FT2 and the Headley Down affair Options

[Peter Damian]

I've been doing some more research on the blocking and banning of a number of users who were combating pseudoscience in Wikipedia. FT2 was behind the bans (he is an adherent of the NLP cult, and a large number of the people who supported him at the election are either NLP, or other cults, or members of, er, certain fringe sexuality groups).

The facts are hard to track down, but there do seem to be a number of editors, not just a set of sockpuppets. Some of them were banned because they were members of the same science club at Hong Kong university.

Question: is this allowed? For example, if several members of the Royal Society had the same concern about pseudoscience or whatever, and acted to correct misinformation in Wikipedia, would there be grounds for a ban like this? Or what about members of the same philosophy department?

I've emailed Helen to get her side of the matter. [Update - the email address is no longer valid, and there is still a question of whether she is a sockpuppet of Headley - on the other hand, the offense she was blocked for was being a 'meatpuppet', and that seems fundamentally wrong. I've also followed up a lot of the Headley down edits, and, regardless of whether he was guilty of the sockpuppet issue, they were pretty much all sound, and many of the attacks on him were flagrant abuse of policy, and bullying. But more of that later. End of edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=57142176
Revision as of 07:41, 6 June 2006 (edit) (undo)Helen Wu (Talk | contribs)

Hi Antaeus. I have noticed some strange and odd things on the NLP article. Most of the HKU skeptics society has been banned from editing on the basis of they are suspected sockpuppetry. I am a member, and I am worried about myself being banned if I make any objection to the NLP advocates removing verified information. I know at least some of them are not sockpuppets. I met Alice, Headley (Wei Qing), Hans, and Bookmain (Jim) a few months back, and Camridge (Liz) is also really nice. They are all therapists and academics. Do you think they will ban the whole of Hong Kong and China from editing that article? Also, I notice you have a grounding in editing pseudoscience subjects. I can send you some soft copy papers on NLP that the group gave me if you like. The article at presently seems to be going under some kind of censorship campaign. Some of it refers to scientology and other pseudosciences so I thought it may be helpful and "synergetic" for you. [[User:Helen Wu|Helen Wu]] 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 28th December 2007, 10:47am

[Castle Rock]

Would this block by FT2 be part of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Docleaf

This account has been indefinitely blocked. It is a reincarnation of an editor that uses multiple sockpuppets and that has been community-banned and blocked on multiple occasions in the past under different names.

Apologies it took so long to notice. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

Would this block by FT2 be part of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Docleaf

THANKS for spotting that. Dynamite. Let's take a closer look. First, FT2 references this freaky page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY

"If you are seeing this message, it is likely to be because a block placed by FT2 led you here. " - sounds like the Matrix. And "This page is used for those rare blocks ... where posting detail might help vandalism in future." Eh? You can now be blocked without any reason?

Now look at the user's edit history. Any history of disruption?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&target=Docleaf

Looking at the edits, all the ones I have looked at seem well-referenced and civil and so forth. There is a constant 'behavioural' element, in that the user is clearly a scientific sceptic and opposed to many of the claims made by the 'New Age' and alternative medicine. But they are all properly sourced, as far as I can see. Now turning to the edit on 27 December that prompted the block by FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180379394

All he is doing here is removing the claim that alternative medicine is a term for health care practices that MAY NOT HAVE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR THEIR EFFECTIVENESS.

The edit is perfectly in order. The term 'their effectiveness' is what we linguistic philosophers call 'presuppositional', it makes an implicit claim by referring to something whose existence is in dispute, ergo whose existence should not be presumed. In this case, the effectiveness of alternative medicine. Before the edit, the article was saying, in effect, 'alternative medicine is effective, but there is no explanation for its effectiveness'. Since it makes the POV claim that such medicine is effective (nothing wrong with citing evidence that it is, but don't make the claim in the encylopedia), the blocked editor was right to remove it.

But, nonetheless, FT2 blocks the guy (or girl) without any reason given. That is utterly f---ing unbelievable. I really cannot understand why this is happening.

And here's another sinister page from his user space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180924286

Hi,

A quick heads-up. This article was visited by [[user:{{{1}}}]] who edited or commented on it. Unfortunately {{{1}}} was a reincarnation of a well known warrior and pov pusher, who specializes in "slanting" articles, discrediting, faking, or removing cites and viewpoints, killing due weight, gaming the system, and low grade persistent personal attacks, including accusations of bias, hints of incompetence, and so on.

Editors on this article are cautioned to be wary. This user often returns with new socks, often quite different in behavior or "angle", sometimes having them there already, sometimes days or months later, sometimes several of them over time. These may be respectful and well behaved or disruptive; as a result, sometimes only over considerable time do the problems of bias and warring begin to show. The user also at times (like many vandals) makes good sane edits and comments as part of their gaming.

Please review the edits made by {{{1}}}, if necessary in extreme cases reverting back to a version before they became involved on this topic (and adding in anything genuinely valid since), and be wary of trusting any of the users' contributions. And always assuming good faith -- please seek advice if a concern should arize in future for any reason, rather than jumping to conclusions.

I apologize for having to post this. Thank you.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Templates/hd-info"

The implication is, be as well-behaved as you like, you may still be blocked if you cross with FT2. Surely at some point, despite his extraordinary, and to me inexplicable, popularity in the community, some decent people are going to start questioning all this? There are still many decent people there, you know.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 30th December 2007, 10:26am

[Yehudi]

Eh? You can now be blocked without any reason?

Of course you can't. There is a reason: "you are making cogent, well-supported arguments that I don't like."