FT2 Options

[Peter Damian]

Amazing that no one has picked up sooner on this guy. He got through the elections with near-universal acclaim.

"has considerable experience dealing with the kinds of difficult and contentious issues particular to wikipedia"
"level-headedness and clarity of thought"
"a superior candidate and eminently qualified"
"am in awe of the clarity of intellect"
"good answers, very level-headed, fair-minded editor with an excellent track record in disputes"
"We need someone who intricately understands NPOV. Looks like we found him"

How gullible can people be. This man is very sinister, but let's put the darker elements to one side.

His extremely pedantic approach to all things Wiki gives the appearance of extreme neutrality. But this man is far from neutral. Let's have a look at the article Neuro-linguistic programming, considered by all respectable scientists to be a cult and a scam that has no basis in science whatsoever. Here is the state of the article at the end of 2005, before FT2 got his hands on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=33400304

which is a pretty accurate description, to my mind. And here it is at the end of 2007, after an extensive series of edits by our friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=178579988

The difference is remarkable is it not. FT2 attracted considerable resistance from the scientifically inclined. His solution which he describes here

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

is quite revealing. Quite clearly all the different people who protested about 'promotion' and 'pseudoscience' and whatnot must be sockpuppets of the same person, ergo block or ban the lot of them. This does not augur well for Wikipedia. Here's another lot of old rubbish he writes on NLP (Nov 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=27524879

Where is the 'clear and level-headed thinking'. I see none. It is all babble. E.g.

"NLP also denies wholism, and instead asserts that even if human behavior and internal structure is too complex to understand in full, there are structures and separability, and micro-awareness of patterns within behavior is a good source of information to communicators."

Or look at the section "Philosophical stance of NLP" which does not contain anything philosophical at all as I understand the term. Oddly this article references the following section of the main article.

Neuro-linguistic programming#Criticism

But that section of course has since disappeared!

There is acres more and so little time but let me finally reference FT's edit to the NPOV policy itself here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148471883.

This part of the policy defines the meaning of the word 'bias'. One form of bias is, he says, is 'Favouring a scientific view for non-scientific reasons can include "excessive favoring (or disfavoring) prevalent scientific opinion, if in doing so, notable viewpoints are no longer being treated neutrally."'

A 'notable viewpoint' is code for a pseudoscientific viewpoint that has become notable because enough quacks and charlatans are promoting it.

There are some very interesting times ahead.

[Peter Damian]

Just noticed this one, which is lovely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230606710

Thanks all of you for the support, however, but by talking to those fronting "Chillum's" latest attempt to get rid of me, and bring attention to himself, you are also encouraging FT2, to comment further. He knows, as do the Arbcom, I do not like him even mentioning my name. Such is my extreme distaste for him. However, as he yet again attacks me and seizes, saliva dripping, this opportunity to attack me, I feel forced to respond, if only for the sake's of any new editors who may not know of him. As Bishonen says above, if he had one scrap of honour or dignity he would not be on this page at all. Most people see straight through him so I suppose it matters not.

In his way, he is every bit as bad as the editor currently known as "Chillum," who having posted his lurid and vulgar insinuation for the titillation of his pathetic friends on IRC#admins, immediately ran to them bleating when he got his well deserved punch on the nose. He did this in an attempt to repeat the previous block of me which he orchestrated on IRC#admins by [[User:Kwsn]] (The same #admins that FT2 assures us is properly regulated etc. etc. etc.) Following that block, FT2 even had the gall to use my having some edits oversighted to protect an IRC Admin, (member an Admin with oversight had to agree with me) as a pretext to attack me further. He truly is a person with no honour or scruples.

I have no doubt he will come back here with some verbose diatribe, but the problem is now that every time the Arbcom drag me into one of their instantaneously accepted cases built on thin air and hope, they are more and more damaged. Every time FT2 open his mouth they are even more damaged. Everyone with half a brain now sees straight through them - and have they yet addressed the IRC problem? (hat they promised us all they would) No, of course not. Why? ....Because it is owned by one of their number, and they probably feel it is the only place that gives them the support to keep them where they are. In that respect, I dare say they are for once quite correct. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)