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

[FT2]

Just a quick note. I first asked for a WR account to be set up in April, but it wasn't, and again a week or so ago (admin mail wasn't being checked). Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front.

Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job (and probably a number of disputes I get asked to help with) gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important.

Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at wikipedia may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like wikipedia editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible.

What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to argue people out of entire world views such as conspiracy-based thinking; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I woulnd't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me.

That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go unless relevant to enwiki work, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay.

I don't have much to say, and if theres a deluge of comments I might be some time getting to them (wiki editing and Arbcom's a full time job and I still have to balance it with the usual family, friends and work). I plan to read around the board and see what's what, before I comment on any specific matter. Last I'm aware that WP and WR may have quite different site ethics and customary approaches. 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.


FT2

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 31st August 2008, 10:20am

[bambi]

Does this look about right? That first line probably dates from 24 July 2006. Not earlier, and certainly no later than 30 September 2007.

[Docknell]

Request for FT2

Does this look about right? That first line probably dates from 24 July 2006. Not earlier, and certainly no later than 30 September 2007.

Yes Bambi thats likely to be FT2 (the first one).

There is a lot of other FT2 personal information to see from the diffs (especially concerning promotional activities), and the whitewash has spread over to WR. No problem, its not about cleaning up FT2's crap, just flagging it for others to step around.




Hi FT2, give us some more to flag!


Perhaps you would like to make another pleading defense of your "pet" subjects: NLP and bestiality?

Or perhaps you would like to accuse some other people of being virulent socks? I'm sure many others would like to join the list.

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

In fact, go ahead and write "Docknell" there also.

Put me somewhere in the "Used to attack Ted Kenedy" sockpuppet brigade. I never liked his choice in ties, and he's conveniently suffering from a deadly illness right now. And don't worry about lots of people here noticing that the IPs on that section come from:

24.147.97.230
Massachusetts

and

Pompano Beach, Florida
66.176.129.11

You can always blame it on IP proxies, or the vast army of meatpuppets that anti-NLP and anti-zoo science oriented editors seem to blatantly and virulently employ so thoroughly.

I'm about as much a sockpuppet as Flavius, Damian, or all those other editors who voted to delete your acres of banal excuse ridden NLPbabble. Go ahead, just paste my name anywhere you like in your little hate list. I'm sure you will be able to select from a wide range of excuses for it.

Doc

This post has been edited by Docknell: Tue 2nd September 2008, 6:30am

[Peter Damian]

I'm about as much a sockpuppet as Flavius, Damian, or all those other editors who voted to delete your acres of banal excuse ridden NLPbabble. Go ahead, just paste my name anywhere you like in your little hate list. I'm sure you will be able to select from a wide range of excuses for it.
Doc

The thing that most irritated me about the long list of 'Headleys' was the PhDarts one. The account was apparently 'used to attack the Paedophilia articles'.

Why 'attack'? I went through all the darts edits carefully and there is no evidence of attack. For example, Darts was trying to insert a well-sourced comment that child pornography is central to the existence of a paedophile (I'll find the exact quote later). The pro-paedos removed this, of course, and there was a revert war. Eventually one of them complained and mentioned on their talk page they were going to get Darts banned. The next day Darts was banned by FT2. I complained about this myself and was banned (eventually repealed, but should not have happened).

I don't know: what was FT2 thinking?

[edit] In case of confusion, there is no evidence that FT2 has had any more to do with the paedo stuff than this. But the fact he failed to make any elementary sense check of the issue speaks volumes. It seems to me he confuses anyone who opposes his point of view with a 'Headley'. Indeed, if you look at one of his early comments on this thread, you will see he confused me with Headley as well (he says he has been trying to ban me since 2006, which is nonsense).

[edit] Here is the post by FT2 where he confuses me with 'Headley'

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125110

In the first category, people I know who will be hostile are -- the user you know as Peter Damian (I gather thats his name on WR), a banned user who I have spent 2006 to date removing from the wiki (and who surely has an account here for the same purpose),

I never crossed paths with FT2 (except briefly) until late 2007. It was Headley who was 2006. I don't think there's any genuinely bad faith here, in fact. If I may say, I think that FT2 finds criticism difficult, and rationalises it as all coming from one person. Hence the myriad number of people banned from the project for being 'Headley socks'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 2nd September 2008, 6:47am

[Docknell]

I'm about as much a sockpuppet as Flavius, Damian, or all those other editors who voted to delete your acres of banal excuse ridden NLPbabble. Go ahead, just paste my name anywhere you like in your little hate list. I'm sure you will be able to select from a wide range of excuses for it.
Doc

The thing that most irritated me about the long list of 'Headleys' was the PhDarts one. The account was apparently 'used to attack the Paedophilia articles'.

Why 'attack'? I went through all the darts edits carefully and there is no evidence of attack. For example, Darts was trying to insert a well-sourced comment that child pornography is central to the existence of a paedophile (I'll find the exact quote later). The pro-paedos removed this, of course, and there was a revert war. Eventually one of them complained and mentioned on their talk page they were going to get Darts banned. The next day Darts was banned by FT2. I complained about this myself and was banned (eventually repealed, but should not have happened).

I don't know: what was FT2 thinking?

[edit] In case of confusion, there is no evidence that FT2 has had any more to do with the paedo stuff than this. But the fact he failed to make any elementary sense check of the issue speaks volumes. It seems to me he confuses anyone who opposes his point of view with a 'Headley'. Indeed, if you look at one of his early comments on this thread, you will see he confused me with Headley as well (he says he has been trying to ban me since 2006, which is nonsense).

[edit] Here is the post by FT2 where he confuses me with 'Headley'

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125110

In the first category, people I know who will be hostile are -- the user you know as Peter Damian (I gather thats his name on WR), a banned user who I have spent 2006 to date removing from the wiki (and who surely has an account here for the same purpose),

I never crossed paths with FT2 (except briefly) until late 2007. It was Headley who was 2006. I don't think there's any genuinely bad faith here, in fact. If I may say, I think that FT2 finds criticism difficult, and rationalises it as all coming from one person. Hence the myriad number of people banned from the project for being 'Headley socks'.

I disagree on this one point: Its not a confusion. FT2 is clearly deliberate about compiling a hate list for the purpose of self-promotion and crank defense.

The Ted Kennedy group of socks that FT2 conflated is dead a giveaway:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21556798

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...arget=Agiantman

They don't even remotely agree with Headley and others, and their language is different.j


FT2 has a profound mental model of fringe belief to defend. It seems that as soon as the HeadleyDown bannings occurred, FT2 started conflating a list of supposed virulent sock vandals, and tried to get his interests well defended.

In the meantime, Ft2 has been working very hard to inflate his status as a sock sleuth, and a sock expert. Its a weird sort of contrived synergy.

Wikipedians allow him to do it, consciously or not

I'm enjoying FT2 turning up here. I do think FT2 is unaware of some things: The extent that a lot of people can see through his promotional fringepushing smokescreens. Only an extensive session of overwrites will remove the damning evidence, and we have printscreens on our side.

Doc

[Random832]

..., and we have printscreens on our side.

This is something that's often irritated me - there seems to be a tendency for wikipedia critics to think that screenshots are worth the bits they're printed on. They're easy to fake. This doesn't mean that yours are faked; rather, it means it's equally easy for anyone who doesn't want to believe what your screenshots "prove" to claim that it's fake.