FT2 Options

[Peter Damian]

Amazing that no one has picked up sooner on this guy. He got through the elections with near-universal acclaim.

"has considerable experience dealing with the kinds of difficult and contentious issues particular to wikipedia"
"level-headedness and clarity of thought"
"a superior candidate and eminently qualified"
"am in awe of the clarity of intellect"
"good answers, very level-headed, fair-minded editor with an excellent track record in disputes"
"We need someone who intricately understands NPOV. Looks like we found him"

How gullible can people be. This man is very sinister, but let's put the darker elements to one side.

His extremely pedantic approach to all things Wiki gives the appearance of extreme neutrality. But this man is far from neutral. Let's have a look at the article Neuro-linguistic programming, considered by all respectable 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 FT2 got his hands on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=33400304

which is a pretty accurate description, to my mind. And here it is at the end of 2007, after an extensive series of edits by our friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=178579988

The difference is remarkable is it not. FT2 attracted considerable resistance from the scientifically inclined. His solution which he describes here

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

is quite revealing. Quite clearly all the different people who protested about 'promotion' and 'pseudoscience' and whatnot must be sockpuppets of the same person, ergo block or ban the lot of them. This does not augur well for Wikipedia. Here's another lot of old rubbish he writes on NLP (Nov 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=27524879

Where is the 'clear and level-headed thinking'. I see none. It is all babble. E.g.

"NLP also denies wholism, and instead asserts that even if human behavior and internal structure is too complex to understand in full, there are structures and separability, and micro-awareness of patterns within behavior is a good source of information to communicators."

Or look at the section "Philosophical stance of NLP" which does not contain anything philosophical at all as I understand the term. Oddly this article references the following section of the main article.

Neuro-linguistic programming#Criticism

But that section of course has since disappeared!

There is acres more and so little time but let me finally reference FT's edit to the NPOV policy itself here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148471883.

This part of the policy defines the meaning of the word 'bias'. One form of bias is, he says, is 'Favouring a scientific view for non-scientific reasons can include "excessive favoring (or disfavoring) prevalent scientific opinion, if in doing so, notable viewpoints are no longer being treated neutrally."'

A 'notable viewpoint' is code for a pseudoscientific viewpoint that has become notable because enough quacks and charlatans are promoting it.

There are some very interesting times ahead.

[Peter Damian]

Aha, and if I look at the article NLP and science, I see someone recently added the following 'lack of balance' tag to a section describing scientific research on this cult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=167545683

here's a para from this supposedly 'unbalanced' section

"In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies on the existence and effectiveness of preferred representational systems (PRS), an important underlying principle of NLP, and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems and predicate matching.[10] Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed.[11]They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training, there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology."

Seems perfectly balanced to me, being simply a quote from the literature. And this guy is going to end up on an arbitration committee? What planet are these people on?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Derktar]

Welcome to the Review Mr. Damian, enjoy your stay.

[guy]

I expect him to oppose any attempt to unblock me on the grounds that since we both opposed his RfA we are obviously sockpuppets.

Obviously, just as Seraphimblade did on the grounds that both Runcorn and Poetlister opposed his RfA. Opposing RfAs is a heinous crime.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

I pointed to this users early days at Wikipedia (during the election) and if you look closely at the edit history, you might find a somewhat remarkable story.

Nothing wrong with sex and sexual editing...especially with the experience that this editor had prior to WP??? This user (FT2) will be one of the next interesting time bombs for WP, in my opinion. That is......... following the even more interesting twist that people like NewYorkBrad will experience when they try to spend hours on WP while they are supposed to be working at practicing LAW! People that work for the public really should work.

I do not mean work at WP. That is being underemployed.

Anyhoooo...FT2 skates into the limelight with an interesting past? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

[wikiwhistle]

I pointed to this users early days at Wikipedia (during the election) and if you look closely at the edit history, you might find a somewhat remarkable story.

Nothing wrong with sex and sexual editing...especially with the experience that this editor had prior to WP??? {...}

Anyhoooo...FT2 skates into the limelight with an interesting past? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Ooooooh do you have any gossip/info about his past? PM me if you prefer. Just because I like a laugh lol, anything on telly about bestiality and people having a romantic relationship with their dogs is always hilarious (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[The Joy]

I pointed to this users early days at Wikipedia (during the election) and if you look closely at the edit history, you might find a somewhat remarkable story.

Nothing wrong with sex and sexual editing...especially with the experience that this editor had prior to WP??? {...}

Anyhoooo...FT2 skates into the limelight with an interesting past? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Ooooooh do you have any gossip/info about his past? PM me if you prefer. Just because I like a laugh lol, anything on telly about bestiality and people having a romantic relationship with their dogs is always hilarious (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

During his ArbCom campaign, a Wikipedian criticised him for his participation in the Zoophilia (bestiality) article and took his campaign off WP. It was a mess and something of an embarrarsement to FT2, if I recall.

[Moulton]

Note the meme of disrepute again.

[Peter Damian]

During his ArbCom campaign, a Wikipedian criticised him for his participation in the Zoophilia (bestiality) article and took his campaign off WP. It was a mess and something of an embarrarsement to FT2, if I recall.

It was an animal rights campaigner from Switzerland (NOT me, by the way). She ran Kate's tool and it turned out that of his three most edited articles, one was the Zoophilia one, the other one on the Labrador retriever.

He objected that he likes to edit contentious articles and 'dangerous' subjects. However, there is nothing contentious or dangerous about retrievers. Is there?

[LessHorrid vanU]

... However, there is nothing contentious or dangerous about retrievers. Is there?

Ask a game bird on and immediately after the Glorious Twelfth...

[Peter Damian]

... However, there is nothing contentious or dangerous about retrievers. Is there?

Ask a game bird on and immediately after the Glorious Twelfth...

Well we laugh, but there are some very close connections between extremist sections of the animal rights movement, and, er, certain fringe sexuality groups.

I was puzzled why certain users sign their posts with the Greek 'Zeta' symbol. Something to do with book VII of Aristotle's Metaphysics? Not at all: stands for 'Zoophiles for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'. These are people who love animals so much that, er ... Here is a screenshot of one of their websites, showing the 'secret' symbol. (The screenshot was made by ASAIRS - an anti-zoo activist group - they have had a lot of success in getting these nasty sites closed down).

http://www.angelfire.com/oh/ARRESTzoophiles/screen20.jpg

Their avatars all have pictures of wolves or cartoon dogs, and they support Rainbow alliance stuff like saving the timber wolves and things like that, which is all very right-on and worthy except for, er, you know what.

There are very heated interchanges when ASAIRS members turn up to certain contentious Wiki pages and try to revert or edit or delete certain sections of said articles. All out nuclear war, which the ASAIRS guys always lose and end up getting blocked or permanently banned. The Zeta guys by contrast always win because they had the good sense to recruit each other as admins, and they know the NPOV stuff backwards. But I'll leave these amusing episodes until later, assuming they don't get completely deleted from the database. But then (see my other post) that will take a huge amount of explaining, because it all overlaps and cross-references to Arbcom hearings, and I'm not sure how easily that can be done.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Yehudi]

There's something about called the Furry Fandom where people dress up as animals. Does that tie in?

[Peter Damian]

There's something about called the Furry Fandom where people dress up as animals. Does that tie in?

Sort of. At one end you have the furries, which is people dressing up as animals and it all ends there, and probably quite innocent. Then you have the plushophiles, which is too disgusting too talk about on this Holy Eve. Then you have the bestialists, which is also too disgusting. It is all different shades of the same thing. This

http://www.godhatesfurries.com/index.php?p=about

is quite a good background to the whole thing.

[Yehudi]

I see.

[KStreetSlave]

There's something about called the Furry Fandom where people dress up as animals. Does that tie in?

Sort of. At one end you have the furries, which is people dressing up as animals and it all ends there, and probably quite innocent. Then you have the plushophiles, which is too disgusting too talk about on this Holy Eve. Then you have the bestialists, which is also too disgusting. It is all different shades of the same thing. This

http://www.godhatesfurries.com/index.php?p=about

is quite a good background to the whole thing.

Worst "god hates XXXXX" site ever. It's actually serious. See Godhatesshrimp.com for a better example

[Peter Damian]

Just noticed this one, which is lovely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230606710

Thanks all of you for the support, however, but by talking to those fronting "Chillum's" latest attempt to get rid of me, and bring attention to himself, you are also encouraging FT2, to comment further. He knows, as do the Arbcom, I do not like him even mentioning my name. Such is my extreme distaste for him. However, as he yet again attacks me and seizes, saliva dripping, this opportunity to attack me, I feel forced to respond, if only for the sake's of any new editors who may not know of him. As Bishonen says above, if he had one scrap of honour or dignity he would not be on this page at all. Most people see straight through him so I suppose it matters not.

In his way, he is every bit as bad as the editor currently known as "Chillum," who having posted his lurid and vulgar insinuation for the titillation of his pathetic friends on IRC#admins, immediately ran to them bleating when he got his well deserved punch on the nose. He did this in an attempt to repeat the previous block of me which he orchestrated on IRC#admins by [[User:Kwsn]] (The same #admins that FT2 assures us is properly regulated etc. etc. etc.) Following that block, FT2 even had the gall to use my having some edits oversighted to protect an IRC Admin, (member an Admin with oversight had to agree with me) as a pretext to attack me further. He truly is a person with no honour or scruples.

I have no doubt he will come back here with some verbose diatribe, but the problem is now that every time the Arbcom drag me into one of their instantaneously accepted cases built on thin air and hope, they are more and more damaged. Every time FT2 open his mouth they are even more damaged. Everyone with half a brain now sees straight through them - and have they yet addressed the IRC problem? (hat they promised us all they would) No, of course not. Why? ....Because it is owned by one of their number, and they probably feel it is the only place that gives them the support to keep them where they are. In that respect, I dare say they are for once quite correct. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[Milton Roe]

He objected that he likes to edit contentious articles and 'dangerous' subjects. However, there is nothing contentious or dangerous about retrievers. Is there?

Maybe not unless you happen to be FT2's labrador retriever.

FT2 is deep, deep in the closet as regards his ID. So deep he only breathes through the mousehole in the closet corner, which he actually likes. There's a deleted post where he includes encrypted information about his credit cards and bank account to secretly ID himself to the WMF, if that should ever become necessary. Of course it wasn't, but that gives you some idea of the care he's taken.

I can tell from his edits that he's British, Jewish, educated in psychology, and probably went to English universities where he picked up the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish Vicarish cant (it isn't that-- just sounds like high church twee). A lot of literature courses somewhere there. "Compawwwwe and contwaaaast". Probably gay. Who knows is he has paraphilias or just studies them, or both. If he practices NLP someplace in England, it isn't obviously enough to nail him by the writing style.

Brandt, here is where we need your skills. This guy's a first rate puzzle.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Vicky]

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

[dogbiscuit]

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

Vicars: the one's I have come across usually manage to sound either snooty or overtly gay or both regardless of orientation. Less so the other protestant variations.

[Carruthers]

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

Vicars: the one's I have come across usually manage to sound either snooty or overtly gay or both regardless of orientation. Less so the other protestant variations.

Yes, I think that Americans have to be careful using their own language ticks in dealing with people from the UK. It's a whole different, um, ballgame...