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

[Rootology]

Hey FT2, welcome.

Nice to see the bitter pill crowd has already arrived.

[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

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.

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

Doc

[Rootology]

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

[Peter Damian]

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

Yes, as I was saying.

[Docknell]

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

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

[FT2]

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

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)

This post has been edited by FT2: Mon 1st September 2008, 12:54am

[Peter Damian]

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

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

[FT2]

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.

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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

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=...&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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 31st August 2008, 2:22pm

[thekohser]

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 "there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned."

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, that's the one.

Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome.

Greg

[Peter Damian]

Yep, that's the one.

Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome.

Greg

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 31st August 2008, 3:21pm

[maiawatatos]

Yep, that's the one.

Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome.

Greg

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.

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.

[Docknell]

Yep, that's the one.

Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome.

Greg

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.

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

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

Yep, that's the one.

Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome.

Greg

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.

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.

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

Doc

[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.

[Shalom]

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

[Dzonatas]

Welcome to WR, FT2

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

"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.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Sun 31st August 2008, 4:36pm

[Eva Destruction]

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").

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Sun 31st August 2008, 4:48pm

[KamrynMatika]

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").

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