Hi (from FT2), meet FT2, currently active ArbCom member Options

[Peter Damian]

As Peter says, we have no confirmation that this is the real FT2 posting (who doesn't appear to have been online for 14 hours) – 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").

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

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

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 31st August 2008, 4:54pm

[thekohser]

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

[Peter Damian]

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

Very possible.

[maiawatatos]

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

[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've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards.

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

Others have too, I know.

You are in a minority here.

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.

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

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.

I have widespread 'community support' for my actions.

A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me.

See?

In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't.

Bingo! You really ARE in the minority.

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.

Threat.

But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list.

Your fault for not trusting me.

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.

Even Alex Bakharev agrees.

[gomi]

Welcome FT2.

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

[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...?

[tarantino]

Hi Headley.

[...]

For the record, you don't deny you're HeadleyDown, do you?

[...]

FT2

Hi TBP

For the record, you don't deny you're TBP, do you?

[wikiwhistle]

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!!!

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

* I cannot imagine a single wiki problem where the aim is 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.

? 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.

[Giggy]

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

[wikiwhistle]

For the record, you don't deny you're HeadleyDown, 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),

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.

[wikiwhistle]

what the hell went on there?

Where/what about?

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

[Proabivouac]

Hi TBP

For the record, you don't deny you're TBP, do you?

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?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Mon 1st September 2008, 1:01am

[gomi]

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

[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 unrepentant sock-user in it for disruption, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a third post 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.

[wikiwhistle]

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

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.

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.

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

[Random832]

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

Here is that diff, for future reference.

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

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

[Proabivouac]

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.

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

FT2 tacitly admits it's his sock on his user page. He brags

Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ]Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ]

. Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=109909

[Emperor]

What a nest of guttersnipes!

[Somey]

What a nest of guttersnipes!

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?