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

[Milton Roe]

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

You mean the "wretched hive of scum and villainy"?

Yes, but even the wretched hive of scum and villany has to use the loo. One of the funniest "Scenes We'd Like to See" back in MAD's heyday, was a "cut" scene where Luke visits the even more puzzling *lavatory* of the Mos Eisley Cantina. The fixtures cover the walls and floor and have multiple shapes, holes, attachments, suction cups, stuff that you don't want to know about....

[Vicky]

(You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

Of course I'd be delighted if FT2 bought me a drink, though of course I'd keep a sharp eye to check it wasn't spiked. I'd also be very happy to show him why Tie and tease deserves its own article.

And FT2, can you please unblock RachelBrown as she wasn't covered by the ArbCom ruling; Dmcdevit blocked her on his own initiative on no evidence at all. (Since she hadn't edited for over a year before the ban, there could have been no "fresh technical evidence" against her.)

[Random832]

(You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

Or perhaps he is simply expressing uncertainty that you are a woman.

[Vicky]

Or perhaps he is simply expressing uncertainty that you are a woman.

[wikiwhistle]

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

I've not read FT2's posts much on wiki, but I'm surprised to see he falls hook, line and sinker for all the stories about people, not only that but I thought he'd have a smoother style of debate than bringing it up to the people concerned, or even those that haven't been accused before like Docknell.

Just a simple question FT2.

The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way.{...}
Do you feel that all those editors who are against your POV pushing should "pack it in"?

Doc

What's more, are we all socks of Headley?

[Vicky]

The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way.

That's because we're all in England with generic occupations and only six photos each.

[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

[Proabivouac]

I highlight once again FT2's plainly unsound methodologies in identifying purported sockpuppets of Headley Down:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=110399

While of course it's possible that some of the accused are, indeed, sockpuppets, this page makes it plain that FT2 lacks both the competence and judgment necessary to identify them as such to any acceptable degree of reliability and accuracy (barring checkuser, of course, which is the fruit of political, not investigatory, skill.)

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 2nd September 2008, 7:21am

[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.

[The Adversary]

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

You mean the "wretched hive of scum and villainy"?

Yes, but even the wretched hive of scum and villany has to use the loo. One of the funniest "Scenes We'd Like to See" back in MAD's heyday, was a "cut" scene where Luke visits the even more puzzling *lavatory* of the Mos Eisley Cantina. The fixtures cover the walls and floor and have multiple shapes, holes, attachments, suction cups, stuff that you don't want to know about....

Ah, yes, I´m reminded of an old biology class about ..crabs. (Crabs have one pair of socalled "copulation organs" (called gonopods); on edible crabs you can easily find the pair on the males, and the matching two openings in the female.)

Well, we had a biology teacher who got a bit carried away on the subject. One unforgettable sight: him, literally jumping up and down, shouting enthusiastically: "They´ve got stereo equipment! They´ve got stereo equipment!"

Think about it, finding some Mos Eisley Cantina candidates in the most unlikely places, say, the fish marked

Ok, back to more serious stuff:

[snip]

[snip] I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" )

[snip]
And no, I haven't. My computer issues have been annoying, and a serious impediment, and lasted from beginning July to now. The alternatives were two laptops - one with a busted keyboard and overheating, and a borrowed one with so little memory that opening a web page is a 90 second adventure. I hope they're over, but god knows. The tech guys don't understand either (multiple components tried with multiple components). At worst it may all go back for testing, and likely I'll pull it offline for 24 hours to do testing anyway here. But today for the first time since June it passed [[Memtest]]. I wish I were as confident as memtest is. As a result I haven't done the full review on that case, which I'd have wished to. Its on my "get caught up" list.

Huh? I was actually thinking of the allegations about FeloniousMonk which were (first?) raised in October 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....B7_contribs.29
Have those allegations been addressed anywhere? (Sorry about your computer problems (I know all about it), but you cannot all have been suffering from that the last 10-12 months?)

[Docknell]

..., 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.

Just a hint, Random

Recognition is a far more powerful truth signifying device than recall. Recall pf supposedly real events can even be imagined. Recognition is something that just happens automatically, without any processing whatsoever.

Show a printscreen that someone has seen the likes of before, and it will be recognized as at least intuitively correct.

In this case. You know it by the smell!

Doc