Here is an “oppose” vote from FT2. This is highly relevant to FT2’s last visit here and his harassment and sociopathic accusation of off-Wiki postees here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._other_websites
FT2: “Insufficiently acknowledges a line, to my mind. This is a case where "comment on the edit not the editor" may sometimes be a problem in practice if not in theory. There is a well known tactic where some banned disruptive or harassing users, once banned, switch to posting "good" edits to taunt or game rather than because of reform. A ban in such cases might genuinely mean editors should not have to put up with their presence, whether in person or by proxy. With ~1700 admins and thousands of users an edit can usually find someone prepared to post it. Proxy editing in this situation will often discourage and undermine our better editors on some disputed topic, who may typically have undergone extreme long-term stress to be rid of a problem. As a result, there will be some cases where "banned should mean banned". “
I really can’t help but think about this article that FT2 set up:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
Basically, FT2 is working as hard as ever upon making sure good edits don’t get allowed on FT2’s main interests (Bestiality and NLP). Any good edit on the subjects that have been discussed here, including pederasty, can be dismissed as proxy sock editing.
Any good edit (exact or similar), that an editor has been ultimately banned for posting will have arbitrators such as FT2 deliberately assuming bad faith over. The person posting the good edit can be accused of sockpuppetry, banned, and added to one of FT2’s conflated lists of “could be anywhere in the world” alleged socks.
Can FT2 get any more sociopathic in his defense of cruft?