Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/FT2

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday March 01, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

FT2 is one of the most important people in the hierarchy of Wikipedia

Versions of the Zoophilia talk page

  • Archive1 27 Jun 2003 - Oct 21, 2004
  • Archive2 28 Oct 2004 - 29 Oct 2004
  • Archive3 29 Oct 2004 - 1 Nov 2004
  • Archive4 1 Nov 2004 - 2 Nov 2004
  • [1] Dec 17, 2004 - Dec 29, 2004
  • [2] 6 Jan 2005 - August 28, 2005

Ciz (arbitration dispute December 2005)

Ciz contributions

Headley Down

  • JP Logan 17 September 2005 to 12 April 2006
  • J Hartley 30 June 2006 - 8 July 2006
  • F Fodor 8 July 2006 - 11 July 2006
  • Maypole 29 April 2007 (68 contributions)


Hello all. Most of this article reads well, it is largely balanced and encyclopedic in style but there are a few areas that do read like advocacy. The "Health and Safety" section is quite inconsisent with the balance of the article. What authority contends that humans and animals are anatomically compatible for coitus? Also the sub-section on mis-citation of research is little more than a pre-emptive dimissal of any critical research findings. It too is unsubstantied. I have some references and a brief synpses drawn from the criminology and abnormal psychology literature:

  • Duffield G, Hassiotis, Vizard E. Zoophilia in young sexual abusers. Journal Forensic Psychiatry 1998;9;294-304

Finds an assocoaition between zoophilia and mental retardation.

  • Williams CJ, Weinberg MS. Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals. Arch Sex Behav 2003;32(6):523-35

Finds that exclusively heterosexual men are underrepresented amongst zoophilic men.

  • Earls CM, Lalumiere ML. A case study of preferential bestiality (zoophilia) Sex Abuse 2002;14(1):83-8

Reports a case of a zoophilic man that inserted his arm into the vagina of a mare causes her vaginal rupture and subsequent death in response to her interest in a stallion that he had a competitve interst in.

  • Ressler RK, Burgess AW, Douglas JE. Sexual homicide: patters & motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.

Reports that sadistic serial killers have a preference for paraphillic pornography including that depicting zoophilia.

  • Prins Herschel, Offenders, Deviants or Patients?, 3rd ed. London, Routledge, 2005 p.233

"Duffield et al. (1998) describe and discuss the cases of seven young patients referred to an adolescent psychiatric service dealing with sex abusers. On the basis of their own study and the work of others, they concluded that bestiality was frequently accompanied by other paraphilias (disorders of sexual preference). In summary, the behaviour is most likely to occur mainly in males who may be mentally disturbed or impaired, be socially isolated, have difficulties in making relationships and showing other forms of sexually deviant behaviour."

As far as I know the resarch based on deviant populations does not specify a causal connection between zoophilia and these populations neurological, endocrinological and psychological deficits. Insead they find an association between zoophilia and these deficits. This is worthy of mention. Also, the ethical dimension of zoophilia isn't given the treatment it deserves. Instead the reader is treated to numerous NAMBLA-esque apologies. The ethical concern is a large one. Singer isn't the only bioethicist with an opinion on zoophilia. There is also a body of research on serial murderers that documents their paraphilias (not all sadistic) and zoophilia is included. -FFodor 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one expects meatpuppet recruitment next. This being the sort of thing HeadleyDown's do. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please. Will the accusation of impersonation and recruitment become your standard response to any editorial contribution that is inconsisntent with your worldview? I can't prove that I'm not someone or that I'm not associated with someone. That is impossible to do. The onus is on you -- the accuser -- to demonstrate that I am part of some mythical cabal or that I am someone you have had previous encounters with. My contributions should be assessed on their own merits just as you expect your own to be. By posting to the discussion first I am trying to be courteous and cooperative. I will proceed with the edits I deem appropriate to balance the article unless you can offer good reasons otherwise. -FFodor 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pack it in, Headley/Hartley/whatever name you use next. You are not permitted to edit on this site, under any name, or with any sock, as you well know. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [3]

Skoppensbauer (December 2006)

Key points:

  • FT2 misunderstands the concept of peer review (see also Flavius' page).
  • FT2 has a political agenda
  • virtually every edit you make has the effect of minimizing, trivializing, supporting and even encouraging that lifestyle and zoosexual activities
  • ridiculously bloated and elaborate articles like the one at zoophilia, obsessively and ornately decorated with minutiae of interest to paraphilics only
  • FT2's habit of making wholesale changes to the work of others

From Zoophilia and Health

Is this article a covert attempt to proselytize against the practice of human-animal sex? No. Knowledge and information empowers people. I think you are reading too much into it. the information here is sobering, granted, but it is not conjured up from nowhere. And there are many editors who argue that the main page on Zoophilia is doing exactly the opposite, so there you go. Skopp 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC) [4]

A very very bad editor

I'm still significantly less than happy about the approach and style exhibited on these articles, in some ways and areas. I see that this is likely to become a source of abrasion, and I would like to avoid that before it does so more than it already is.

Now that the health article has been moved out to its own separate article, and is looking stable, I would like to ask again for mediation, specifically on the issue of editorial approach, and policy compliance. My concerns over your editorship on these articles can briefly be summarised as follows:

Editing to make a point Selectively choosing sources and content according to whether it fits your stated agenda or not. For example, refusal to include information on safe issues, and exaggeration of unsafe ones, in order to influence the decision of readers in terms of your views on the subject (WP:NPOV) Aggressive accusations and allegations of bad faith rather than collaborative discussion Lack of civility and rapid recourse to personal attack This in a subject where you have a lack of knowledge and a viewpoint that is verging on low grade POV agenda/warfare. More than one editor on more than one other article has indicated (sometimes strongly) that in their view you have generated these sort of concerns elsewhere too. So it is unlikely to be a temporary phenomenon or limited just to this article, or to myself. I know you have concerns too. I therefore wish, before things go further, that we obtain a member of the mediation committee to assist us to see eye to eye what is in fact neutral and appropriate in approach, because right now much of your approach seems to be leading towards serious issues.

I should like in this case a clear yes or no on it. In this respect, content is not at issue; editorial approach is. I just think it's better sorted out formally, as I don't see any chance of it being sorted out without input from an independent and mutually respected mediator.

Last, please note that this request isn't really intended as a place to debate whether such perspectives are justified or otherwise. It is my perception that there are concerns and that mediation is needed. That is my perception and I have felt it for some time now. I feel it to be a current problem affecting things at this time that is interfering with neutrality and editorial collaboration on more than one article. I would hope that by thus discussing the editorial approaches we have with a third party, we can come to see more eye to eye and with more certainty what is within policy and what is out of order, and hope that you will agree to the same, rather than decline it, so that we can proceed to discuss such concerns in a constructive and collaborative manner. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have no real idea of my POV. I've tried hard to credit you with good faith editing, but increasingly your edits look to me like the activity of a person who has a less than dispassionate interest in the topic of zoophilia, since virtually every edit you make has the effect of minimizing, trivializing, supporting and even encouraging that lifestyle and zoosexual activities. I think it is very dangerous for topics of psychological, sexual and medical information to be edited by people who suffer from the disorders under discussion (in this case the disorder zoophilia, listed as a paraphilia by DSM-IV). What we end up with are ridiculously bloated and elaborate articles like the one at zoophilia, obsessively and ornately decorated with minutiae of interest to paraphilics only. And many people have commented its absurd length, convolutedness and distastefully proselytizing tone. I agree with that view, so clearly we cannot work together, but I'm far less convinced that your appeal to your network of friends and contacts at WP to intervene will help matters. Do I have a choice in who mediates? If so, I'll consider it. I also think your irritating habit of making wholesale changes to the work of others, simply to suit your tastes, and often simultaneously ignoring the clear requests for discussion and consensus, makes you an example of a very, very bad editor for WP indeed. Skoppensboer 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's bad faith, immediately responding to a suggestion that we seek mediation by characterizing the request, the mediation process, the mediators, and the mediation committee in terms of "I'm far less convinced that your appeal to your network of friends and contacts at WP to intervene will help matters". Of course there is choice who mediates. It surely wouldn't be acceptable to parties in any dispute if they didn't both trust the mediator and the mediation process. Whilst no one party gets to "choose" the mediator, both can express dissatisfaction of any suggested mediator, or express a preference between those who do offer themselves, for example. Read the page on Wikipedia:Mediation and if you then feel able to accept mediation please say so. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then yes, let's do it. I hope it's not a long process, for I'm a busy man. Skoppensboer 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My my. This page seems to be busy today. Skoppenhowser. It may not have been your intention, but in your statement above you seem to have just accused FT2 of participating in zoophilia. I could have used a cruder description, but that wouldnt be in the spirit of this.

Regarding your comments on User talk:Skoppensboer: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Caper13 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) [5]

Request for mediation

I do not have the time to engage in a long explication of this kerfuffle here, and I see I'm already in danger of being overwhelmed by FT2's verbose style right at the start. I refer the mediator to the actual talk pages where I've made my points. I don't wish or have the time to rewrite them here. Needless to say, I deny all of the points FT2 tries to make above.

The issue I have with FT2 is that his/her editing always comes from one biased angle. Absolutely every edit he/she's made on my work serves to minimize and normalize aberrant behaviour that could threaten health. Yes, shock, but even in this non-judgemental world, some behaviors are still aberrant from a professional medical POV. I refer you to the various talk pages again. Please note that the quoted "negative" above is not my word. But I do have an issue with a disorder (for that is what the psychiatric profession all over the world classifies it as -- a "disorder") being presented as a charming alternate lifestyle, and with an article in which the health/disease section is almost non-existent, inane and frankly wrong, as it was. I tried to beef the health aspects up and FT2 has opposed me tooth and nail, if you'll excuse the pun. Read the various pages, & the discussions. FT2 has raised trivial objection after trivial objection, edited my work without any attempt at consultation, and he/she clearly has a disturbing sense of ownership of the topic on WP.

I wish to quote someone else's views on the Zoophilia page, and note that the problems highlighted in this quote are what got me started on the zoophilia page in the first place, attempting to insert balance, and even though I now have a separate page for the health issue, the party responsible for the tone of the original page is intent on pursuing me and keeping the tone in lockstep with the master article. Here's the apposite quote: "In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unnecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. .... this current article is still a terrible embarrassment to wikipedia. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.". [6]

The logorrheic thicket of words

  • In the Skopp archive [7]
  • You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility
  • refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems
  • Anecdotal evidence from erotic fora on the net just cannot be used to decide anything at all
  • You state that sex with animals is common in certain cultures, but I've lived half my life in different countries in Africa and I even speak an African language, and I can assure you that such practices are neither common nor tolerated
  • FT2, you really are not well versed in this area and perhaps you should get a medical person or epidemiologist to debate this with me.
  • the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled
  • This misinformation and mealy-mouthed trivialization of peril borders on the criminal
  • FT2 professes in his User Page to have a special interest in Science issues!

I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages). I shall continue to do so, and if this gets into a war I shall escalate it as far as I can. I believe the current edit is factual, informative, concise and fair. It took me a long time to put it all together. Looking back, I see that FT2 and this page's other habitual editors have allowed the health section to exist for a long time in an appalling format, and I quote from a few months ago: "Infections due to improper cleaning could be an issue for either party. Most viruses are specific to particular species and cannot be transmitted sexually, so humans and animals cannot catch many viral diseases from zoosexual acts." This misinformation and mealy-mouthed trivialization of peril borders on the criminal, like telling people not to bother wearing a condom when exposing themselves to HIV (a zoonosis itself!). "Improper cleaning" - pshaw! I have to wonder why it was allowed to exist in this blatantly incorrect form by the perennial editors of this page, like FT2 (who professes in his User Page to have a special interest in Science issues!) Skoppensboer 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other. That's my honest impression. I'm not "sickened" by this article, as many commentators have stated, but I do find it to have strayed off course, away from encyclopedic towards something else. Definitely. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Last, I come back to the approach. You need to tone down statements that could come over as personal attack or otherwise untoward aggression. For example, threats to escalate rather than collaborate if your view is not agrreable to others in some areas, and bad faith casting such as "allowed to exist" and such with associated finger pointing. As explained above, the rationale for space is a historic one on this article. The fact that your personal pet section is not necessarily able to take all the space it might need is addressed by my earlier comment (which you have agreed) that a separate article on health aspects of zoophilia may be valuable. That would be the appropriate approach. Not hostile editing and threats of edit warring. Not misdescribing edits as some attempt to "nullify". And not from someone who has already stated a preference for hyperbole and using Wikipedia's article to make a point and whose understanding of the subject is limited to lead them to describe the article as "chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air". Thats... not very likely to get anyone much respect. Your good points are respected, but that doesn't mean your edits are unable to be improved and made more neutral. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all argumentation and could equally apply to you. After all, who went ahead and completely rewrote the section without seeking any consensus here first, despite being so requested? Is this not the sort of behaviour likely to provoke disharmony? Think. Your sense of ownership of this page is a little inflated. Take a deep breath please. My other issue with the paragraph above is that some editors are so intent on expounding on their subject from a certain angle that for them, making an edit "more neutral" is tantamount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which they themselves may not be fully conscious. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Kernel of truth" - ha! You are now arguing medicine with me, and I suggest you get 3rd party input here, because you are wrong. Again, I'd welcome expert arbitration on these topics. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you see the problem, from my point of view. This simply appears like yet more agenda-based editorship, using exaggeration of health issues as the means. I do accept you are adding and substantiating valid information to a section that will benefit from it, and hope you can see in fact your information is being very carefully checked and questioned for precision (not censored), that good information is being retained and poor information filtered out, and that the issues being raised are in fact valid. In other words, please do edit - but edit with care. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tit for tat. To my reading, which is perhaps wrong, your own editorship absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations. You have and continue to try to censor my little contribution, and I shall continue to oppose it and watch it indefinitely. And when I say "war", I mean bringing in the big boys. This article could benefit from a major overhaul anyway. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Your edits all tend to minimise perceived risk and your intention is clearly to give the entire topic a gloss of safety and normality, I presume for personal reasons. Let me ask you directly: are you a zoophile? We should be told. It would certainly help to explain your edits made without consensus-seeking. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using pornographic erotica forums for proof of what we should or shouldn't say here. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. As for taking a break, I'll take a permanent break if you agree not to gut the Health and Safety section again. I am also agreeable to spinning it off as a separate page with a {{main| tag linking it to the Zoophilia page H&S section, as I've offered before, and to which you have never agreed, your recent comment about this notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) [8]

Peer-reviewed published research (June 2007)

  • Nancy Friday's books are pure pulp fiction
  • Once again, I invite you to peruse Medline
  • The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant
  • The International Society for Anthrozoology is not a recognised journal [9]

I'm not sure that we should attach a greater expectation to research than those experts actually writing in the field do. Miletski, Beetz, Donfrio, and others, are constantly cited in academia when the topic is written on, and both they and their work is treated invariably as credible, accepted-as-common-knowledge-by-the-consensus, carefully written, and reputable, by others writing in the field. The writings have been published and used by their peers now for a significant number of years. In addition I have found no notable minority of writings from within the field by others denouncing them for bias or poor research - a quite remarkable absence for such a controversial topic and conclusion if the research was even slightly questioned. Instead of doubt, they are treated as foundational and accepted-as-obvious, and cited accordingly. I find it hard to conclude we as reporters of the topic, should do otherwise. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FT2, the points you make do not refute the point I made. If you disagree with me, I suggest you ask someone who is a true medical or psychological expert for comment. In the last decade, there has been a big swing towards evidence-based medicine (please read that wikipage). Under the new regime, much of the preceding research is inadequate, and not only in this area -- far from it! The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant. Much higher standards now apply for the publication of research, especially in august and pre-eminent journals. I think your understanding of this point is seriously flawed, especially when you point to journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology. This is not a recognised journal. It is not indexed by Medline and is not formally recognized in the fields of medicine or psychology. And lastly, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. From the journal's own website [1] we see they state: "Each issue contains (non-refereed) articles on topics related to the human-animal relationship, interviews with key figures in the field, book announcements, conference news and so forth." Skopp (Talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)