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

[Peter Damian]

Well fancy that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis#Comment

He sadly makes no mention of the oversighted edits.

On the idea that he made 'minimal edits to Zoophilia' I rather think not.

Or if you can't wait for Kate's tool, his top edits are:

753 Zoophilia
391 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
283 Labrador Retriever
250 Neuro-linguistic programming
220 Cultural and historical background of Jesus
147 Polyamory
134 Animal sexual behaviour
130 Christianity and Judaism
128 Principles of NLP
128 History of Wikipedia
126 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia
126 Reliability of Wikipedia
117 Zoosexuality and the law
111 List of eighteenth century journals
110 NLP and science

[edit] I see the stupid fool is still editing my talk page with his endless tweaks. Oh well. I'm off to practice some Vivaldi.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

This seems to belong in the Editors Forum.

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

[Proabivouac]

Bear in mind that his NLP contributions are much vaster than will be shown by reference to the main article, as they are distributed among dozens of sub-articles, such as:

NLP
Principles of NLP
Research on NLP
As-if (NLP)
Positive and negative (NLP)
Anchoring (NLP)
Rapport (NLP)
NLP and science
History of neuro-linguistic programming
Representational systems and submodalities (NLP)
Representational systems (NLP)
Strategy (NLP)
Well-formed outcome
Reframing (NLP)
Milton model
Worldview and working model of neuro-linguistic programming
etc.

Jon is right that this belongs in the editors section, particularly FT2's own sub-forum with the catchy subtitle.

[The Joy]

Mod Note: Moved from General Discussion - The Joy

[Docknell]

Well fancy that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis#Comment

He sadly makes no mention of the oversighted edits.

On the idea that he made 'minimal edits to Zoophilia' I rather think not.

Or if you can't wait for Kate's tool, his top edits are:

753 Zoophilia
391 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
283 Labrador Retriever
250 Neuro-linguistic programming
220 Cultural and historical background of Jesus
147 Polyamory
134 Animal sexual behaviour
130 Christianity and Judaism
128 Principles of NLP
128 History of Wikipedia
126 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia
126 Reliability of Wikipedia
117 Zoosexuality and the law
111 List of eighteenth century journals
110 NLP and science

[edit] I see the stupid fool is still editing my talk page with his endless tweaks. Oh well. I'm off to practice some Vivaldi.

Point 6 that FT2 makes is rather telling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis#Comment

He adds diffs of discussion, but totally avoids the issue of his own edits. He uses terms such as "slur campaign" to misrepresent what has been happening here in regard to the actual diffs showing him posting OR, multiple pov forking to promote NLP, protection of pederasty promotors, protection of NLP practitioners and so on.

Then he says he hopes it is not seen as aggressive?

Its aggressive alright. Aggressively sociopathic.

Basically, FT2 is working desperately to distract from his actual wrongdoings as shown in the diffs. He works hard to ban or slur editors who's diffs show a well sourced and well intended cleanup of his POV pushing distortions.

Distraction from material edits, and conflation of editors with alleged wrongdoers, is the only strategy that FT2 can attempt.

This post has been edited by Docknell:

[Dzonatas]

Bear in mind that his NLP contributions are much vaster than will be shown by reference to the main article, as they are distributed among dozens of sub-articles, such as:

Just a quickie on NLP -- I was exposed to the teachings years ago before it became anything official in the 90's. There was two main groups -- the ones that ran the seminars and the ones that actually used the study in various fields. The second kind was probably lesser known, since it was passed around word of mouth less than the seminars. It mixed in with computer science for how A.I. can think. That field obviously doesn't carry any of the self-help or psychological aspects. It was a memory tool at best. It's changed over the years and lost its technical cyber-affair links. Anyways, maybe some history worth reading about that will present a different viewpoint.

[Peter Damian]

Point 1 His opening remark is something I will address elsewhere (he claims that I altered my allegation of 'practice' to 'promotion' much later). This is provably incorrect, and he should not slur my character in this way.

Point 4 "You were offered a further unblock on condition you ceased, and also provided full disclosure on your off-site defamation actions, but it seems you did not provide these to the blocking admin " I cannot for the life of me understand why he is tactless enough to raise this. I certainly did provide these to the blocking admin, then they were oversighted! Obviously no one is going to continue with the process on-wiki if that is going to happen. He obviously does not realise that the blocking admin has separately and privately confirmed seeing the edits. But I still cannot believe he is stupid enough not to have checked this.

Note Alex has now weighed in

FT2, thanks for the elaborate explanations! Why you are here can you either confirm or deny that a few of your edits presented by Hinnibilis were oversighted? Can you recollect the rationale for the actions? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

His final point "I write this in the attempt to show you that there are good reasons you should doubt all that Headley has ever told you. " He should know I rarely take anything that anyone tells me on trust, and always check for myself. I went through nearly all of "Headley's" edits earlier this year and what I found is a separate question.

Your initial posts about "how can someone be elected who edits subject X" rapidly became "this person is an X-ist".

Thanks for the article names PB, very helpful. I have checked these all originated with FT2, and provide links. I am doing some further research into these edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_NLP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_NLP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-if_%28NLP%29 (Refers to Vaihinger)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_and_negative_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLP_and_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ne...tic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representatio...ities_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representatio...stems_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_outcome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reframing_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview_and...tic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_%28NLP%29

There was two main groups -- the ones that ran the seminars and the ones that actually used the study in various fields. The second kind was probably lesser known, since it was passed around word of mouth less than the seminars.

If you read the linked-to articles above, it is pretty clear which group FT2 belongs to. It mostly illiterate rambling nonsense. In one of the articles he 'sources' his claim with a link to a usenet discussion:

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/phobia-research-2.html

But even this contains the candid admission that

In the past, disciplines which have faced this problem have done the only reasonable thing: start their own journal. Few of the ``Major Players'' in NLP are primarily academics, so the idea of an academic journal has aroused relatively little interest.

FT2 uses the word 'model', which should not be confused with a scientific 'model'. A scientific model is a representation of the world which has explanatory power. It is not a mere list of conditions: a successful model must explain reality with the minimum number of assumptions (for example the geocentric model of Ptolemy contains many more assumptions than the heliocentric Copernican one, which rapidly superseded it).

An NLP model by contrast is a mere list of behavioural characteristics observed in top performers in their subject (typically top performers in businesses and corporations) on the assumption that copying these 'behaviours' (use of this abstract noun in the plural is a giveaway of NLP practitioner, though the usage has unfortunately passed into common parlance in the business world). See e.g. here

http://www.inspiritive.com.au/talent.htm

Inspiritive offers a unique service, the modelling and transfer of excellence. As a result of our modelling projects, we have developed descriptions for:

Successfully building one's desired future - results of an NLP modelling project

Futures and commodities trading (a monograph is also available)

plus a suite of new NLP processes.

We are always on the look out for talented individuals with whom we can work together for our NLP modelling projects. One of the benefits for the individual is a greater understanding of their competency and often an improvement of their skill. If you have a talent that you would like modelled, call us for a coffee and an informal discussion.

None of this has anything to do with science.

[edit, 14 July 2008]

A section on articles pushing NLP which FT2 has not touched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Faulkner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_code_of_NLP (an interesting one because extensively edited by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_NLP - almost certainly Michael Carroll, who is head of the London NLP academy based in Croydon).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Proabivouac]

Point 6 that FT2 makes is rather telling.

In light of "community-and-arbcom banned" DPeterson's block log…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:DPeterson
…I would read it as a threat.

[Docknell]

Point 6 that FT2 makes is rather telling.

In light of "community-and-arbcom banned" DPeterson's block log…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:DPeterson
…I would read it as a threat.

This shows FT2’s tendency to distort something that has been shown to be erroneous in concept, and has failed to show even a normal efficacy according to controlled studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=26883867

FT2 is saying it’s all really complicated so you have to dismiss the battery of controlled studies that showed this obvious pseudoscience failed the test.

This, of course shows a strong similarity to FT2’s determination to retain and boost similarly pro-zoophile OR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=89948995

More of this sort of thing is very similar to other POV pushing that is going on in the pederasty and related articles.

This is partly discussed on this thread
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18909&st=40

Anyone want to vote more of such editors in as admins?

[Somey]

FT2 is saying it’s all really complicated so you have to dismiss the battery of controlled studies that showed this obvious pseudoscience failed the test.

Damn! I know this sort of thing goes on quite often on WP, but the slickness factor here is practically off the chart. He's basically saying, "NLP can only be understood by self-identified experts because nobody is qualified enough to identify NLP experts independently." And he's clearly got the Faithful completely snowed on this and other topics, as evidenced by his en-masse support in the ArbCom elections and elsewhere. That, or they just don't care enough about the subjects he's involved with to really check out what he's doing, and how.

My question is, how does a person like that become so popular? Is he some sort of super-nice guy, unfailingly polite to everybody, or does he do editorial favors for people? (From what I've seen, he does seem to be unusually polite.)

Or does it have something to do with his "willingness to tackle difficult subjects," which is taken as a relief for others who clearly don't want to deal with those subjects themselves? It's hard to imagine even Wikipedians actually reading material like that and concluding that he isn't trying to put one over on them.

[maggot3]

My question is, how does a person like that become so popular? Is he some sort of super-nice guy, unfailingly polite to everybody, or does he do editorial favors for people? (From what I've seen, he does seem to be unusually polite.)

The first I think. If you write long reams of bullshit and stay polite all the time everybody assumes you'll be a good admin, even if everything you do is completely stupid.

[Somey]

If you write long reams of bullshit and stay polite all the time everybody assumes you'll be a good admin, even if everything you do is completely stupid.

Well sheeee-it then, what's stopping me from doing it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laughing.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Damn! I know this sort of thing goes on quite often on WP, but the slickness factor here is practically off the chart.

[...]

My question is, how does a person like that become so popular? Is he some sort of super-nice guy, unfailingly polite to everybody, or does he do editorial favors for people? (From what I've seen, he does seem to be unusually polite.)

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).

[Peter Damian]

A reply by FT2 to Alex on my talk page

: I'm not sure how I could tell, this being the first mention of any such to me. If this was in the last 30 days - the duration of the oversight log - I can check for myself though. Be aware there is no ability to search the oversight logs by 'name of editor of oversighted revision' though. Also note in passing this [[MediaWiki:Oversight-header|header]] for the oversight log which limits what I or any other oversighter can say in any event. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223430901

This has to be is a clear lie. The oversights have been the main feature of my campaign since December, and he would have been aware of this through my three emails to the Arbcom mailing list. It's difficult to see how he gets the benefit of the doubt here.

[Alison]

A reply by FT2 to Alex on my talk page

: I'm not sure how I could tell, this being the first mention of any such to me. If this was in the last 30 days - the duration of the oversight log - I can check for myself though. Be aware there is no ability to search the oversight logs by 'name of editor of oversighted revision' though. Also note in passing this [[MediaWiki:Oversight-header|header]] for the oversight log which limits what I or any other oversighter can say in any event. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223430901

This has to be is a clear lie. The oversights have been the main feature of my campaign since December, and he would have been aware of this through my three emails to the Arbcom mailing list. It's difficult to see how he gets the benefit of the doubt here.

What he says about the duration of the oversight logs is absolutely true, though. The devs changed it to limit the history two days after I was +oversight. Apparently, the unrestricted size of the logs (they're not paged) was causing browsers to crash.

[Peter Damian]

What he says about the duration of the oversight logs is absolutely true, though. [...]

Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure.

[Docknell]

Damn! I know this sort of thing goes on quite often on WP, but the slickness factor here is practically off the chart.

[...]

My question is, how does a person like that become so popular? Is he some sort of super-nice guy, unfailingly polite to everybody, or does he do editorial favors for people? (From what I've seen, he does seem to be unusually polite.)

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).

There seems to be a bit more to it than that.

Basically, yes, FT2 is into being polite, and as much as possible, but FT2 will also try to take the credit for the banning or controlling of any critical editor.

So there's a contrast there that can make FT2 look more polite than the reality.

If you look at the way he addressed Hinnibilis, it verges on incivility. And the way the HD article is written looks like FT2 can be as vindictive as you like:

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

Again, I don't see any vandalism in any of HD's edits.


So you have an editor who claims to have expertise in banning other really really nasty horrid socks and abusers. Yet is really polite to anyone else.

And of course, then FT2 tries to re-write much of the checkuser article to make it easier to ban anyone a bit antiNLP antiZoo, antiPedo, and to reduce the importance of verifiability (treat verifiability as if someone is making a point) so he can dismiss anyone else's edits that don't come up to the FT2 rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148039225

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=220733802
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=205281635

Basically take a look at whatever policy pages FT2 has worked on. They will tend to prioritize the notion that people are pulling one over on you if they present good sourcing.

And the solution to "situation and handling" ???

Call them a sockpuppet, accuse them of smear campaigning etc, and you can basically dismiss whatever verifiable information has been presented.

[prospero]

A reply by FT2 to Alex on my talk page

: I'm not sure how I could tell, this being the first mention of any such to me. If this was in the last 30 days - the duration of the oversight log - I can check for myself though. Be aware there is no ability to search the oversight logs by 'name of editor of oversighted revision' though. Also note in passing this [[MediaWiki:Oversight-header|header]] for the oversight log which limits what I or any other oversighter can say in any event. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223430901

This has to be is a clear lie. The oversights have been the main feature of my campaign since December, and he would have been aware of this through my three emails to the Arbcom mailing list. It's difficult to see how he gets the benefit of the doubt here.

What he says about the duration of the oversight logs is absolutely true, though. The devs changed it to limit the history two days after I was +oversight. Apparently, the unrestricted size of the logs (they're not paged) was causing browsers to crash.

They could run a direct SQL query on the server itself, though. So no, it is not impossible to search by name.

[Peter Damian]

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!

[Alison]

A reply by FT2 to Alex on my talk page

: I'm not sure how I could tell, this being the first mention of any such to me. If this was in the last 30 days - the duration of the oversight log - I can check for myself though. Be aware there is no ability to search the oversight logs by 'name of editor of oversighted revision' though. Also note in passing this [[MediaWiki:Oversight-header|header]] for the oversight log which limits what I or any other oversighter can say in any event. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223430901

This has to be is a clear lie. The oversights have been the main feature of my campaign since December, and he would have been aware of this through my three emails to the Arbcom mailing list. It's difficult to see how he gets the benefit of the doubt here.

What he says about the duration of the oversight logs is absolutely true, though. The devs changed it to limit the history two days after I was +oversight. Apparently, the unrestricted size of the logs (they're not paged) was causing browsers to crash.

They could run a direct SQL query on the server itself, though. So no, it is not impossible to search by name.

True. Far as I know, oversight just pulls the record from the main table and stuffs it into a separate one entirely, thus every edit that's ever been oversighted is still available. All it would take is raw access to the tables.

SQL

Select * from OVERSIGHT where editor like "FT2";

... or something (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)