FT2 and the Headley Down affair Options

[Peter Damian]

I've been doing some more research on the blocking and banning of a number of users who were combating pseudoscience in Wikipedia. FT2 was behind the bans (he is an adherent of the NLP cult, and a large number of the people who supported him at the election are either NLP, or other cults, or members of, er, certain fringe sexuality groups).

The facts are hard to track down, but there do seem to be a number of editors, not just a set of sockpuppets. Some of them were banned because they were members of the same science club at Hong Kong university.

Question: is this allowed? For example, if several members of the Royal Society had the same concern about pseudoscience or whatever, and acted to correct misinformation in Wikipedia, would there be grounds for a ban like this? Or what about members of the same philosophy department?

I've emailed Helen to get her side of the matter. [Update - the email address is no longer valid, and there is still a question of whether she is a sockpuppet of Headley - on the other hand, the offense she was blocked for was being a 'meatpuppet', and that seems fundamentally wrong. I've also followed up a lot of the Headley down edits, and, regardless of whether he was guilty of the sockpuppet issue, they were pretty much all sound, and many of the attacks on him were flagrant abuse of policy, and bullying. But more of that later. End of edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=57142176
Revision as of 07:41, 6 June 2006 (edit) (undo)Helen Wu (Talk | contribs)

Hi Antaeus. I have noticed some strange and odd things on the NLP article. Most of the HKU skeptics society has been banned from editing on the basis of they are suspected sockpuppetry. I am a member, and I am worried about myself being banned if I make any objection to the NLP advocates removing verified information. I know at least some of them are not sockpuppets. I met Alice, Headley (Wei Qing), Hans, and Bookmain (Jim) a few months back, and Camridge (Liz) is also really nice. They are all therapists and academics. Do you think they will ban the whole of Hong Kong and China from editing that article? Also, I notice you have a grounding in editing pseudoscience subjects. I can send you some soft copy papers on NLP that the group gave me if you like. The article at presently seems to be going under some kind of censorship campaign. Some of it refers to scientology and other pseudosciences so I thought it may be helpful and "synergetic" for you. [[User:Helen Wu|Helen Wu]] 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Yehudi]

if several members of the Royal Society had the same concern about pseudoscience or whatever, and acted to correct misinformation in Wikipedia, would there be grounds for a ban like this?

They probably wouldn't all use the same IP range. Even so, yes I bet there's be a shout of meatpuppetry.

[Peter Damian]

if several members of the Royal Society had the same concern about pseudoscience or whatever, and acted to correct misinformation in Wikipedia, would there be grounds for a ban like this?

They probably wouldn't all use the same IP range. [...]

Well apparently they didn't all use the same IP range. That's why FT2 called it a 'block on behaviour'. I.e. anyone who can't grasp the obvious fact that NLP (or whatever) is perfectly-grounded in scientific evidence, is an obvious troll and obviously acting in concert, or is a sockpuppet.

An analogy: a group of creation 'scientists' get hold of the evolution article and make consistent with Genesis. They spot a whole bunch of people who are editing it with apparently the same set of objections and principles and claims and references (they seem to be members of a cult devoted to a guru called 'Darwin'). Obviously these people are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Apply the 'block on behaviour'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Castle Rock]

Would this block by FT2 be part of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Docleaf

This account has been indefinitely blocked. It is a reincarnation of an editor that uses multiple sockpuppets and that has been community-banned and blocked on multiple occasions in the past under different names.

Apologies it took so long to notice. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

Would this block by FT2 be part of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Docleaf

THANKS for spotting that. Dynamite. Let's take a closer look. First, FT2 references this freaky page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY

"If you are seeing this message, it is likely to be because a block placed by FT2 led you here. " - sounds like the Matrix. And "This page is used for those rare blocks ... where posting detail might help vandalism in future." Eh? You can now be blocked without any reason?

Now look at the user's edit history. Any history of disruption?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&target=Docleaf

Looking at the edits, all the ones I have looked at seem well-referenced and civil and so forth. There is a constant 'behavioural' element, in that the user is clearly a scientific sceptic and opposed to many of the claims made by the 'New Age' and alternative medicine. But they are all properly sourced, as far as I can see. Now turning to the edit on 27 December that prompted the block by FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180379394

All he is doing here is removing the claim that alternative medicine is a term for health care practices that MAY NOT HAVE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR THEIR EFFECTIVENESS.

The edit is perfectly in order. The term 'their effectiveness' is what we linguistic philosophers call 'presuppositional', it makes an implicit claim by referring to something whose existence is in dispute, ergo whose existence should not be presumed. In this case, the effectiveness of alternative medicine. Before the edit, the article was saying, in effect, 'alternative medicine is effective, but there is no explanation for its effectiveness'. Since it makes the POV claim that such medicine is effective (nothing wrong with citing evidence that it is, but don't make the claim in the encylopedia), the blocked editor was right to remove it.

But, nonetheless, FT2 blocks the guy (or girl) without any reason given. That is utterly f---ing unbelievable. I really cannot understand why this is happening.

And here's another sinister page from his user space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180924286

Hi,

A quick heads-up. This article was visited by [[user:{{{1}}}]] who edited or commented on it. Unfortunately {{{1}}} was a reincarnation of a well known warrior and pov pusher, who specializes in "slanting" articles, discrediting, faking, or removing cites and viewpoints, killing due weight, gaming the system, and low grade persistent personal attacks, including accusations of bias, hints of incompetence, and so on.

Editors on this article are cautioned to be wary. This user often returns with new socks, often quite different in behavior or "angle", sometimes having them there already, sometimes days or months later, sometimes several of them over time. These may be respectful and well behaved or disruptive; as a result, sometimes only over considerable time do the problems of bias and warring begin to show. The user also at times (like many vandals) makes good sane edits and comments as part of their gaming.

Please review the edits made by {{{1}}}, if necessary in extreme cases reverting back to a version before they became involved on this topic (and adding in anything genuinely valid since), and be wary of trusting any of the users' contributions. And always assuming good faith -- please seek advice if a concern should arize in future for any reason, rather than jumping to conclusions.

I apologize for having to post this. Thank you.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Templates/hd-info"

The implication is, be as well-behaved as you like, you may still be blocked if you cross with FT2. Surely at some point, despite his extraordinary, and to me inexplicable, popularity in the community, some decent people are going to start questioning all this? There are still many decent people there, you know.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Yehudi]

Eh? You can now be blocked without any reason?

Of course you can't. There is a reason: "you are making cogent, well-supported arguments that I don't like."

[Moulton]

Blocking people for specious reasons appears to be a recurring pattern or practice that ArbCom apparently turns a blind eye to.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Peter Damian]

It turns out Docleaf is an incarnation of Headley Down. But as his edit record shows, he has done nothing disruptive. He has just left a little message to FT2 on his talk page.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)h don't mention it. Your blatant and self-serving effigy burning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown] has consistently failed to stop me from improving Wikipedia. Some editors simply don't give a toss about brownie points or currying favour. Its the articles that count and I've improved every one that I have worked upon according to NPOV policies and in cooperation with other editors. Your contributions show that you have spent a lot of your energy on making sure that your interests are pushed and supported by others with strong bias and vested interests. But shame for you that its facts that will win long term. Most of the facts you have tried to squash are all there in painful view, and its inevitable that someone will present the remainder. Happy new year. [[User:Docleaf|Docleaf]] ([[User talk:Docleaf#top|talk]]) 07:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)"

[Yehudi]

But shame for you that its facts that will win long term.

Not on Wikipedia, they won't!

[Docknell]

But shame for you that its facts that will win long term.

Not on Wikipedia, they won't!

Mmm, I'm not sure about that. I had a look at some of the original Headlydown edits and they seem to persist. Its just the finer points that seem to get hidden or minimised by FT2 and cranks.

I see FT2 has generally been pushing the bestiality line subtly (well as subtly as any admin blunderbuss can) e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62331938

FT2 seems here to be saying science supports zoophile claims. Supportive of what claims? That zoophilia is fine?

FT2 removed the rather blatantly obvious notion that bestiality is generally compared with pedophilia (this is also main part of the ethical concern (duty of care). I think I'm going to investigate this particular editor further. FT2 is almost definitely going to be a huge embarrassment to WP. The deviant and pseudoscience pushing going on there seems to be the tip of the iceberg. I'll have a shufty at the pedophilia related FT2 edits also. Nell

[Peter Damian]

FT2 seems here to be saying science supports zoophile claims. Supportive of what claims? That zoophilia is fine?
FT2 removed the rather blatantly obvious notion that bestiality is generally compared with pedophilia (this is also main part of the ethical concern (duty of care).

Well done. It gets much worse than that. Unfortunately a really damning edit was removed by Wales and co after I pointed it out to them. However, there is much more, particularly when a user called Ciz complained about the bias in the article. He only made 21 edits before the zoo-cabal got him banned from editing anything to do with Zoophilia. For example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8527205 FT2 removes a NPOV tag that Ciz had quite properly placed on the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8475397
Revision as of 01:38, 16 December 2004 (edit) (undo)
Ciz REMOVES "professionals and people who know genuine zoophiles and their partners personally over a period of time (whether knowingly or unknowingly) often find it hard to see abuse..." which is entirely POV and unsourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8475603 A user called PMC who was 15 at the time and claims to be a Satanist, REPLACES the edits Ciz removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8469920 FT2 REMOVES
"There are others who respect and care for animals but still believe that having sex with animals is abusive, no matter the reason." which is surely true, isn’t it? FT2 comments “rvt more Ciz vandalism” !!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...1&oldid=8271423 FT” REPLACES
"Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings." With the comment “verified mainstream research - Ciz, do NOT remove information that doesnt suit your POV please. Discuss on the talk page if you feel this is unsupported.” – this ‘verified mainstream research has yet to be cited!

There is much more. The worst thing, as I say, is that at the time there was a whole group of zoophiles editing the article, and Ciz got royally beat up. At the arbitration, they could say things like, everyone is fed up with this user. Also it’s hard in such a situation not to lose your cool, and Ciz did in a couple of places. And he had to face abuse from others. E.g. look at the article talk page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...a&oldid=7664626

Steele the wolf (they all have tags like this) says “This is coming from a rabid anti-zoo, asairs pawn ..” – I need to explain that ASAIRS is a now defunct organisation that campaigned against zoophile sites and got many of them closed down. Ciz replies “I dont like animals being molested. If that makes me an anti-zoo, then fine”. Steele calls him “intolerant and a hypocrite”. And so on. Steele the wolf was one of the cabal that FT2 later defended at arbitration. E.g. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._against_Steele

Later FT2 thanks Steele

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=102133957

for the rFA support. ‘It was well earned’ says Steele.

There’s much more, but they may delete these if anyone is reading WR, so I’m saving powder. You need to go back to 2004-5 FT2 edits mostly.

[Docknell]

Goodness, you are right. The HeadleyDown article has been removed, yet supposed sockpuppet accounts remain. eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EBlack

So basically, FT2 is removing bits of information that involve direct discussion with HeadleyDown. What's the chance that FT2 has admitted to being an NLP certified editor? Considering FT2's defense of obvious NLP editor/companies, I think the likelihood is high. Docknell

[Peter Damian]

Goodness, you are right. The HeadleyDown article has been removed, yet supposed sockpuppet accounts remain. eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EBlack

So basically, FT2 is removing bits of information that involve direct discussion with HeadleyDown. What's the chance that FT2 has admitted to being an NLP certified editor? Considering FT2's defense of obvious NLP editor/companies, I think the likelihood is high. Docknell

The best way to understand his effect on NLP is to look at the article as of of 31 December 2005

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

and then as of 17 December 2007

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

It puzzled me for a long time how he was one of the most popular administrators on Wikipedia, then it struck me. He is unfailingly polite, except to those he has identified as targets. He then evicts the targets very speedily. He also presents a superficial appearance of NPOV. Finally, he supports pretty much any fringe editor on any fringe subject. This makes him massively popular, except with the people he bans. But they can't complain any more.

On involvement with NLP, yes, he is a practitioner.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Castle Rock]

And another one User:Aberdeenharbour
21:57, 13 January 2008 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Aberdeenharbour (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Reincarnation of banned user - see User:FT2/DENY)
This one was active on Asian_fetish.

[guy]

Asian_fetish.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Where's Taxwoman when we need her?

[Jonny Cache]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Where's Taxwoman when we need her?

Probably tied up elsewhere.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Peter Damian]

And another one User:Aberdeenharbour
21:57, 13 January 2008 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Aberdeenharbour (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Reincarnation of banned user - see User:FT2/DENY)
This one was active on Asian_fetish.

And this is completely bizarre.

XXX is blocked, as the reincarnation of a known edit warrior with a prediliction for encouraging and enjoying edit wars. Users who were encouraged in their viewpoint by this user, may wish to reconsider any encouragement they were given on discussion viewpoints they were putting forward, in light of this.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Either he's saying you are completely stupid because you never actually check (for reasonableness, evidence &c) what some fellow editor claims.

Or he means that this is a blocked user, ergo is evil, ergo he hopes you aren't going to continue saying what he was saying. This guy (FT2) gets more sinister by the minute.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[KStreetSlave]

And another one User:Aberdeenharbour
21:57, 13 January 2008 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Aberdeenharbour (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Reincarnation of banned user - see User:FT2/DENY)
This one was active on Asian_fetish.

And this is completely bizarre.

XXX is blocked, as the reincarnation of a known edit warrior with a prediliction for encouraging and enjoying edit wars. Users who were encouraged in their viewpoint by this user, may wish to reconsider any encouragement they were given on discussion viewpoints they were putting forward, in light of this.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Either he's saying you are completely stupid because you never actually check (for reasonableness, evidence &c) what some fellow editor claims.

Or he means that this is a blocked user, ergo is evil, ergo he hopes you aren't going to continue saying what he was saying. This guy (FT2) gets more sinister by the minute.

Sinister? Lol. FT2 is one of the most reasonable admins I've come across.

[Docknell]

And another one User:Aberdeenharbour
21:57, 13 January 2008 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Aberdeenharbour (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Reincarnation of banned user - see User:FT2/DENY)
This one was active on Asian_fetish.

And this is completely bizarre.

XXX is blocked, as the reincarnation of a known edit warrior with a prediliction for encouraging and enjoying edit wars. Users who were encouraged in their viewpoint by this user, may wish to reconsider any encouragement they were given on discussion viewpoints they were putting forward, in light of this.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Either he's saying you are completely stupid because you never actually check (for reasonableness, evidence &c) what some fellow editor claims.

Or he means that this is a blocked user, ergo is evil, ergo he hopes you aren't going to continue saying what he was saying. This guy (FT2) gets more sinister by the minute.

Sinister? Lol. FT2 is one of the most reasonable admins I've come across.

That doesn't surprise me. There are some other admins that regularly push pseudoscience and fringe sexual practices, and who protect COI editors who push those subjects. FT2 seems to be most keen on turning the rules of WP to that end. FT2 does it very reasonably. So if you are anti-pedophile, science based, or against the practice of zoophilia, then you will be reasonably chased off, booted, and have your effigy burned by FT2. I suspect there are a few editors who do it less reasonable than that. WP is full of well sourced facts, that are systematically and highly reasonably organized in order to be presented to make them as misleading as possible to the reader. This is especially the case where vested interests are an issue. Perfectly reasonable distortion. If you reason things through properly, with a bit of work and sociopathic shoe-polishing, you will be able to make WP your very own pretend reality. Thats what makes it so hilarious and alarming to view from the outside.

[Peter Damian]

Sinister? Lol. FT2 is one of the most reasonable admins I've come across.

LOL to you. I can give you hundreds of diffs of outright bullying, lying, distortion, blocking, the works. He is incredibly pleasant, to be sure, for most of the time. So was Essjay, of course.