a matter of editorial judgment. I have expertise in that area, as you have agreed. The fact you asked me to edit on these articles when PHDarts was active suggested a blind eye had been turned. Hence a moment of anger when FT2 blocked.

In any case I am asking now in the strongest possible terms for an RFAR on both of my blocks. This should all now become public. Hinnibilis (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, on your summary of the case (which was certainly better than Ryan's) you have entirely omitted what is my main beef, mainly that (one of) the edits I objected to, and which I was asked to provide, were oversighted. It has taken a long time to get this far, namely for the administration to admit this happened at all, and they still haven't admitted anything in public. This reflects badly on me (as though I were making up the existence of these oversights). Hinnibilis (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, the Oversight log was (and perhaps is) broken. However, it appears to me that something was removed from that article, and I assume that if you say someone admitted it to you in private that you can back it up. I don't think that has any direct bearing on your first block, however. You were blocked for attempting to damage FT2's reputation during the election, not for lying about the evidence. (As I recall, it took about 3 days for you to be blocked, unblocked, and then banned. Do you recall when in that cycle the diffs disappeared? Was it before or after the application of the indefinite "ban.") The ban and the use of oversight are related of course. It seems to me that if you had opposed the candidacy of User:Smith on the grounds that "User:Smith is a believer in Intelligent Design and as such, having him on Arbcom would damage our reputation and feed critics who say we are unreliable", the the response would have been more on the order of a yawn, "Well, Smith has to stand on his edit history" etc. (A brief block might still have been appropriate for canvassing, but my telescope for viewing alternate universes is broken right now.) Sex is obviously a hot button issue socially and politically, and I am honestly unsure of whether statements to the effect that "Because of FT2's edits related to sexuality, having him on Arbcom would damage wikipedia's reputation" are really worse than my ID example or not. Are both statements unacceptable breaches of civility and "Assume good faith", or are they both acceptable electioneering, or does the sex angle really make them different? I do not have a pat answer to this. Thatcher 08:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

the sex angle should not make them different, but tends to cause confusion with personal attacks. In addition, can be an emotive topic for many people, this can cause actual personal attacks. Hinnibilis (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Apologies for being out of the loop; I just caught up with this. Some comments above are a little economical with the truth, I fear.

You stated: "To summarise the whole case: I was claiming that some of FT2's edits were 'promoting' Zoophilia. Note I use the word 'promoting': as I have commented elsewhere, promotion is utterly different from practice. I was asked to provide diffs, and when I did, they were instantly oversighted. All of the wrangling since December 2007 was over whether these edits existed in the first place (oversighting is a method of deletion that airbrushes them out of existence). In May, a Misplaced Pages bureacrat admitted that they had been oversighted: end of story. There was no agreement not to contact FT2. (I won't say 'harass' - someone please refer to what I actually said on FT2's page. Best." In fact, this is a little too lacking in accuracy to let stand uncommented.

1. You made edits directly accused illegal acts (not just "promotion", that was a rationale added much later). Specifically, "your position is an animal lover". When multiple administrators criticized your campaign, you responded by asking one of them as well, if they were "another dog lover".

   (Your reason for this campaign shows a disturbing trend, in that your initial posts about "how can someone be elected who edits subject X" rapidly became "this person is an X-ist". The basis you gave was a selective coat-rack from the many articles I have edited. For example I have edited on a wide range of medical/veterinary conditions - ear infection, hip dysplasia, osteochondritis, aging, bloat, hip replacement, history of surgery, and one that is a well known killer in the breeding world; you chose the latter as "evidence". Likewise I have edited film plots from Casino Royale to Waiting for Godot; you picked Watership Down (a request edit, far far too long plot summary where a heavy summarizing edit was asked of me) as "evidence". And so on.)

   (In fact my initial editing on zoophilia was minimal, and sporadic, with none for some months - most of it arose in the context of an edit warrior which led to work being done there. I probably wouldn't have thought to revisit it again otherwise. But once attention was drawn there, I found it a facinating editing challenge, and have no qualms researching and improving the topic area. I probably will again in future, some time, it's been a long time. But it's not high on my priorities to do so. Some time when I'm bored I go back to old areas to do more on them, and this'll probably be one of those. There are sensible articles missing and the main article needs to be put more into summary style with full cited articles made of some sections. There are unlikely to be many editors working on it due to its obscurity and emotional distaste. Its a hard challenge, and that's something I like here in all areas, including xFD, article, and admin work. But I digress.)

2. Coming back to the main thread here, you were therefore blocked for aggressive mass-canvassing and defamation.
3. Your response to this was to agree it was a "momentary lapse" and that you would drop it. You were then unblocked on that understanding. You then went coat-racking to look for other reasons to harass, and shortly after resumed the same campaigning, including off-wiki campaigning. The failure to keep the conditions of your unblock, was what led to being re-blocked (by a different administrator), not any kind of conspiracy as you have claimed.
4. You were offered a further unblock on condition you ceased, and also provided full disclosure on your off-site defamation actions, but it seems you did not provide these to the blocking admin and hence were not unblocked.
5. Instead of keeping your word, you shortly opened an account at WR and there immediately began the same aggressive canvassing and smear campaign which you continued for some months (I am told, I didn't check myself so this is hearsay, correct me if wrong). This was followed by posting on-wiki again something to the effect that you were asking to be unblocked -- the claim being you had dropped it for a long time.
6. Back on WR, you obviously were contacted by HeadleyDown, and (again hearsay) shortly after began parroting Headley's line on zoophilia, as well as his line on a subject called NLP. Cross-reference -- this is a pet claim of HeadleyDown. Here's an example attempt by Headley from 2 years ago, in 2006 . HeadleyDown's interest in these subjects is not a helpful one -- in brief, the background to this diff was that I identified and kicked a sock-ring of his off zoophilia (JHartley, FFodor, CSIvor and later Maypole), as well as a dozen or two socks off NLP, before and after his final ban. If it's any consolation, you aren't the first he's tried to get to do it for him. He also tried to get community-and-arbcom banned DPeterson to parrot his line by email , and also User:KingsleyMiller, again by email. Headley really really likes that coat-rack, and keeps trying to get support via aggrieved editors he contacts off-wiki. It hasn't worked in all those years. You seem to be his most recent contact. There will likely be other attempts after you, too.)
7. Again returning to the narrative. You asked for an unblock, and FloNight granted it. Immediately (about 3-4 days) after unblock you began editing on HeadleyDown's old trolling ground, NLP - a subject you had no prior involvement in or apparent prior knowledge of.
8. You also began (apparently) co-editing with HeadleyDown on Pedophilia/pederastry, an area you have strong feelings, and a user you knew was community banned under a new name. You got reblocked for personal attacks in the wake of your editing partner having their account blocked as a reincarnation of a multiple banned user. The blocks have been reviewed and confirmed by yet two more users - Alex B, and Thatcher.
9. I am happy to affirm for any reviewing administrator now or future, that outside an unhealthy obsession with some subjects, and a certain gullibility (does anyone else on-site really trust Headley?) your editing has been sensible - you edit a lot on philosophy and such, you have not used sock-puppets, you have not been involved in undue controversy or disputes. You have had 3 or 4 accounts in a confusing but reasonable manner, mostly being repeat name-changing and clean re-starts between December 2007 and June 2008.

I hope this is okay and not seen as aggressive. I think with the recent discussion and reduction in block, it is worth noting some of the background here.

I wish you enjoyment editing. I hope that in course of time you will see how pointless this all was and (no offence intended) what a fool Headley has played you for, in pursuing his own old games and vendettas. I write this in the attempt to show you that there are good reasons you should doubt all that Headley has ever told you. He has probably said nothing that was not in some way intended to serve his desire for conflict, and his wish to somehow edit or influence NLP and zoophilia without being blocked. FT2  18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question whether 'this is OK and not seen as aggressive' no it is not OK and it is seen as aggressive. I won't respond to any of this nonsense, except to say I have made a careful study of all "Headley's" edits and I have made my own independent conclusions. I have asked for an RFAR, as you certainly know since I have emailed the Arbcom periodically for over 4 months. That is enough for now. Hinnibilis (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Except to say I did not ask Flo for an unblock I asked for an RFAR so all the work I have done on Headley and all the editors you tried to block could be made public. For some reason I cannot fathom Flo chose the unblock and has rather ignored the other issues I have asked about. Such as what happened to your first two edits on Misplaced Pages, if you know what I mean. Hinnibilis (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2, thanks for the elaborate explanations! While you are here can you either confirm or deny that a a few of your edits presented by Hinnibilis were oversighted? Can you recollect the rationale for the actions? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could tell, this being the first mention of any such to me. If this was in the last 30 days - the duration of the oversight log - I can check for myself though. Be aware there is no ability to search the oversight logs by 'name of editor of oversighted revision' though. Also note in passing this header for the oversight log which limits what I or any other oversighter can say in any event. FT2  07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neurolinguistic programming, reply to FT2

Actually FT2 I'm rather surprised you brought the NLP issue up right now, given all the fuss that is going on right now regarding pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages. Neuro-linguistic programming is considered by all legitimate scientists to be a cult and a scam that has no basis in science whatsoever. Here is the state of the article at the end of 2005, before your got his hands on it.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials.

NLP was proposed in 1973 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder as a set of models and principles to describe the relationship between mind (neuro) and language (linguistic, both verbal and non-verbal) and how their interaction might be organized (programming) to affect an individual's mind, body and behavior. It is described by the original developers as "therapeutic magic" and "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Sharpley 1987; Dilts et al 1980), and is predicated upon the assumption that all behaviors have a practically determinable structure (Grinder & Bandler 1975a) . http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304

That seems pretty accurate to me. Now here it is at the end of 2007, after an extensive series of edits by you.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy based on the subjective study of language, communication and personal change.

It was co-created by Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder in the 1970s. The initial focus was pragmatic, modeling three successful psychotherapists, Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy), Virginia Satir (Family Systems Therapy), and eventually Milton H. Erickson (Clinical Hypnosis), with the aim of discovering what made these individuals more successful than their peers.

Today the predominant patterns of NLP, the application of those patterns, and many variants of NLP are found in seminars, workshops, books and audio programs in the form of exercises and principles intended to influence change in self and others. There is a great deal of difference between the depth and breadth of training and standards, and some disagreement between those in the field about which patterns are and are not "NLP". While the field of NLP is loosely spread and resistant to a single comprehensive definition, there are some common principles and presuppositions shared by its proponents. Perhaps most generally, NLP aims to increase behavioral flexibility, (i.e. choice) by the manipulation of subjective experience, (either by a practitioner/trainer, or by self-application). http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=178579988

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinnibilis (talk • contribs)

The former is factually inaccurate. It is a "model" (in the correct sense of the word), not merely a list of "recommendations". Recommendations are "If you have problem X, try doing Y". A model is quite different. A model may give rise to recommendations, and may be flawed or not (quantum theory seems a good model; phrenology a poor one), but whatever NLP is, an introduction that starts with "NLP is a collection of self-help recommendations" as its definition, is low quality. FT2  20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The other crucial difference is, the one you say "seems pretty accurate" is actually uncited WP:OR (I'm not aware of any reliable source using "is a collection of self help recommendations" as its primary kind of definition). By contrast, the other one is cited to a reliable source, in this case to A Dictionary of Psychology (Andrew M. Colman. Oxford University Press, 2006 sample link). See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, for details why is important for quality. FT2  20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)