Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: FT2

Just a quick note. I first asked for a WR account to be set up in April, but it wasn't, and again a week or so ago (admin mail wasn't being checked). Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front.

Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job (and probably a number of disputes I get asked to help with) gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important.

Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at wikipedia may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like wikipedia editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible.

What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to argue people out of entire world views such as conspiracy-based thinking; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I woulnd't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me.

That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go unless relevant to enwiki work, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay.

I don't have much to say, and if theres a deluge of comments I might be some time getting to them (wiki editing and Arbcom's a full time job and I still have to balance it with the usual family, friends and work). I plan to read around the board and see what's what, before I comment on any specific matter. Last I'm aware that WP and WR may have quite different site ethics and customary approaches. If someone can advise me what are the social norms and standards expected on this site, I'll aim to write in a way that meets them.


FT2

Posted by: everyking

Welcome to the forum. I'm happy to see you here.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

"Assume good faith" and "Don't be a dick" usually work fine. "Don't take any accusation anyone makes too seriously unless they have some evidence" and "Remember that people you'd block-on-sight on Wikipedia have legitimate opinions here" are also fairly good ones to remember.

Posted by: Crestatus

I'm fairly new here myself; trust me, the water is just fine, so jump on in.

Posted by: KStreetSlave

Half of the people who claim to hate you (or any other editor for that matter) on this site are Bandwagon, Jumping on The. The rest probably have legitimate reasons.

It's happened time and time again though, one user here has a legitimate gripe against an admin, or even an illegitimate and misguided one, and others pick up and echo it without having any real knowledge of what they're bitching about, what's allegedly "wrong" with the user, etc. Usually they can't distill it down past "X is power hungry" or "Y is an abusive kid who shouldn't be an admin".

Again, that doesn't diminish the points of the legitimate critics. If you get anything from this site, don't fail in the distinction between the two groups, because the legitimate group's criticisms are at least worth giving a good listen, while the other's howls are not worth the toilet paper they ought to be printed on.

Posted by: FT2

(Quick update - I do habitually re-edit my own posts. Not so much to "make them artificially right in the face of criticism", more to clarify my own ambiguous or partial wording before others get misled by it. But this website doesn't have revisioning, like most forums, so I will try to avoid making any but minor clarifying edits to my own posts once they get replies. If I forget, that's why - it's habit.

I'm well known on-wiki for wordsmithing my own posts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2/Archive#Preview. The reason is, as an arbitrator who is active in some very heavy duty disputes, being "quoted" to endorse something I don't wouldn't be good. Hence why I try to be careful.)

Posted by: FT2

In the first category, people I know who will be hostile are -- the user you know as Peter Damian (I gather thats his name on WR), a banned user who I have spent 2006 to date removing from the wiki (and who surely has an account here for the same purpose), and probably though I'm guessing based on rumor, proabivouac, though we have had barely any interaction and I'm not sure why. Perhaps generic "don't like arbcom". If there are others, I can't think of them right now.

Damian has offered/accepted mediation but there is still immense hostility at present. The banned user will continue to try and stir as always and get his wikipedia accounts blocked when it's time to. And if I'm wrong about proabivouac, then pro' - let me know, and contact me to clear it up. (On public forum preferred, if it's genuine).

Your second point - indeed. People show by their actions where they're at.

Posted by: privatemusings

well G'day :-)

(I'm not around too much.. being busy being fitted for my 'dark side' mask ;-) - and I think the best advice I'd offer for this forum is to cut to the chase.. less is more, and in my opinion plain speaking works better here! (you won't get blocked or templated! honest! :-) )

it's a sunday evening for me, and I've just spent 20mins or so looking into the UK chapter debacle... so here's a 'welcome to the frying pan' sort of question.... what the hell went on there?

cheers,

PM.

Posted by: Carruthers

Welcome to Wikipedia Review.

One thing that you probably should be aware of is that since more and more WP regulars post here, the people who made up the "Old guard" of WR seem to feel a bit "pushed off to the side" sometimes, so you might find tension coming out of that. Please be sensitive to these sorts of issues, as although this changing environment is unavoidable, that doesn't mean that everybody necessarily likes the idea.

It's good to see another Arbcom member here, especially someone who's dealing with "off site" issues, which have become an important issue. I'm sure that you'll do just fine if you deal in a cool and professional manner with everyone, including those who have bones to pick with you.

(Peter Damian seems like a sane, intelligent and highly articulate individual to me. Have you ever considered the possibility that he's the reasonable one? I mean, he's been doing quite a bit of rather nasty cleanup work (the category "pederasty" comes to mind...) that nobody else dared touch before. I would think that you people should be giving him barnstars left and right...)

Posted by: FT2

Where/what about?

Posted by: Viridae

Hi FT2 - welcome.

Posted by: Docknell

So what do you really think about bestiality as a lifestyle?

Doc

Posted by: FT2

Quick answers - thanks for the heads up. I'll try to take each person's comments as they present them, and talk to each in view of their own posts, rather than assume. That might be best.

As for Peter Damian, I'm hesitant to comment as he has reacted badly to comments before, has now offered/accepted mediation, and the ideal solution is to resolve any problem, not provoke it. Equally, allowing misinformation that stands due to silence doesn't help anyone either. I've stayed silent at times because some topics just don't need elaboration on wikipedia - our main job there is to develop an encyclopedia not to engage in politics and side issues, and my main job there is to edit content, and help others do so when it gets messy. So it's a difficult one.

Within his own sphere, he seems to be a reasonable and a good editor. In this area, he is not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements. If Peter Damian wishes to discuss the issue in a separate thread, I would be fine with it. Until then I am not going to open the topic, since I think his latest decision is a very wise one - it is best solved by mediation not confrontation, and I think engaging it on WR would be emotionally satisfying to him, but would not actually resolve it as well.

There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately.

Posted by: Peter Damian

A very warm welcome to Wikipedia Review, FT2, though I must say you were the very last person I expected to see here. For the record, I also have an account on WP with exactly the same name (as you surely must know). It is not blocked currently.

Could you be a little more specific here. You say I was 'pushing' a certain non-encyclopedic point of view. What was that?

All the best. Glad again you are here, and a warm welcome again.

[edit] Please don't let Docknell put you off. He is a good contributor, and I respect his work here greatly, but he can be a little blunt. Do excuse us all.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

I'll allow the bolded parts to speak for themselves. You should be a politician.

Posted by: Docknell

Do you believe it is noble to push misinformation about the brain (pseudoscience) and human-animal sex on Wikipedia? Do you feel it is right to set up mechanisms to persue and abolish those who oppose those who push such fringe practices?

Doc

Posted by: FT2

Hi Headley.

You're getting predictable. It took about 3 minutes of reading up on the WR backlog to ID you. I've been spotting you on-wiki for a long time before I was an admin, when I needed to collate evidence enough to show other admins why you were HeadleyDown, and that you were indeed just another edit warrior.

It makes a change to talk to you, though I doubt we have much unsaid since 2005. The ground rules are simple. Dialog's here fine, here I gather you're a respected user. On Wikipedia, the rules are as ever - if I see your accounts, I track them until I see confirmation they are you, or until I see what else you're up to, and then either at the time, or when it seems right, by myself or in consultation with others, they get blocked.

You saw what happens when I get asked to prove it. The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=222467440&oldid=222467300" And Thatcher confirmed that with the evidence he hadn't had before, he could verify the matter too.

For the record, you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=141339276, do you?

Giveaways here were: turning up to WR almost the same time as Damian, being the only other pusher of the above idea even on WR, Damian getting the "NLP cult" idea from you (as well as a number of your well-known memes, and your favorite "low quality but say what I want them to say" citations at Skeptics Dictionary), and having a history of contacting every user I remove for POV warring to try and coax them to "FT2 iz evilz"? It was obvious you were round, and being around, that you'd dive in. The only one.....

Unfortunately there is one born every minute, who is a little more gullible than average and really believes you. You tend to find them, use them, watch them get banned. If you have something useful to say, say it. Otherwise don't bother.

FT2

Posted by: Peter Damian

With all respect, could you engage issues here, please. It doesn't matter who anyone is on WR, we simply discuss issues.

One issue being: why is Headley Down a virulent (or 'subtle') edit warrior or whatever. Facts please.

Posted by: Docknell

Just a head's up. I'm not headley.

This is a newsgroup that anyone can attend. Your diffs alone betray what you are up to. I don't think we need to even go into details over any Paul Sinclairs, or NLP/finance workers of any kind.

I am a researcher though. I'm one of the many people who can smell bullshit whenever it comes calling. If someone claims that NLP is a cult, I will look up the sources. If the sources state that NLP is a cult or similar then I will pass that fact to others. Especially if it is supported by reason and other evidence.

If someone states that NLP is like scientology, likewise I will doublecheck. No surprises there.

People are indeed getting banned for doing simple research and reporting as such. You seem to be a committed adherant firmly rooted into the banning end. Fortunately, WP rules do not extend to WP review. Its funny that you seem to behave as if they do.

Concerning WP review. I came here after many months of feeling as if it was all nonsense. But I checked the diffs. Critical mass came and there was nothing more to do but to try to find some sort of redeeming set of diffs. So far it hasn't come. In fact, you have even turned up here, with nothing but sociopathic wrangling.

The web is full of pushers of all sorts. Like many normal people in the world, I think that is a cause for concern.

Again, what's all this about the views of bestialists being generally supported by scientists? Maybe my 8 yr old son should know!

Doc

Posted by: Peter Damian

Doc please calm down. Otherwise he will go back and confirm his view that WR is populated by trolls and evil banned sockpuppets. Gently does it, please.

Posted by: Rootology

Hey FT2, welcome.

Nice to see the bitter pill crowd has already arrived.

Posted by: Docknell

Well it was a bit direct. I'll try to be WPishly indirect for a while then. Eeeeww!

Doc

Posted by: Rootology

Guys, how about giving him at least, oh, a couple hours before leaping down his throat? Sheesh.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Yes, as I was saying.

Posted by: Docknell

Nowhere near the throat! Haven't even got close to fully examining the socially extended aura of reality dismissal yet. Happy to take my time.

Doc

Posted by: FT2

I can't do politics. I can see other people's views even if they aren't the same as mine. For example -

* If someone has had a comment made, reacted badly, then you would expect a thoughtful person to be hesitant to comment so firmly again. Thats not politics, thats human consideration. Besides if I make a person upset to no end, does that help us when we come to mediation in a few weeks?

* I cannot imagine a single wiki problem where the aim is not to resolve rather than escalate disputes. It's a good rule for life, generaly, too. That focus is so important, I've said it many times.

* Likewise, some people's only reaction to criticism is "Must.. rebut/defend!" But often that just comes across as attacking, and provokes the dispute which otherwise if you didn't over react, it wouldn't. I could sit here and rebut comments, if I cared to. The aim isn't that. The aim is to resolve the underlying disagreement if necessary. Those who care, will figure the rest out themselves, it doesn't need me to open the topic up to a problematic level, because of a misguided need to prove something or other. if Damian wants to, he will. I'm not going to take his offer/acceptance of mediation, and respond by throwing out everything I don't agree with so he can feel he has to respond and so on. What's the use of that? He wants to edit undisturbed, I'm all for solving the problem too. Let us get on with it, if he's okay with that route.

* Proving oneself is often satisfying ("See, I was RI|GHT!")... but often doesn't resolve the problem. Everyday commonsense. This is the kind of thing expected - to be able to separate what benefits the project and helps the editors for real ("resolve the problem") from the immediate "what feels good" (must.. argue.. and.. win!)

* The last one's a view based on information held. You can agree, or disagree, but it's a view.

So no, none of the bolded parts were politics, more ordinary commonsense and thoughts.


(and Peter - saw your comment, will reply when I get back if that's okay)

Posted by: Peter Damian

That is fine. Oh, I left a message on PM here, and on WP. Could you confirm please that you are FT2 on-wiki, to avoid potentially embarrassing banana-skins. Thanks.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

You will find such sockpuppetry games unwelcome on WR, FT2.

Posted by: FT2

I've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards. Others have too, I know. You don't see it although everyone else who's looked into it seems to - right up to the admin who asked for evidence to support the block you were concerned over. So I'm not repeating. Others can, if they wish to.

You need to bear in mind for the first 18 months of Headley's career I wasn't an admin, so I coulnd't have blocked him. So everything I spotted, had to be sent to an admin or checkuser, to look into and agreed by another user. A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me. In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't. So you'll have to find out for yourself, I can't convince or show you. That'll happen by seeing what he's up to through others you trust, or by following his line until it gets you where it got him. But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list. It's better that you ask someone you trust, another well reputed Wikipedia admin, to check and explain for you, as Alex Bakharev has tried.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I don't have any of these. All I can remember is you constantly repeating that he was a virulent sockpuppet and so on. Far from a 'wide range of cites' you did give three diffs of someone (might have been Headley) using appalling language, but so do I, from time to time, we all do. The main Headley accounts were all very well-behaved, contributed a lot of scientific content to the project, and were a net benefit. Flavius Vanillus' contributions were even better. The other cites you gave were simply pages mostly written by you, containing the same apparently unsubstantiated claims.

Bear in mind I have now checked through nearly every one of Headley's edits. I find nothing there of reproach.

On being 'about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't', I had a conversation with Thatcher quite recently who said he didn't even know who Headley was. So, er...

[edit] And I'm forgetting myself again. Can you please confirm in whatever way you like, that you are actually FT2, the guy on Wikipedia, and not some practical joker (sorry to ask again).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&action=history

[edit again] To be clear, we are not talking about any RL identity question here. Simply that you are the guy who edits as User:FT2 on wiki. Sorry if there is any confusion. Otherwise, is there a mod here who can confirm identity? Thanks.

Posted by: thekohser

Good old Alex B. Isn't he the guy who publicly endorsed (and recommended "significant increase" of) Jimbo's all-expense-paid trips to Moscow massage parlors?

Yep, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Questions/3#Recent_scandals.

Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome.

Greg

Posted by: Peter Damian

It's true, I hardly believed it, but Alex does say that. As a further note, no moderator has yet been able to confirm that this account is genuine, and my question on FT2's talk page is still unanswered, so be careful!

And as for Thatcher, I've already mentioned that Thatcher had no prior knowledge of Headley. He confirmed to me that he had simply taken FT2's word that Headley was a virulent whatsit.

Posted by: maiawatatos

As far as I can remember, headley admitted to deliberately trolling, but that was years and years ago. I believe he is in or connected to the british army, by the way.

Posted by: Docknell

Must be true then. Look, the whole world is virulent thingumy according to FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

Why? Probably something to do with NLP and bestiality. Who other than a virulent horrid person could be against such noble subjects? Only a single virulent entity, meatpuppet's or any other gullible horrid spiteful stalker person who believes sex with animals is wrong. And as for picking on pederasts and pedophiles! My gawd, how narrowminded. Ban them completely and recommend daily dosage of bomis babes before even considering reinstatement. WP rules!!!

Doc







You could be right. Headley Down is a village close to Aldershot (UK), so called home of the Brit army.

Doc

Posted by: Peter Damian

Perhaps someone here should try looking through all the edits of Phdarts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Phdarts

who is supposed to be 'attacking' the pedo pages, according to FT2. They are well-sourced and thoughtful edits, and his contributions on talk space are delightfully witty. An excellent editor.

Posted by: Shalom

Welcome, FT2. Don't spend too much time here. (I feel like a black pot for saying that...)

Posted by: Dzonatas

Welcome to WR, FT2

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Well, no, no one is required to Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF) of anyone, and the always good advice, Be Thou Not A Jackass, Too Often (WR:BTNAJTO), neither obligates anyone to Suffer Idiots Gladly (WP:SIG) nor prohibits anyone from Calling A Simpleton A Simpleton (WR:CASAS).

I hope that won't come as too much of a culture shock for you …

Not to worry, though, as I am not holding my breath …



Jon

Posted by: Eva Destruction

As Peter says, we have no confirmation that this is the real FT2 posting (who http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FT2) – for a site that's supposedly full of conspiracy theorists, you're (mostly) being remarkably trusting. Not to mention that any high-ranking Wikipedian using double--hyphens in space of en-dashes would be lynched by the Style Police (as would any British writer using the word "dialog").

Posted by: KamrynMatika

When Wikipedia admins and suchlike sign up to the site, Somey usually confirms they are such before validating their account.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Good spot, FT2 always uses Brit English. But it's a remarkably good impersonation.



I asked for confirmation but didn't get any. The 'dialog' is very suspicious.

[edit] I see Ryan's here, why can't he get confirmation, and delete the message I left on the FT2 talk page. I have no problem if he doesn't want his involvement known. It's also v suspicious this person stopped posting here as soon as I took it on-wiki.

Posted by: thekohser

Personally, I think it was my Alex B rejoinder that made him (the genuine character, or the impostor) reconsider his foray here.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Very possible.

Posted by: maiawatatos

I think his apparent failure to understand the Wikimedia UK question was a bit of a giveaway.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Having looked more carefully at the FT2 text with the eye of one accustomed to perusing ancient manuscripts for authenticity, I can confirm this is the real FT2 style, inimitable, no doubt. Quotes given below, with translations.

I have made this point clear already, and I am avoiding answering your question.



You are in a minority here.



Again, others can see this, you can't. You are in the minority.



I have widespread 'community support' for my actions.



See?



Bingo! You really ARE in the minority.



Threat.



Your fault for not trusting me.



Even Alex Bakharev agrees.

Posted by: gomi

Welcome FT2.

[Moderator's note: Unless there is a strong objection, this thread should be moved to "Editors" or "Bureaucracy". -- gomi]

Posted by: Somey

The more influential WP admins almost always want to use Gmail accounts to register here, so we do end up taking extra steps to verify that they're really who they say they are, but there was really no question in this case.

More importantly, if Mr. FT2 doesn't want to answer questions regarding the content he's added to Zoophilia and related articles, that's his prerogative, and it would probably be best if he weren't badgered about it. It would also be better if any questions were limited to the actual content in question, rather than speculation - no matter how justifiable it might seem - about his personal proclivities. However, that issue isn't going to go away, at least not without those kinds of answers. And if that means he never posts here ever again, then maybe we'll just have to live with that.

Last but not least, any claims regarding what WP accounts Mr. Docknell uses or has used in the past should, ideally, be accompanied by some sort of rationale for it, i.e., more than "oh, it's you again." I can certainly see why Mr. FT2 believes what he believes, but at the same time, the vast majority of people on Earth believe what Mr. Docknell believes (i.e., bestiality is wrong, Scientology is bad, NLP is a crock), even if they don't express it quite as forcefully as he does. Attempting to finger him as a particular WP account isn't going to change that, nor should it.

So, did that sound sufficiently admin-ish...?

Posted by: tarantino

Hi http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=185&target=TBP

For the record, http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php?wikiDb=enwiki_p&firstUser=FT2&secondUser=TBP, do you?

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Rofl! I think a large section of the world's population are unwitting meatpuppets of Headley Down in that case.



? Hi FT2. Was this a typo and you meant to say wiki prefers to resolve disputes, rather than you can't imagine that ever being the aim

I don't think that is FT2. There are typos too, and although long winded he's not usually this confusing. But then I did run ten miles today.

Posted by: Giggy

Somey, you specifically confirm (to the best of your knowledge) that this the real FT2 (and not a cheap imitation)?

Posted by: wikiwhistle

These are not unusual opinions. I've heard people call NLP a cult, say bestiality is wrong, and one only has to look at the Skeptic's dictionary site to get a feel for it. If one were for instance on a sceptical forum or mailing list, you would probably get people sharing those ideas about the site.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

With the downfall of the UK chapter, as Private's post clearly states.

Posted by: Proabivouac

An excellent question to which I, too, would like to hear a straight answer.

FT2, per your earlier comments, there is much here to discuss. However, since you mentioned a lack of appreciable interaction between us, I believe I first heard of you when you showed up out of nowhere - presumably solicited from IRC - and, without warning, blocked me for a week for attempting to warn contributors that if they use their real name, they are likely to be attacked under that name on Wikipedia. Perhaps just another routine meatpuppet/adminpuppet block for you, but it made an impression on me. The second interaction between us was your and JzG's deletion of my very detailed and accurate sockpuppet reports (Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos, the first resigned, the second still an administrator) and subsequent indefinite block of my account - immediately overturned, but leaving a very false charge of "harassment" in my account history. Reporting administrators for sockpuppetry is not "harassment." So, two more questions for now:

1) Given that you're so protective of your pseudonymity, why did you join in violating mine, and in ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't fairly warn new volunteer contributors of what can happen there?
2) What benefit do you see in covering up evidence of administrator sockpuppetry and dishonesty?

Posted by: gomi

[Moderator's note: thread moved to appropriate forum. - gomi]

Posted by: FT2

(Someone moved it. Took ages to figure where to find it!)

Lots to reply to, I hope this catches the main ones. I've priorotized them a bit, or tried to, so if I miss one, PM me with a link to the post number thats missing.

First and easiest - now confirmed on my wiki talk page.

Damian and Rootology - as explained, I'm not in the habit of assuming all WR users are (whatever). I may ignore individual ones after a time, but I'm no sitting here waiting to confirm some impression of the site. I know roughly what to expect, and asked for an account to be created being aware of that already. The so-called "bitter pill" crowd seem to be roughly two groups: HeadleyDown (WR's "Docknell") and Damian is one rather small group, and those who act as if they want to score points and soundbites, or generic "wikipedia- or arbcom-opposers" is roughly the other.

Kohs - you and I may only have a limited amount of interaction. I was willing to support you and look into your case on-wiki in April, but your claim to be an http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17586&st=0&p=95586&#entry95586 in it http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20002&view=findpost&p=123315, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18040&view=findpost&p=100985 of yours is clearly a well thought out debating point and not disruptive, so when you do make perceptive comments, it's appreciated. For the record in citing Alex B as an admin, I am (rather obviously) not endorsing everything he has said, nor everyone he says it to, and you know that. He has said what I cited him as saying, and is competent as an admin to say it. (And if my assessment of you is mistaken please contact me to discuss.)

Headley - As since 2005, the denials wear thin; pack it in. You only fool few people, and those few... well, so be it.

Damian - you had been given links to a wide range of other users' comments on Headley on several occasions. Evidence was given to you exactly as to others, many times. Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong). Let's leave it all till mediation though. I appreciate the offer of peace, and I would rather follow it up than respond unhelpfully or be seen as attacking in any way.

Somey - I don't run away easily. I added content that was, for the most part, researched rather than O.R. I could probably do better with experience. Some day I should go back to those topics for that purpose. It's just not a priority. Headley has spent from 2006 to now - over 2 years at this time - trying to present it as biased editing, and trying to get others via email, to push that viewpoint with him and for him. It hasn't worked so far for him on wikipedia, and even at WR, where you'd think he might get natural traction, I don't get the impression of much real belief.

Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.

Kelly Martin - you said You will find such sockpuppetry games unwelcome on WR, FT2.. Technically Docknell isn't a sockpuppet - he's using one account here and if it's not in his better known name, who cares. I can affirm 1/ Damian doesn't use socks so far as I know, and 2/ Damian isn't Docknell/Headley, for the record, and if there was a third pusher of Headley/Docknell's meme who joined in or since December, I think even the gullible at WR would have noticed. However the unfortunate fact is, something being welcome or otherwise does not mean it doesn't exist.

The irony is that this does expose the double standard. A number of users here who will endorse and encourage socking when used at wikipedia, will not endorse or encourage when they find it was used against them or "their" forum.

I'll try to come back to the rest (if any were important) in a bit. One or two need their own separate posts.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

I'm surprised to see you (if this is FT2) assume someone is a sock/one particular opponent just because they share any opinion. I thought you were more sophisticated than that.



Of course I don't believe it of you But have you thought (playing devils advocate here) that some people are simply being tactful, or not saying they agree with the suggestion because alleging it led to some people being blocked, or because they want to stay on wikipedia? You are in a position of power on WP. It would be hard and unwise for people to publically agree or say that they think there might be a grain of truth in allegations of scandalous things about you, on the record. Just saying

Posted by: Random832

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=235490599&oldid=235388712 is that diff, for future reference.


Whatever the case may be, it's unnecessary for to keep calling him that.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Then why did you take credit for User:TBP's work?

Posted by: Emperor

What a nest of guttersnipes!

Posted by: Somey

I'll say!

The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved.

And Mr. FT2, you're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley." Around here we call him "Docknell." User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I have fond memories of FTA — I'm wondering if FT2 is any kin?

Jon

Posted by: Docknell

Indeed, and in fact there seem to be many HDs on this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

all no doubt with similarly sizzling levels of virulence.

I am actually none of them, and I'll not be packing anything in whatsoever. The diffs are there for anyone to examine.

Doc









Just a simple question FT2.

The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NLP_Modeling

They are generally against the promotion of pseudoscience.

And the articles you created and conflated are indeed being deleted against the persistent arguments from yourself.

Do you feel that all those editors who are against your POV pushing should "pack it in"?

Doc

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Chapter 2. Wherein Jon begins to suspect that all ArbComedians are really sockpuppets of Fred Bauder.

Jon

Posted by: FT2

Answered in its own http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20116.

Posted by: Taxwoman

Why, belated greetings from me too, Mr FT2.

It's so delightful to see someone who has edited several of the same articles as I have. I look forward to resuming our collaboration - whenever you say, Mr FT2!

Posted by: Peter Damian

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply. Please note I have left Wikipedia for good. This refers

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ev&diff=235478241&oldid=235343699

so there will be no need for mediation.

On your comments about users exasperated with Headley. You originally cited Thatcher and Alex B. Thatcher has said he had never even heard of Headley Down (private email, can't cite). Alex B I don't know about. Was he involved with Headley?

And who were the others? I asked Woohookitty, and he (or she) said they didn't want to be involved any more. There were some others involved in the NLP dispute who obviously weren't too keen on Headley, but the vocal ones are all connected with the NLP industry in some way. E.g. Comaze who has admitted on-wiki to being an NLP practitioner.

Could you find us a truly independent person to comment on Headley? Thanks

[edit] And regarding Doc's post above: he is correct. Nearly all the scientific evidence I have looked at discredits NLP. And on the NLP articles I nominated for deletion, there was an overwhelming majority (apart from you and a handful of others) for 'delete'. Doesn't this suggest that Headley's editing, which was generally sceptical of the claims of NLP, was all right?



Sorry, what was this? By the way, on WR mores and culture, it is considered impolite not to source any claim with a diff or reference of some sort. Could you give precise references for your claims. And note the falsely attributed quote from Lakoff which you used earlier against me is still there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/List_of_users_of_NLP

(see the bottom). The quote attributed to Lakoff is not by him at all, but by an NLP practitioner. Again, could you please accurately source anything you say here, thanks.

Posted by: The Adversary

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

Slightly more seriously, I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" )

Posted by: FT2

Quick comments -

Noted about referring to Docknell as "Docknell" here, that's fine. I will refer to Headley the wiki sock-master as Headley, the WR editor as Docknell, and not use the one name for the other. I call him that since I'm used to him by that name, whatever name of the day he uses on-wiki.

One correction - far from not having edited for 2 years, he has edited pretty much without break from 2004/05 to August 2008. The last edits identified as him on-wiki were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/phdarts, and that is the customary name all concerned (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=141339276) have consistently used.

I don't consider a mere change of nick to signify "hasn't edited".



There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange.


Did I say that my basis for stating it was "just that they shared an[y] opinion", or is that just an assumption? I think it's the latter.

An introductory post isn't the place for detailed analysis, plus, that debate's been had numerous times on-wiki from 2005, for 3 years and some 60 - 80 socks, now. It gets predictable.

When I said he's subtle to detect, I meant it. But all that means is, you need someone to show you. One of Headley's annoyances is I've never told anyone except people I'm fairly sure won't leak to him, and only told people what's needed to ID a specific sock, never all of it, in case they do. Even so he's been affirmed by probably dozens of users over time -- are they all wrong? Doubt it. The evidence isn't usually trivial. They, like you, start knowing nothing and requiring good evidence. And yes that caution isn't usual, and ... that's how it is.


Yeah, sadly some people will not be honest about how they see things. They imagine others act as they would, or as they believe others will. The idea some don't, is hard to fit into their world view.

My commitment, and I make it publicly in case anyone does have this concern - I will not take action (nor for the suspicious, will I ask others to take action) for views, concerns and other matters expressed on Wikipedia and within wikipedia site norms. I also will not import views from here, to there, other than blatant statements of intent to disrupt or do harm, or evidence relating to actual bad conduct or likely future conduct, or the like. In other words, no, I don't and won't be going "OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING NASTY SO I WILL FIND A WAY TO HURT THEM FOR IT". Thats not okay, that's not the basis anyone should have who's an admin or arb, and anyone who thought it, can forget the possibility.

I'd respect some people a load more if they'd ask thoughtful questions for good cause, rather than mere assumption.





I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

And no, I haven't. My computer issues have been annoying, and a serious impediment, and lasted from beginning July to now. The alternatives were two laptops - one with a busted keyboard and overheating, and a borrowed one with so little memory that opening a web page is a 90 second adventure. I hope they're over, but god knows. The tech guys don't understand either (multiple components tried with multiple components). At worst it may all go back for testing, and likely I'll pull it offline for 24 hours to do testing anyway here. But today for the first time since June it passed [[Memtest]]. I wish I were as confident as memtest is. As a result I haven't done the full review on that case, which I'd have wished to. Its on my "get caught up" list.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Ahem this is simply not true. Your first edits (in July 2004) I shall pass over for now (there is a thread about them below). You edited it extensively from 2004-early 2007. My issue with them is nothing to do with 'yuk' factor, but what appears to be highly slanted and promotional editing, selective sourcing and so on. Example given below, of an edit war you had with Skoppensboer. I have included Skopp's comments only, but they were all directed at you. Link to the archived page is given if you want to check.

-------------------------------------------------------







-----------------

Posted by: Docknell

FT2, you said:


"There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange."


Well, let’s look at that with a few diffs shall we?

You seem to be removing well sourced information that is condemnatory to bestiality

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=141082873&oldid=141077281

And you seem to have shown a desperate need to save zoophiles from the normal and obvious comparison with pedophiles, and you add NLP vaguery to the opening that quite frankly a pedophile would want to add to the lead of the pedophilia article. That’s not science, its pure promotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=62345590&oldid=62331938

There is a definite need to deal with the ick factor. There is an increasingly vocal element among Wikipedians (especially during ANI’s and AfDs that seem to have been complaining about your activities) that seems to cry for the whole of Wikipedia to have such ick hosed out of the project, contributing arbitrators and all.

Or do you think casually dismissing the obvious incidence such fringe promotional editing is normal, natural, and acceptable for arbitrators such as yourself?

Doc

Posted by: Proabivouac

FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20105&view=findpost&p=125253

Posted by: Peter Damian

Yes, answers needed. Let's spell this out. Here is the contribution history for Hani_Miletski

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_Miletski&action=history

from which you can see TBP began the article, and left it in pretty much a finished state.



FT2 claims to have 'substantially rewritten' the article but when you look at his overall contributions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_Miletski&diff=52807293&oldid=52713521

they are just referencing, adding tags and a vandalism revert. What is going on?

Posted by: dtobias

You mean the "wretched hive of scum and villainy"?

----------------
Now playing: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/london+symphony+orchestra/track/star+wars+main+title+and+the+arrival+at+naboo
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/

Posted by: tarantino

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2&limit=500&action=history
First edit to self-nom
06:13, 17 June 2006 FT2 (Talk | contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TBP
01:19, 16 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Animal cognition ‎ (→Emotion: fix section head)

How long was checkuser data retained at the time?
No, it cannot be definitively proven at this time that the accounts were run by the same person. I've seen users with less mojo templated on weaker evidence, but frankly, it is one of your lesser transgressions. I'm a little busy on another matter that the wikiverse will soon feel the effects of to review your alleged socking, but if you wish to clue us in on this matter, feel free.

Posted by: thekohser

You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try -- I know it's difficult for some of you -- but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Greg, you can't expect someone addicted to the kool-aid to really understand why we disrupt Wikipedia. They've internalized the rule against "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" so deeply that when they see a disruption they immediately conclude that the disruptor is an unrepentant enemy and stop thinking further. No enemy of Wikipedia would ever have any meritorious point. There is no need to worry yourself with trying to understand what the point of the disruption was.

Frankly, I'm rather unimpressed with FT2's effort to fling poo here; it's plainly obvious that he is here to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Xenu/scs-07.html. If he will stop tossing feces long enough to actually have a discussion, I suspect he will find his continued participation more welcome.

Posted by: Peter Damian

It's not just the poo, it's the confusion. Once again, why does FT2 claim to have completely re-written an article (Hani Miletski) that user:TBP in fact wrote? That makes no sense, and FT2 hasn't answered it either.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Now, Greg, you ought to know this bit by now. Try to play along — you donwanna up↑set the Wiki-Peeneut Gallery, now do you? After all, up↑setting the Wiki-Peanut-Brains is my job.

FT2 is just the latest in a long, long — long to the WP:PUNT of TL;DR — long, long line of PR agents from the Wiksliver Kill The Messenger Service that we all know as Wikipedia. He will quite natterly feel a bit naked without his Waleser-PPK™ and his License2Kill® over here, so try to be gentle with him @ 1st, will you? He will quickly learn the trick, if he hasn't already, of deftly ignoring anyone who is e-wake e-nuff to speak the discomfitable truth bak@im, devoting his e-tentions to all the X-Boys-Staters and X-Girls-Staters who are so Gawdawful Frank 'n' Earnest 'n' Beans about the ArbCommodious Side-Show known as ARBCon.

So all us old BarFlies might as well sit back, relax, have a Strohs (IceCream or Beer, name yer poison), and laugh our arses off at the Comedy of BarfLies that we are about to see Wiki-Paraded b4 us.

Cheers!


Jon

Posted by: Carruthers

I'll drink to that!

Posted by: bambi

Does http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/cgi-bin/girc.cgi?Na=ft2 look about right? That first line probably dates from 24 July 2006. Not earlier, and certainly no later than 30 September 2007.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yes, but even the wretched hive of scum and villany has to use the loo. One of the funniest "Scenes We'd Like to See" back in MAD's heyday, was a "cut" scene where Luke visits the even more puzzling *lavatory* of the Mos Eisley Cantina. The fixtures cover the walls and floor and have multiple shapes, holes, attachments, suction cups, stuff that you don't want to know about....

Posted by: Taxwoman

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

Of course I'd be delighted if FT2 bought me a drink, though of course I'd keep a sharp eye to check it wasn't spiked. I'd also be very happy to show him why Tie and tease deserves its own article.

And FT2, can you please unblock RachelBrown as she wasn't covered by the ArbCom ruling; Dmcdevit blocked her on his own initiative on no evidence at all. (Since she hadn't edited for over a year before the ban, there could have been no "fresh technical evidence" against her.)

Posted by: Random832

Or perhaps he is simply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they.

Posted by: Taxwoman

Posted by: wikiwhistle

I've not read FT2's posts much on wiki, but I'm surprised to see he falls hook, line and sinker for all the stories about people, not only that but I thought he'd have a smoother style of debate than bringing it up to the people concerned, or even those that haven't been accused before like Docknell.



What's more, are we all socks of Headley?

Posted by: Taxwoman

That's because we're all in England with generic occupations and only six photos each.

Posted by: Docknell

Request for FT2

Yes Bambi thats likely to be FT2 (the first one).

There is a lot of other FT2 personal information to see from the diffs (especially concerning promotional activities), and the whitewash has spread over to WR. No problem, its not about cleaning up FT2's crap, just flagging it for others to step around.




Hi FT2, give us some more to flag!


Perhaps you would like to make another pleading defense of your "pet" subjects: NLP and bestiality?

Or perhaps you would like to accuse some other people of being virulent socks? I'm sure many others would like to join the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

In fact, go ahead and write "Docknell" there also.

Put me somewhere in the "Used to attack Ted Kenedy" sockpuppet brigade. I never liked his choice in ties, and he's conveniently suffering from a deadly illness right now. And don't worry about lots of people here noticing that the IPs on that section come from:

24.147.97.230
Massachusetts

and

Pompano Beach, Florida
66.176.129.11

You can always blame it on IP proxies, or the vast army of meatpuppets that anti-NLP and anti-zoo science oriented editors seem to blatantly and virulently employ so thoroughly.

I'm about as much a sockpuppet as Flavius, Damian, or all those other editors who voted to delete your acres of banal excuse ridden NLPbabble. Go ahead, just paste my name anywhere you like in your little hate list. I'm sure you will be able to select from a wide range of excuses for it.

Doc

Posted by: Peter Damian

The thing that most irritated me about the long list of 'Headleys' was the PhDarts one. The account was apparently 'used to attack the Paedophilia articles'.

Why 'attack'? I went through all the darts edits carefully and there is no evidence of attack. For example, Darts was trying to insert a well-sourced comment that child pornography is central to the existence of a paedophile (I'll find the exact quote later). The pro-paedos removed this, of course, and there was a revert war. Eventually one of them complained and mentioned on their talk page they were going to get Darts banned. The next day Darts was banned by FT2. I complained about this myself and was banned (eventually repealed, but should not have happened).

I don't know: what was FT2 thinking?

[edit] In case of confusion, there is no evidence that FT2 has had any more to do with the paedo stuff than this. But the fact he failed to make any elementary sense check of the issue speaks volumes. It seems to me he confuses anyone who opposes his point of view with a 'Headley'. Indeed, if you look at one of his early comments on this thread, you will see he confused me with Headley as well (he says he has been trying to ban me since 2006, which is nonsense).

[edit] Here is the post by FT2 where he confuses me with 'Headley'

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20105&view=findpost&p=125110



I never crossed paths with FT2 (except briefly) until late 2007. It was Headley who was 2006. I don't think there's any genuinely bad faith here, in fact. If I may say, I think that FT2 finds criticism difficult, and rationalises it as all coming from one person. Hence the myriad number of people banned from the project for being 'Headley socks'.

Posted by: Proabivouac

I highlight once again FT2's plainly unsound methodologies in identifying purported sockpuppets of Headley Down:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=14992&view=findpost&p=110399

While of course it's possible that some of the accused are, indeed, sockpuppets, this page makes it plain that FT2 lacks both the competence and judgment necessary to identify them as such to any acceptable degree of reliability and accuracy (barring checkuser, of course, which is the fruit of political, not investigatory, skill.)

Posted by: Docknell

I disagree on this one point: Its not a confusion. FT2 is clearly deliberate about compiling a hate list for the purpose of self-promotion and crank defense.

The Ted Kennedy group of socks that FT2 conflated is dead a giveaway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=21556798

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Agiantman

They don't even remotely agree with Headley and others, and their language is different.j


FT2 has a profound mental model of fringe belief to defend. It seems that as soon as the HeadleyDown bannings occurred, FT2 started conflating a list of supposed virulent sock vandals, and tried to get his interests well defended.

In the meantime, Ft2 has been working very hard to inflate his status as a sock sleuth, and a sock expert. Its a weird sort of contrived synergy.

Wikipedians allow him to do it, consciously or not

I'm enjoying FT2 turning up here. I do think FT2 is unaware of some things: The extent that a lot of people can see through his promotional fringepushing smokescreens. Only an extensive session of overwrites will remove the damning evidence, and we have printscreens on our side.

Doc

Posted by: Random832

This is something that's often irritated me - there seems to be a tendency for wikipedia critics to think that screenshots are worth the bits they're printed on. They're easy to fake. This doesn't mean that yours are faked; rather, it means it's equally easy for anyone who doesn't want to believe what your screenshots "prove" to claim that it's fake.

Posted by: The Adversary

Ah, yes, I´m reminded of an old biology class about ..crabs. (Crabs have one pair of socalled "copulation organs" (called gonopods); on edible crabs you can easily find the pair on the males, and the matching two openings in the female.)

Well, we had a biology teacher who got a bit carried away on the subject. One unforgettable sight: him, literally jumping up and down, shouting enthusiastically: "They´ve got stereo equipment! They´ve got stereo equipment!"

Think about it, finding some Mos Eisley Cantina candidates in the most unlikely places, say, the fish marked

Ok, back to more serious stuff:

Huh? I was actually thinking of the allegations about FeloniousMonk which were (first?) raised in October 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence#Odd_nature.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_is_a_sock_puppet_of_FeloniousMonk.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29
Have those allegations been addressed anywhere? (Sorry about your computer problems (I know all about it), but you cannot all have been suffering from that the last 10-12 months?)

Posted by: Docknell

Just a hint, Random

Recognition is a far more powerful truth signifying device than recall. Recall pf supposedly real events can even be imagined. Recognition is something that just happens automatically, without any processing whatsoever.

Show a printscreen that someone has seen the likes of before, and it will be recognized as at least intuitively correct.

In this case. You know it by the smell!

Doc