Extraordinary message on my talk page, FT2 pops in for a cup of tea Options

[Proabivouac]

Excellent Docknell. I am now working on a comprehensive document detailing the malignant influence that FT2 is having upon the project. I had a few 'policy' diffs but hadn't spotted those. Please let us have more!

If you don't mean to keep it a secret, and are happy working in MS office format, use google docs or the like. That way others can add things. I think you and Docknell could do a lot of good work here. Knowing only a little of the history here, I can only say that an investigation is well warranted, and for obvious reasons cannot by fairly undertaken on Wikipedia. People are watching this, so let's keep it professional, and make sure we're not throwing in random diffs of the kind one sees at RfArb nowadays. I think with Google docs, we can approximate not just spreadsheets, which can come in handy (see Matt57's sock report format) but also some kind of wikilike use of MSWord - just sign comments manually.

[Peter Damian]

If you don't mean to keep it a secret, and are happy working in MS office format, use google docs or the like. That way others can add things. I think you and Docknell could do a lot of good work here. Knowing only a little of the history here, I can only say that an investigation is well warranted, and for obvious reasons cannot by fairly undertaken on Wikipedia. People are watching this, so let's keep it professional, and make sure we're not throwing in random diffs of the kind one sees at RfArb nowadays. I think with Google docs, we can approximate not just spreadsheets, which can come in handy (see Matt57's sock report format) but also some kind of wikilike use of MSWord - just sign comments manually.

I think the more transparency the better. Presumably Google docs allows only certain people write privilege, unlike a Wiki? And how does it work? Heard of Google spreadsheets, never docs.

[Kelly Martin]

I confess to being baffled by this. If you work through carefully what he says, it is quite transparent. He drops in a lot of stuff about 'community', he lies when he thinks he can get away with it, anything difficult he proposes in such obscure and convoluted language that no one can possibly object. So how does he get away with it?

My explanation is that few of the people taken in by this have enough RL experience to spot what is going on. He talks in exactly the way that cult leaders do, and uses exactly the same techniques. Generally young people, who love easy to digest slogans, lap this sort of thing up.

No one with an ounce of sense would be taken in by this for a second (I hope).

You hit the nail on the head when you said "he talks in exactly the way that cult leaders do". Wikipedia's community is a cult, the Cult of the Encyclopedia. One of the observed facts about cults is that some people are more prone to being suckered in by a cult than others are. There are many known reports of people being serially sucked into multiple cults. I think that's why FT2 does so well in Wikipedia: Wikipedia's community-selection filter already selects for cult-prone individuals, and so they're predisposed to fall for his cultic rhetoric.

Perhaps FT2 will end up being Jimmy Wales' David Miscavige.

[thekohser]

I think the more transparency the better. Presumably Google docs allows only certain people write privilege, unlike a Wiki? And how does it work? Heard of Google spreadsheets, never docs.

Google Docs and Google Spreadsheets both allow four levels of access to files:

1. Closed editing solely to the file creator
2. Open editing to creator and creator's invitees
3. Open editing to creator, invitees, and invitees of invitees
4. Open editing to the whole world

Thing is, we experienced a series of bugs with the "invitees" process. I've never had a problem with levels 1 or 4, though.

Greg

[Moulton]

You hit the nail on the head when you said "he talks in exactly the way that cult leaders do". Wikipedia's community is a cult, the Cult of the Encyclopedia. One of the observed facts about cults is that some people are more prone to being suckered in by a cult than others are. There are many known reports of people being serially sucked into multiple cults. I think that's why FT2 does so well in Wikipedia: Wikipedia's community-selection filter already selects for cult-prone individuals, and so they're predisposed to fall for his cultic rhetoric.

Perhaps FT2 will end up being Jimmy Wales' David Miscavige.

There is a classic "HowTo" textbook on the political skill of conversational bamboozlement...

Conversational Chaff

This post has been edited by Moulton: Fri 4th July 2008, 1:37pm

[Docknell]

You hit the nail on the head when you said "he talks in exactly the way that cult leaders do". Wikipedia's community is a cult, the Cult of the Encyclopedia. One of the observed facts about cults is that some people are more prone to being suckered in by a cult than others are. There are many known reports of people being serially sucked into multiple cults. I think that's why FT2 does so well in Wikipedia: Wikipedia's community-selection filter already selects for cult-prone individuals, and so they're predisposed to fall for his cultic rhetoric.

Perhaps FT2 will end up being Jimmy Wales' David Miscavige.

There is a classic "HowTo" textbook on the political skill of conversational bamboozlement...

Conversational Chaff

I can't believe it. FT2 is trying to push NLP as some sort of legit psychological model.

According to Hunt (2003) P195
http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Religion...t/dp/0754634108

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/may2006/nlp1.html

NLP is an alternative to Scientology.

That link seems to be full of reliable sources. The ref section is missing, but its easy enough to find them all in the prebanning version of NLP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52940476

It seems to be something that FT2 can't really control. I think once you have committed to NLP (by paying money to become a registered NLPer) then it really does become a psychological trap.

Of course the sort of psychological defense mechanisms to cope with the social stigma of zoophilic activities will also tend to cause the subject to commit the defensive excuses to writing, as can be seen by FT2's contributions to the zoophilia article. The same with pederasts, pedophiles and so on.

Basically, FT2 writes about NLP like how an NLPer would like it to be represented. He writes about zoophilia like a zoophile would like it to be represented. He works hard to block, slur or damage any other editor who tries to properly represent any of the opposing views. Its an ownership POV.

I am sure quite a few administrators find him so embarrasing they would like to see him booted. Judging by the coverups and denials though, there are plenty more embarrasements to come.

This post has been edited by Docknell: Sat 5th July 2008, 6:55am

[Peter Damian]

You hit the nail on the head when you said "he talks in exactly the way that cult leaders do". Wikipedia's community is a cult, the Cult of the Encyclopedia. One of the observed facts about cults is that some people are more prone to being suckered in by a cult than others are. There are many known reports of people being serially sucked into multiple cults. I think that's why FT2 does so well in Wikipedia: Wikipedia's community-selection filter already selects for cult-prone individuals, and so they're predisposed to fall for his cultic rhetoric.

There is a good message from a fan he keeps on his user page

FT2, I have had a difficult time here lately being accepted. I had typed it out already to them. At first, I had thought Wikipedia was most welcoming for all intelligent Wiki practitioners. But I have read the most childish things wrote to me these past days. One even had himself boasting to me that I was a newbie and laughed at me. This is pretty close to reaching defamatory comments. I think anyone writing such material should be permanently banned. I have spent time on Wikipedia writing out details that I thought would benefit the readers who come to this excellent encyclopedia site. I keep busy where I am, but I spend time reading lots of things on Wikipedia too. So, you could say that I'm really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia site, no big surprise! I have a pure fresh spirit that goes with my writing on Wikipedia. Late nights, I can sometimes be behind my computer keyboard fixing text and adding it as well. Wanting to participate is all I felt like doing. I have never taken away text, all I did was embrace it with additional words. Coming back to Wikipedia is what should be noted for because there is a lot of information to take in all at once here online. Wikipedia is top-notch for adding knowledge to the reader. I admit, I was really put off with all the negativity vibes I was getting. Wikipedia wasn't welcoming at all. I have felt of jaded negativity, especially the added distrust of the integrity or professed motives of Wikipedians who come on board to add something relevant. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be known for cynicism. I am a believer in Wikipedia, this is why I have spent hours on here adding text and neccessary citations. Documenting a relevant person on Wikipedia is a passion of mine.I am thinking that it gives Wikipedia much more validity with genuine thoughtful contributors. I have seen them on Wikipedia. I just can't understand why I am being the target of the month? All I see are harsh evolving differences in my writing. This turned into the Wikipedia dilemma this past week. I saw little co-operation in this matter til you and a few others spotted the presence of prolonged edits on my text. Issues turn into road blocks on Wikipedia over text that is up-to-date and relevant. Thank you for accepting me here on Wikipedia. I have felt tremendously isolated this past week. Thank you for looking into a few delquents who seem to relish in the redundant opportunity of vandalism. I appreciate your help, Electric Japan (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This user spends a lot of time on minor edits to 'Def Leppard' articles. What are Def Leppards?

[edit] Reading through that comment carefully another characteristic of cults springs to mind, namely the way they acquire support by befriending those adrift in life, who need some human companionship and kind words. Which is all very good, except (1) there is always something a cult demands in return and (2) this is, as the guy says, a project to write an encyclopedia and not some social website.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 5th July 2008, 11:59am

[Dzonatas]

I think the more transparency the better. Presumably Google docs allows only certain people write privilege, unlike a Wiki? And how does it work? Heard of Google spreadsheets, never docs.

Google Docs and Google Spreadsheets both allow four levels of access to files:

1. Closed editing solely to the file creator
2. Open editing to creator and creator's invitees
3. Open editing to creator, invitees, and invitees of invitees
4. Open editing to the whole world

Thing is, we experienced a series of bugs with the "invitees" process. I've never had a problem with levels 1 or 4, though.

Greg

Thanks for the heads up on bugs.

I think another thread here is a good candidate for google docs. I notice you can make it 'not public' on google docs, but still have those that need access to it can see it and edit it.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Sat 5th July 2008, 1:27pm

[Peter Damian]

Note the talk page referred to above with the 'extraordinary message' has now been deleted.

[LaraLove]

Note the talk page referred to above with the 'extraordinary message' has now been deleted.

Yes, and you've been reblocked, all for the same reason. You can't post private correspondence on-wiki without consent of all involved parties. But you already know this.

[Lar]

Note the talk page referred to above with the 'extraordinary message' has now been deleted.

Yes, and you've been reblocked, all for the same reason. You can't post private correspondence on-wiki without consent of all involved parties. But you already know this.

Folk may not agree that this is a just rule, especially if the parties involved have been busily outing others. But it is a rule. Imperfectly applied? Sure, as with much else, but it ought to be the working assumption of anyone who wants to retain posting privs there that they not do that.

I'm done trying to help people on wiki that don't seem to grasp this point. I have bigger fish to fry, and there are only so many hours in a day. Scorn me if you like... about that, I [[WP:DGAF]].

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

[Peter Damian]

No I didn't know this. I checked the rule, and it said that no consensus had been achieved.

[Going to check]

Which I can't know find, because everything has been deleted. Lara, does that mean the messages that FT2 left on my talk page have gone forever?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 6th July 2008, 6:01pm

[LaraLove]

No I didn't know this. I checked the rule, and it said that no consensus had been achieved.

[Going to check]

Which I can't know find, because everything has been deleted. Lara, does that mean the messages that FT2 left on my talk page have gone forever?

They're not oversighted. Just deleted. They still exist, but are only viewable to administrators. Is there something in particular you wish to recall?

Oh yes, and for your reading pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._correspondence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...cement_by_block

You probably read [[WP:PRIVATE]], but it's outdated. I'll go update it.

This post has been edited by LaraLove: Sun 6th July 2008, 6:08pm

[Kelly Martin]

Oh yes, and for your reading pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._correspondence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...cement_by_block

Another example of Wikipedia's true policy being hidden in obscure corners of the wiki, where only those in the know would know to look for it.

Wikipedia policy isn't expected to be followed; it's merely held in reserve to be used as a weapon against anyone who has been deemed undesirable. When no policy can be found that can be used to usefully strike at an undesirable person, existing policy is conveniently stretched, something which doesn't appear to be policy (such as an off-hand comment in some random arbitration case, or a comment on Jimbo's talk page, or something of that sort) is promoted to policy, and then used in the same way.

[Milton Roe]

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

And one day you may find yourself on the shitty end of that stick, in a way you cannot now foresee, inasmuch as what goes around eventually comes around. So be prepared not to blubber at that time.

[Lar]

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

And one day you may find yourself on the shitty end of that stick, in a way you cannot now foresee, inasmuch as what goes around eventually comes around. So be prepared not to blubber at that time.

Oh, absolutely. I have no illusions on that score. Feel free to laugh at me at that time if I somehow forget that.

[guy]

Oh yes, and for your reading pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._correspondence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...cement_by_block

ArbCom doesn't make policy. You can't quote an ArbCom ruling and pretend it's policy. (I know lots of people do, but Lara is too honest.)

[Moulton]

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

And one day you may find yourself on the shitty end of that stick, in a way you cannot now foresee, inasmuch as what goes around eventually comes around. So be prepared not to blubber at that time.

Oh, absolutely. I have no illusions on that score. Feel free to laugh at me at that time if I somehow forget that.

If you swim in shark-infested waters, remember this: What goes around chums around.

[Proabivouac]

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

The rationale for this is that one must do what is best for the project.

Is it possible that the appearance of unfairness itself undermines the project?

More specifically, is it good for the project that FT2 is now on the Arbitration Committee? Is it good for the project that WP takes a positive approach to bestiality and pederasty? Is it good for the project that WP promotes "Neuro-linguistic programming"? That's what's being protected here.

So the insistence upon not being a system of justice and not doing due process, while not a priori unreasonable, has not produced and is not producing the intended results.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 6th July 2008, 9:22pm

[Lar]

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

The rationale for this is that one must do what is best for the project.

Is it possible that the appearance of unfairness itself undermines the project?

Absolutely. And I do my best to be fair and just in my dealings, to the maximum extent possible. I just can't promise that everything comes out roses every time.