Just starting a collection of the little 'presents' that FT2 leaves on one's talk page from time to time. Qualifying criterion: they have to be very nice and polite on first reading, until you read more carefully and you taste the vitriol and poison.
Starting with the Christmas present that FT2 left on Giano's page on 25 December 2007. FT2 knew by that point that he had been elected to Arbcom and was flexing his muscles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...RC-related_page
Typical sociopathic remarks "I wish I didn't have to write this but I do." (Oh yes you jolly well are revelling in writing this). "Giano, this pains me". (Always use Christian name when saying things like this, and always say how painful it is for you to be inflicting pain on others). "You know fully and well, how to handle disagreement, and the norms the community expects and aims for. " (always mention the community). "I ask you this as a collaborator and colleague whose work on content I'm in awe of. " (I wish I didn't have to say this but I do).
And finally, don't forget to 'tweak' it at the end:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180160544
Full Version: Sociopathic behaviour
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 5th July 2008, 12:05pm) 
Just starting a collection of the little 'presents' that FT2 leaves on one's talk page from time to time. Qualifying criterion: they have to be very nice and polite on first reading, until you read more carefully and you taste the vitriol and poison.
Starting with the Christmas present that FT2 left on Giano's page on 25 December 2007. FT2 knew by that point that he had been elected to Arbcom and was flexing his muscles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...RC-related_page
Another glimpse of the strange world that FT2 inhabits. If you go to his user page here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2
you will notice a collection of 'endorsements' of the good works of FT2 by various editors that he has pasted together. One of them is by user Skoppensbauer whose product endorsement runs as follows:
Wow that looks good. Cooperative editing, unique article on the web, achievement, bla bla, could be from a flip chart at one of those dreary 'management' seminars that FT2 runs.
Nothing could be further from the truth. FT2 and Skopp (who is medically trained and educated to higher degree standard and really knows his stuff) had a massive edit war immediately beforehand and the case was only just cooling down by the time Skopp made the remarks above. See below. I particularly like the bit about 'logorrheic thicket of words', and also where Skopp accuses FT of being a zoophile. Would have got indef-blocked for that these days. Enjoy.
-----------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2
you will notice a collection of 'endorsements' of the good works of FT2 by various editors that he has pasted together. One of them is by user Skoppensbauer whose product endorsement runs as follows:
QUOTE
"I'm getting a good feeling about this page ... This page may save lives, may help people avoid sickness and trauma. We can be proud."
"This is a unique page on the web. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic ... exclusively and in such depth. [...] That is surely an achievement."
- Skoppensboer 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) and 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) on the co-authoring of Zoophilia and health, which at one point went towards mediation before working out well.
"This is a unique page on the web. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic ... exclusively and in such depth. [...] That is surely an achievement."
- Skoppensboer 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) and 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) on the co-authoring of Zoophilia and health, which at one point went towards mediation before working out well.
Wow that looks good. Cooperative editing, unique article on the web, achievement, bla bla, could be from a flip chart at one of those dreary 'management' seminars that FT2 runs.
Nothing could be further from the truth. FT2 and Skopp (who is medically trained and educated to higher degree standard and really knows his stuff) had a massive edit war immediately beforehand and the case was only just cooling down by the time Skopp made the remarks above. See below. I particularly like the bit about 'logorrheic thicket of words', and also where Skopp accuses FT of being a zoophile. Would have got indef-blocked for that these days. Enjoy.
QUOTE
I stand by what I said. Your edits all tend to minimise perceived risk and your intention is clearly to give the entire topic a gloss of safety and normality, I presume for personal reasons. Let me ask you directly: are you a zoophile? We should be told. It would certainly help to explain your edits made without consensus-seeking. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
QUOTE
Please stop using pornographic erotica forums for proof of what we should or shouldn't say here. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
QUOTE
I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. As for taking a break, I'll take a permanent break if you agree not to gut the Health and Safety section again. I am also agreeable to spinning it off as a separate page with a {{main| tag linking it to the Zoophilia page H&S section, as I've offered before, and to which you have never agreed, your recent comment about this notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Zoophilia Talk page)
-----------------
QUOTE
I do not have the time to engage in a long explication of this kerfuffle here, and I see I'm already in danger of being overwhelmed by FT2's verbose style right at the start. I refer the mediator to the actual talk pages where I've made my points. I don't wish or have the time to rewrite them here. Needless to say, I deny all of the points FT2 tries to make above.
QUOTE
The issue I have with FT2 is that his/her editing always comes from one biased angle. Absolutely every edit he/she's made on my work serves to minimize and normalize aberrant behaviour that could threaten health. Yes, shock, but even in this non-judgemental world, some behaviors are still aberrant from a professional medical POV. I refer you to the various talk pages again. Please note that the quoted "negative" above is not my word. But I do have an issue with a disorder (for that is what the psychiatric profession all over the world classifies it as -- a "disorder") being presented as a charming alternate lifestyle, and with an article in which the health/disease section is almost non-existent, inane and frankly wrong, as it was. I tried to beef the health aspects up and FT2 has opposed me tooth and nail, if you'll excuse the pun. Read the various pages, & the discussions. FT2 has raised trivial objection after trivial objection, edited my work without any attempt at consultation, and he/she clearly has a disturbing sense of ownership of the topic on WP.
QUOTE
I wish to quote someone else's views on the Zoophilia page, and note that the problems highlighted in this quote are what got me started on the zoophilia page in the first place, attempting to insert balance, and even though I now have a separate page for the health issue, the party responsible for the tone of the original page is intent on pursuing me and keeping the tone in lockstep with the master article. Here's the apposite quote: "In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unnecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. .... this current article is still a terrible embarrassment to wikipedia. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.". [6 December 2006] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ation/Zoophilia
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 5th July 2008, 1:07pm)
FT2 reminds me of Xolox in that respect. Xolox was (perhaps still is, haven't been around lately to notice) a grand master of the sweetly worded poison missive; FT2 does the same but uses more words along the way.
Xoloz you mean? I agree, he was incredibly polite, but his words were vicious.
Also note, in another nice touch, FT2 immediately 'archived' this discussion, thus if you look at the Zoo talk page at the end of December it is no longer there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96059752
even though it includes other much earlier edits from 4 November 2005 onwards. Thus if you hit any diff before or after December 2006, you would never realise it was there. And here we catch him in the act
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032
Beautifully selective.
[edit] Do read through the edits that FT2 'archived' as they are very blunt and funny. E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96059752
even though it includes other much earlier edits from 4 November 2005 onwards. Thus if you hit any diff before or after December 2006, you would never realise it was there. And here we catch him in the act
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032
Beautifully selective.
[edit] Do read through the edits that FT2 'archived' as they are very blunt and funny. E.g.
QUOTE
I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages (Skopp)
QUOTE
There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 7th July 2008, 7:47pm)
Also note, in another nice touch, FT2 immediately 'archived' this discussion, thus if you look at the Zoo talk page at the end of December it is no longer there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96059752
even though it includes other much earlier edits from 4 November 2005 onwards. Thus if you hit any diff before or after December 2006, you would never realise it was there. And here we catch him in the act
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032
Beautifully selective.
[edit] Do read through the edits that FT2 'archived' as they are very blunt and funny. E.g.
QUOTE
I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages (Skopp)
QUOTE
There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other.
Yes FT2 is being shown up by a medical professional. He calls FT2's edits mealy mouthed. That basically sums FT2 up.
"If you are saying that research into animal-to-human disease transmission based on bestial activity is lacking, you are correct. However, veterinarian and animal husbandry workers handling urine, semen and other fluids have been infected, so it is a logical deduction that introducing the infected fluids into the human urethra (males) or vagina (females) or rectums and mouths (both) would carry not only the same risk as those exposed occupationally, but a far greater risk. I suggest to you here, and this may be prescient, that the inevitable future research on bestiality will show that I have been circumspect and measured in my statements, and that the risk is really very high indeed." Skopp
Its the sort of thing that FT2 deletes as a matter of course.
The NLP article is about the same.
Docknell
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 7th July 2008, 7:47pm)
Also note, in another nice touch, FT2 immediately 'archived' this discussion, thus if you look at the Zoo talk page at the end of December it is no longer there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96059752
even though it includes other much earlier edits from 4 November 2005 onwards. Thus if you hit any diff before or after December 2006, you would never realise it was there. And here we catch him in the act
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=92371032
Beautifully selective.
[edit] Do read through the edits that FT2 'archived' as they are very blunt and funny. E.g.
QUOTE
I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages (Skopp)
QUOTE
There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other.
This one's a peach. Hit FT2 square on.
" I really can't respond to all the interpersonal issues that you broach, FT2, because I'm not here to network with people and schmooze, and I'm prone to plain speaking and calling it like I see it. This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent, and then high-handedly reverse edits without discussion, even when asked to discuss, like you did recently. I'm simply interested in the page representing a fair version of the facts, especially in the Health and Safety area. I'd welcome mediation on this one topic, but I specifically want the mediator to be <b>knowledgeable in the medical/health area</b>. I suggest we ask for someone with a medical degree to make a judgement here. If that can be arranged, I'm more than willing to stand by what he/she decides." Skopp
Docknell
QUOTE(Docknell @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:36am)
QUOTE
This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent [...] (Skopp to FT2)
Surely this is wrong. FT2 has told us that his initial editing was 'minimal' and he only worked there to clear up a problem with an 'edit warrior'. Surely you are wrong, Docknell.
QUOTE
My initial editing on [[zoophilia]] was minimal, and sporadic, with none for some months - most of it arose in the context of an edit warrior which led to work being done there. I probably wouldn't have thought to revisit it again otherwise. But once attention was drawn there, I found it a facinating editing challenge, and have no qualms researching and improving the topic area.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:22am)
QUOTE(Docknell @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:36am)
QUOTE
This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent [...] (Skopp to FT2)
Surely this is wrong. FT2 has told us that his initial editing was 'minimal' and he only worked there to clear up a problem with an 'edit warrior'. Surely you are wrong, Docknell.
QUOTE
My initial editing on [[zoophilia]] was minimal, and sporadic, with none for some months - most of it arose in the context of an edit warrior which led to work being done there. I probably wouldn't have thought to revisit it again otherwise. But once attention was drawn there, I found it a facinating editing challenge, and have no qualms researching and improving the topic area.
Mmm. Perhaps I should think again. True, FT2 has been working on a wide range of articles other than zoophilia. For example, here is FT2 working on the zoosexuality article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99791036
Its a zoophilia study though. Never mind!
Actually, FT2 treats the subject with only the best quotes. Notice FT2 has judiciously left out the phrases:
" The subject's desire to be transformed into the animal he or she has contact with can be understood as a narcissistic compound and is not related to lycanthropia."
"The authors are optimistic over the possibilities offered by this Internet research methodology."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15197450
FT2 really knows how to stay broad at the right time and select stuff whenever it suits:)
Doc
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:22am)
QUOTE(Docknell @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:36am)
QUOTE
This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent [...] (Skopp to FT2)
Surely this is wrong. FT2 has told us that his initial editing was 'minimal' and he only worked there to clear up a problem with an 'edit warrior'. Surely you are wrong, Docknell.
QUOTE
My initial editing on [[zoophilia]] was minimal, and sporadic, with none for some months - most of it arose in the context of an edit warrior which led to work being done there. I probably wouldn't have thought to revisit it again otherwise. But once attention was drawn there, I found it a facinating editing challenge, and have no qualms researching and improving the topic area.
Oh, and to be fair, FT2 has also been working on articles completely unrelated to anything sexual:
What would a Labrador have to do with sex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4859569
Indeed, FT2 explains that
"Labradors are a well balanced breed, adaptable to a ----wide range of functions---- as well as making very good pets."
And one very useful handle on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4864252
"Their fur is usually fairly short and straight, and the tail quite borad and strong."
I think FT2 meant that the tail is broad. Not borad at all.
And then FT2's very next edit is on the subject of the intrinsically powerful Neurolinguistic programming concern:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4861141
where FT2 goes into detail over how NLP is clearly so powerful it has been abused for the purposes of sales and seduction
And of course, nice of FT2 to mention that only ---some--- practitioners are ---sometimes---accused of being secretive about their techniques and only making them available through expensive courses, making it hard to assess the validity of the techniques.
Such a diverse set of subjects and views I doubt yet exists.
No wonder FT2 is an admin!
That's an interesting edit you link to:
Linguistics happens to be a specialist area of mine in which I have published work and a higher degree. I don't recognise anything that he is talking about here. Could this just be incoherent babble? Surely not!
QUOTE
A key element is that NLP is very much based upon [[structure]] and [[syntax]]. In other words, individual tools within NLP can be treated as building blocks, put together to most effectively communicate with each individual human being. It is syntax based, in that the order and structure of what is done, is felt to have a significant impact on how effective it is. [FT2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4861141
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4861141
Linguistics happens to be a specialist area of mine in which I have published work and a higher degree. I don't recognise anything that he is talking about here. Could this just be incoherent babble? Surely not!
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 8th July 2008, 9:11am)
That's an interesting edit you link to:
QUOTE
A key element is that NLP is very much based upon [[structure]] and [[syntax]]. In other words, individual tools within NLP can be treated as building blocks, put together to most effectively communicate with each individual human being. It is syntax based, in that the order and structure of what is done, is felt to have a significant impact on how effective it is. [FT2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4861141
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4861141
Linguistics happens to be a specialist area of mine in which I have published work and a higher degree. I don't recognise anything that he is talking about here. Could this just be incoherent babble? Surely not!
Not sure if its a kosher word yet, but the scientitsts who know about NLP tend to refer to it as neurobabble (fake pseudoscience riding on the coattails of legit neuroscience).
Doc
I notice the diff you provided includes
How fortunate we are then that there is such a wealth of material on this subject that FT2 has selflessly provided for Wikipedia.
Though you can always buy this book
http://www.thehouseofoojah.com/audiobooks/...diobook-CD.html
about Quantum NLP , Hypnotherapy and Shamanic Studies. Interestingly this actually uses the introduction to NLP that FT2 wrote for Wikipedia. Small world.
QUOTE
Colleges and universities do not currently offer any courses in NLP.
How fortunate we are then that there is such a wealth of material on this subject that FT2 has selflessly provided for Wikipedia.
Though you can always buy this book
http://www.thehouseofoojah.com/audiobooks/...diobook-CD.html
about Quantum NLP , Hypnotherapy and Shamanic Studies. Interestingly this actually uses the introduction to NLP that FT2 wrote for Wikipedia. Small world.
Material from another post which I am collecting under the 'sociopathic' thread.
If you do not get the response you hope for, I hope you will publish the information here instead, as I do have some sympathy with the view that you have made the allusions to the problem without ever putting up, although I can quite understand why you have taken that line. If Wikipedia will not deal with the issue in a mature way, then it is time for you to use another forum. Feel free to PM me with the information.
What you're going to see here, one way or another, are some ground rules that specify that some of the evidence - particularly your correspondence regarding the improper oversight - be discussed only in private. It cannot be posted on Wiki because of provacy/a copyvio/etc. The reason for this is to hide evidence of the leadership's wrongdoing, and to make certain that no one else feels confident to judge the fairness of the outcome - it was handled privately, we cannot reveal all our reasoning, trust us. Even those disinclined to trust will be left with little choice.
Don't agree to this. It won't help you. The bottom line is that as long as you're fighting to wipe this blatant (and poorly sourced, and inaccurate) promotion of deviant sexual practices from Wikipedia, you'll have FT2 as an enemy. As an arbitrator and pretty much the leader of the baneful admins' IRC, there is no practical limit to the number of administrators he can solicit to do his bidding, and it only takes one to block you. FT2 must be removed from positions of responsiblity, not just as an arbitrator, but as an administrator, and you must be vindicated and thanked for your service to the community. Short of that, it's just a matter of time before we're in the same position, with IRC-solicited admins opining that you having "run out of chances" and endorsing your ban.
A close examination of this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
especially blocks such as these,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:CSIvor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:FFodor
which assert the existence of secret evidence
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. They will have been carefully checked, and often also run past another independent opinion."
and are accompanied by transparent misrepresentations of fact
"also attacking Canada, Paraphilia, Criminal law and Crime scene photography"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...ttack_Zoophilia
cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CSIvor
- blocks performed by FT2 himself, in blatant violation of the blocking policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes
to ensure that articles in which he is deeply invested, such as Zoophilia and Pederasty, remain in their unsourced POV-pushing state, suggest that FT2 has seriously abused his office for some time now.
Any remedy to the effect that "FT2 and Peter Damian should stay away from one another" 1) will not work, because FT2 can solicit others 2) will implicitly admit that you've been "harassing" FT2, and that they're being nice to you by letting you go with this modest restriction, setting you up for future bans 3) will perpetuate this ongoing abuse of the project and the public.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 8:40am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 7:15am)
If you do not get the response you hope for, I hope you will publish the information here instead, as I do have some sympathy with the view that you have made the allusions to the problem without ever putting up, although I can quite understand why you have taken that line. If Wikipedia will not deal with the issue in a mature way, then it is time for you to use another forum. Feel free to PM me with the information.
What you're going to see here, one way or another, are some ground rules that specify that some of the evidence - particularly your correspondence regarding the improper oversight - be discussed only in private. It cannot be posted on Wiki because of provacy/a copyvio/etc. The reason for this is to hide evidence of the leadership's wrongdoing, and to make certain that no one else feels confident to judge the fairness of the outcome - it was handled privately, we cannot reveal all our reasoning, trust us. Even those disinclined to trust will be left with little choice.
Don't agree to this. It won't help you. The bottom line is that as long as you're fighting to wipe this blatant (and poorly sourced, and inaccurate) promotion of deviant sexual practices from Wikipedia, you'll have FT2 as an enemy. As an arbitrator and pretty much the leader of the baneful admins' IRC, there is no practical limit to the number of administrators he can solicit to do his bidding, and it only takes one to block you. FT2 must be removed from positions of responsiblity, not just as an arbitrator, but as an administrator, and you must be vindicated and thanked for your service to the community. Short of that, it's just a matter of time before we're in the same position, with IRC-solicited admins opining that you having "run out of chances" and endorsing your ban.
A close examination of this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
especially blocks such as these,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:CSIvor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:FFodor
which assert the existence of secret evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY
QUOTE(FT2)
"If you are seeing this message, it is likely to be because a block placed by FT2 led you here. They will have been carefully checked, and often also run past another independent opinion."
and are accompanied by transparent misrepresentations of fact
QUOTE(FT2)
"also attacking Canada, Paraphilia, Criminal law and Crime scene photography"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...ttack_Zoophilia
cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CSIvor
- blocks performed by FT2 himself, in blatant violation of the blocking policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes
to ensure that articles in which he is deeply invested, such as Zoophilia and Pederasty, remain in their unsourced POV-pushing state, suggest that FT2 has seriously abused his office for some time now.
Any remedy to the effect that "FT2 and Peter Damian should stay away from one another" 1) will not work, because FT2 can solicit others 2) will implicitly admit that you've been "harassing" FT2, and that they're being nice to you by letting you go with this modest restriction, setting you up for future bans 3) will perpetuate this ongoing abuse of the project and the public.
QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 7th July 2008, 6:33pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 5th July 2008, 1:07pm)
FT2 reminds me of Xolox in that respect. Xolox was (perhaps still is, haven't been around lately to notice) a grand master of the sweetly worded poison missive; FT2 does the same but uses more words along the way.
Xoloz you mean? I agree, he was incredibly polite, but his words were vicious.
Yes I noticed the Xoloz style
Similarly, here is another of FT2's pushing the idea that pro-zoo arguments are similar to pro-homosexual
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29802648
Actually, pro-zoo arguments are far more similar to that of pedophiles. FT2’s push will no doubt be quite disturbing to most homosexuals. This again, is similar to the POV push on the pederasty article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...vert_homophobia
and will be similarly disturbing to any ethically minded homosexual.
It reminds me of Nambla's insistent claim that they should righteously march the gay parades.
Both bestialists and pederasts newsgroup promote the notion that society is wrongfully against them. They'd be pushing the zoophile article in the same way FT2 has.
More evidence of sociopathic behaviour from FT2.
1. FT2 claims that Headley Down is 'widely considered' a POV pusher and edit warrior
2. In response to the question as to who 'widely considers' this, he cites Alex B and Thatcher.
3. Reply from Alex B on-wiki that he has in effect never heard of Headley, and relies on FT2.
4. Re Thatcher - I have an email from him saying he has never heard of Headley either, I will ask him if I can publish it.
The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted "there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned."
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125128
[FT2 - in response to Damian question about whether we have any more than FT2's word that Headley Down is a 'virulent sockpuppet']
I've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards. Others have too, I know. You don't see it although everyone else who's looked into it seems to - right up to the admin who asked for evidence to support the block you were concerned over. So I'm not repeating. Others can, if they wish to.
You need to bear in mind for the first 18 months of Headley's career I wasn't an admin, so I coulnd't have blocked him. So everything I spotted, had to be sent to an admin or checkuser, to look into and agreed by another user. A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me. In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't. So you'll have to find out for yourself, I can't convince or show you. That'll happen by seeing what he's up to through others you trust, or by following his line until it gets you where it got him. But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list. It's better that you ask someone you trust, another well reputed Wikipedia admin, to check and explain for you, as Alex Bakharev has tried.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125142
Headley Down
FT2 has referred me to you as an expert in the matter of Headley Down. I have worked through many of the extensive series of edits made by this person and his or her sockpuppets. Though they are flawed some ways, I don't think they are so bad as FT2 claims. Do you have any comments? Peter Damian (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not an expert on Headley Down. Never met any of his socks or edited affected articles. All my knowledge about this guy is from FT2. I believed he had a sockpuppet farm (tens of them). This is a usual case for a long of an indefinite block Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Bakharev"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
1. FT2 claims that Headley Down is 'widely considered' a POV pusher and edit warrior
2. In response to the question as to who 'widely considers' this, he cites Alex B and Thatcher.
3. Reply from Alex B on-wiki that he has in effect never heard of Headley, and relies on FT2.
4. Re Thatcher - I have an email from him saying he has never heard of Headley either, I will ask him if I can publish it.
QUOTE
[FT2] Within his [Peter Damian's] own sphere, he seems to be a reasonable and a good editor. In this area, he is not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements. If Peter Damian wishes to discuss the issue in a separate thread, I would be fine with it. Until then I am not going to open the topic, since I think his latest decision is a very wise one - it is best solved by mediation not confrontation, and I think engaging it on WR would be emotionally satisfying to him, but would not actually resolve it as well.
There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125122
There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125122
QUOTE
The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted "there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned."
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125128
QUOTE
[FT2 - in response to Damian question about whether we have any more than FT2's word that Headley Down is a 'virulent sockpuppet']
I've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards. Others have too, I know. You don't see it although everyone else who's looked into it seems to - right up to the admin who asked for evidence to support the block you were concerned over. So I'm not repeating. Others can, if they wish to.
You need to bear in mind for the first 18 months of Headley's career I wasn't an admin, so I coulnd't have blocked him. So everything I spotted, had to be sent to an admin or checkuser, to look into and agreed by another user. A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me. In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't. So you'll have to find out for yourself, I can't convince or show you. That'll happen by seeing what he's up to through others you trust, or by following his line until it gets you where it got him. But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list. It's better that you ask someone you trust, another well reputed Wikipedia admin, to check and explain for you, as Alex Bakharev has tried.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125142
QUOTE
Headley Down
FT2 has referred me to you as an expert in the matter of Headley Down. I have worked through many of the extensive series of edits made by this person and his or her sockpuppets. Though they are flawed some ways, I don't think they are so bad as FT2 claims. Do you have any comments? Peter Damian (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not an expert on Headley Down. Never met any of his socks or edited affected articles. All my knowledge about this guy is from FT2. I believed he had a sockpuppet farm (tens of them). This is a usual case for a long of an indefinite block Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Bakharev"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
A link to this thread
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=129685
for more somewhat disturbing things.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=129685
for more somewhat disturbing things.
Filing this post from Doc.
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?
Doc
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=131569
QUOTE(Docknell @ Tue 23rd September 2008, 4:48am)
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?
Doc
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=131569
Storing this one here:
The Arbitration Committee has historically probably been a better judge of a number of "people things" than the community. Since the Arbitrators are elected by users of the community as being (by definition) its best, most seasoned, and skilled users, it follows that a discussion in open community is going to be made up of users who have by and large not been voted by a communal process to be the best, most seasoned and skilled users. To underline this, it was the communities - plural - that decided Poetlister was legitimate... and it was an Arbitration Committee, twice, that stated categorically they were socks. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that argument holds up under scrutiny. The community picks the arbitration committee, therefore the arbitration committee must have better judgment than the community? Perhaps we should have arbitrators select their own successors? Avruch T 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...officially_here
And this one as an apparent case of FT2 harassing of female admins.
FT2, you really can't take a hint, can you? I'm sorry, but you're kind of out of your depth in doling out the same hard-won psychological insights over and over to Giano, to me, or to Loki, with the same air of discovery. You're also in the wrong place. (Have you even noticed that this is my talkpage that you're on, HINT HINT?) What's the difficulty, really? I assure you you couldn't go far wrong with the short-short version, which goes like this: Please Go Away. All right? Bishonen | talk 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=246182321
QUOTE
The Arbitration Committee has historically probably been a better judge of a number of "people things" than the community. Since the Arbitrators are elected by users of the community as being (by definition) its best, most seasoned, and skilled users, it follows that a discussion in open community is going to be made up of users who have by and large not been voted by a communal process to be the best, most seasoned and skilled users. To underline this, it was the communities - plural - that decided Poetlister was legitimate... and it was an Arbitration Committee, twice, that stated categorically they were socks. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that argument holds up under scrutiny. The community picks the arbitration committee, therefore the arbitration committee must have better judgment than the community? Perhaps we should have arbitrators select their own successors? Avruch T 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...officially_here
And this one as an apparent case of FT2 harassing of female admins.
QUOTE
FT2, you really can't take a hint, can you? I'm sorry, but you're kind of out of your depth in doling out the same hard-won psychological insights over and over to Giano, to me, or to Loki, with the same air of discovery. You're also in the wrong place. (Have you even noticed that this is my talkpage that you're on, HINT HINT?) What's the difficulty, really? I assure you you couldn't go far wrong with the short-short version, which goes like this: Please Go Away. All right? Bishonen | talk 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=246182321
QUOTE
:# [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I have been told a possible reason why these concerns were not raised at an early stage with the Arbitration Committee, related to apprehensions about Wikitumnus' situation, privacy, security, and the like. However if that were the case, then they should have been raised with individual Arbitrators for discussion, with Jimmy Wales, or a sensible and productive venue, not by recourse to venues where SlimVirgin ''knew'' inherently a fair picture of the whole case could never emerge. Even if she felt the need to defend herself or rebutt Lar, this was not the way to go about it, by a semi-public boxing match. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that she allowed her own stance and wishes, to overrule questions of fairness, privacy issues, effective dispute resolution, seeking a skilled and trusted mediator to cover some of the issues, asking advice first, neutral venue, or avoidance of dispute spirals, all of which might have been possible options to consider if the case had been approached differently in its earlier stages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=247498197
QUOTE
What some people are objecting to on this page is FT2 deliberately posting on the evidence page a statement casting aspersions on Slim Virgin while deliberately ignoring confidential evidence which has been submitted to the Arbcom. People are anxious not to see a white-wash and under the carpet sweeping exercise. I personally am furious that the Arbcom have allowed this potentially damaging situation to arise, rather than deal with it in a quick professional and confidential manner. To put all of the evidence in the public domain would serve no one well and hurt the innocent, but to pretend it does not exist is dangerous and damaging to the project - and unjust to many. An Arb not only has to be impartial, s/he has to be seen to be impartial. This is not happening. Giano (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=247752463
Filing cabinet:
I'm fairly sure Jimbo will ask users outside Arbcom too. If he didn't ask Arbcom then he'd ask people he trusted, many of whom incidentally may be arbitrators. Any user in the community who is making a decision, may ask around those they trust, to inquire what they may think. But in none of these scenarios is Arbcom in any way choosing its successors. Rather, Jimbo is soliciting input from any users he may wish to, on a decision that he will make. While the election may indicate who is likely to be a good choice for the community, it's a blunt tool for making a final choice of 6 out of 10. The final order may ultimately depend on a non-issue, such as a couple of personal-grudge opposes, or a slight stacked pro/anti vote, exactly as at any other vote. Asking others for input to help validate whether the community's choice is truly a good one, is a sane measure, and whether or not Jimbo asks Arbcom for input, I would expect him to probably ask others. The aim, like CheckUser, is to appoint the users most likely to be the best, not just the most popular. We're used to being asked consultative questions, by administrators and the community, and its a role we help with if requested. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=248379051
QUOTE
I'm fairly sure Jimbo will ask users outside Arbcom too. If he didn't ask Arbcom then he'd ask people he trusted, many of whom incidentally may be arbitrators. Any user in the community who is making a decision, may ask around those they trust, to inquire what they may think. But in none of these scenarios is Arbcom in any way choosing its successors. Rather, Jimbo is soliciting input from any users he may wish to, on a decision that he will make. While the election may indicate who is likely to be a good choice for the community, it's a blunt tool for making a final choice of 6 out of 10. The final order may ultimately depend on a non-issue, such as a couple of personal-grudge opposes, or a slight stacked pro/anti vote, exactly as at any other vote. Asking others for input to help validate whether the community's choice is truly a good one, is a sane measure, and whether or not Jimbo asks Arbcom for input, I would expect him to probably ask others. The aim, like CheckUser, is to appoint the users most likely to be the best, not just the most popular. We're used to being asked consultative questions, by administrators and the community, and its a role we help with if requested. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=248379051
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.