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.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

I pointed to this users early days at Wikipedia (during the election) and if you look closely at the edit history, you might find a somewhat remarkable story.

Nothing wrong with sex and sexual editing...especially with the experience that this editor had prior to WP??? This user (FT2) will be one of the next interesting time bombs for WP, in my opinion. That is......... following the even more interesting twist that people like NewYorkBrad will experience when they try to spend hours on WP while they are supposed to be working at practicing LAW! People that work for the public really should work.

I do not mean work at WP. That is being underemployed.

Anyhoooo...FT2 skates into the limelight with an interesting past?

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Wed 19th December 2007, 11:25pm

[wikiwhistle]

I pointed to this users early days at Wikipedia (during the election) and if you look closely at the edit history, you might find a somewhat remarkable story.

Nothing wrong with sex and sexual editing...especially with the experience that this editor had prior to WP??? {...}

Anyhoooo...FT2 skates into the limelight with an interesting past?

Ooooooh do you have any gossip/info about his past? PM me if you prefer. Just because I like a laugh lol, anything on telly about bestiality and people having a romantic relationship with their dogs is always hilarious

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Thu 20th December 2007, 12:59am

[The Joy]

I pointed to this users early days at Wikipedia (during the election) and if you look closely at the edit history, you might find a somewhat remarkable story.

Nothing wrong with sex and sexual editing...especially with the experience that this editor had prior to WP??? {...}

Anyhoooo...FT2 skates into the limelight with an interesting past?

Ooooooh do you have any gossip/info about his past? PM me if you prefer. Just because I like a laugh lol, anything on telly about bestiality and people having a romantic relationship with their dogs is always hilarious

During his ArbCom campaign, a Wikipedian criticised him for his participation in the Zoophilia (bestiality) article and took his campaign off WP. It was a mess and something of an embarrarsement to FT2, if I recall.

[Peter Damian]

During his ArbCom campaign, a Wikipedian criticised him for his participation in the Zoophilia (bestiality) article and took his campaign off WP. It was a mess and something of an embarrarsement to FT2, if I recall.

It was an animal rights campaigner from Switzerland (NOT me, by the way). She ran Kate's tool and it turned out that of his three most edited articles, one was the Zoophilia one, the other one on the Labrador retriever.

He objected that he likes to edit contentious articles and 'dangerous' subjects. However, there is nothing contentious or dangerous about retrievers. Is there?

[Milton Roe]

He objected that he likes to edit contentious articles and 'dangerous' subjects. However, there is nothing contentious or dangerous about retrievers. Is there?

Maybe not unless you happen to be FT2's labrador retriever.

FT2 is deep, deep in the closet as regards his ID. So deep he only breathes through the mousehole in the closet corner, which he actually likes. There's a deleted post where he includes encrypted information about his credit cards and bank account to secretly ID himself to the WMF, if that should ever become necessary. Of course it wasn't, but that gives you some idea of the care he's taken.

I can tell from his edits that he's British, Jewish, educated in psychology, and probably went to English universities where he picked up the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish Vicarish cant (it isn't that-- just sounds like high church twee). A lot of literature courses somewhere there. "Compawwwwe and contwaaaast". Probably gay. Who knows is he has paraphilias or just studies them, or both. If he practices NLP someplace in England, it isn't obviously enough to nail him by the writing style.

Brandt, here is where we need your skills. This guy's a first rate puzzle.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Fri 22nd August 2008, 11:50pm

[Vicky]

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

[dogbiscuit]

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

Vicars: the one's I have come across usually manage to sound either snooty or overtly gay or both regardless of orientation. Less so the other protestant variations.

[Carruthers]

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

Vicars: the one's I have come across usually manage to sound either snooty or overtly gay or both regardless of orientation. Less so the other protestant variations.

Yes, I think that Americans have to be careful using their own language ticks in dealing with people from the UK. It's a whole different, um, ballgame...

[Milton Roe]

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

Vicars: the one's I have come across usually manage to sound either snooty or overtly gay or both regardless of orientation. Less so the other protestant variations.

Yes, I think that Americans have to be careful using their own language ticks in dealing with people from the UK. It's a whole different, um, ballgame...

Yes. "Another spot of tea, Vicar?" translates into American-business-ese as "Moving right along..." and into colloquial nonformal as "So, how about those Knicks?" That's why computers can't do it (yet).

Snootiness is of course subjective, but I can tell Manchester from Kent and so can you. And I can tell public school from not and probably so can you. FT2 is well-educated and Southern. Wanna bet?

the snooty Episcopalian Ministerish cant

Have you ever been to England? We don't have Episcopalians here, and if you mean Church of England they don't usually sound snooty.

I have been to England, but not since 1977 (where I got my first body-patdown as a routine tourist, on account of the "troubles" -- shocking). And yes, I meant Church of England. We call it something different here, and I'm used to that. Yes, I know they're not the same.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Fri 22nd August 2008, 10:18pm