Amazing that no one has picked up sooner on this guy. He got through the elections with near-universal acclaim.
"has considerable experience dealing with the kinds of difficult and contentious issues particular to wikipedia"
"level-headedness and clarity of thought"
"a superior candidate and eminently qualified"
"am in awe of the clarity of intellect"
"good answers, very level-headed, fair-minded editor with an excellent track record in disputes"
"We need someone who intricately understands NPOV. Looks like we found him"
How gullible can people be. This man is very sinister, but let's put the darker elements to one side.
His extremely pedantic approach to all things Wiki gives the appearance of extreme neutrality. But this man is far from neutral. Let's have a look at the article Neuro-linguistic programming, considered by all respectable scientists to be a cult and a scam that has no basis in science whatsoever. Here is the state of the article at the end of 2005, before FT2 got his hands on it.
which is a pretty accurate description, to my mind. And here it is at the end of 2007, after an extensive series of edits by our friend.
The difference is remarkable is it not. FT2 attracted considerable resistance from the scientifically inclined. His solution which he describes here
is quite revealing. Quite clearly all the different people who protested about 'promotion' and 'pseudoscience' and whatnot must be sockpuppets of the same person, ergo block or ban the lot of them. This does not augur well for Wikipedia. Here's another lot of old rubbish he writes on NLP (Nov 2005)
Where is the 'clear and level-headed thinking'. I see none. It is all babble. E.g.
"NLP also denies wholism, and instead asserts that even if human behavior and internal structure is too complex to understand in full, there are structures and separability, and micro-awareness of patterns within behavior is a good source of information to communicators."
Or look at the section "Philosophical stance of NLP" which does not contain anything philosophical at all as I understand the term. Oddly this article references the following section of the main article.
But that section of course has since disappeared!
There is acres more and so little time but let me finally reference FT's edit to the NPOV policy itself here
This part of the policy defines the meaning of the word 'bias'. One form of bias is, he says, is 'Favouring a scientific view for non-scientific reasons can include "excessive favoring (or disfavoring) prevalent scientific opinion, if in doing so, notable viewpoints are no longer being treated neutrally."'
A 'notable viewpoint' is code for a pseudoscientific viewpoint that has become notable because enough quacks and charlatans are promoting it.
There are some very interesting times ahead.