I've been doing some more research on the blocking and banning of a number of users who were combating pseudoscience in Wikipedia. FT2 was behind the bans (he is an adherent of the NLP cult, and a large number of the people who supported him at the election are either NLP, or other cults, or members of, er, certain fringe sexuality groups).

The facts are hard to track down, but there do seem to be a number of editors, not just a set of sockpuppets. Some of them were banned because they were members of the same science club at Hong Kong university.

Question: is this allowed? For example, if several members of the Royal Society had the same concern about pseudoscience or whatever, and acted to correct misinformation in Wikipedia, would there be grounds for a ban like this? Or what about members of the same philosophy department?

I've emailed Helen to get her side of the matter. [Update - the email address is no longer valid, and there is still a question of whether she is a sockpuppet of Headley - on the other hand, the offense she was blocked for was being a 'meatpuppet', and that seems fundamentally wrong. I've also followed up a lot of the Headley down edits, and, regardless of whether he was guilty of the sockpuppet issue, they were pretty much all sound, and many of the attacks on him were flagrant abuse of policy, and bullying. But more of that later. End of edit]

They probably wouldn't all use the same IP range. Even so, yes I bet there's be a shout of meatpuppetry.

Well apparently they didn't all use the same IP range. That's why FT2 called it a 'block on behaviour'. I.e. anyone who can't grasp the obvious fact that NLP (or whatever) is perfectly-grounded in scientific evidence, is an obvious troll and obviously acting in concert, or is a sockpuppet.

An analogy: a group of creation 'scientists' get hold of the evolution article and make consistent with Genesis. They spot a whole bunch of people who are editing it with apparently the same set of objections and principles and claims and references (they seem to be members of a cult devoted to a guru called 'Darwin'). Obviously these people are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Apply the 'block on behaviour'.

Would this block by FT2 be part of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Docleaf

THANKS for spotting that. Dynamite. Let's take a closer look. First, FT2 references this freaky page here

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. " - sounds like the Matrix. And "This page is used for those rare blocks ... where posting detail might help vandalism in future." Eh? You can now be blocked without any reason?

Now look at the user's edit history. Any history of disruption?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&target=Docleaf

Looking at the edits, all the ones I have looked at seem well-referenced and civil and so forth. There is a constant 'behavioural' element, in that the user is clearly a scientific sceptic and opposed to many of the claims made by the 'New Age' and alternative medicine. But they are all properly sourced, as far as I can see. Now turning to the edit on 27 December that prompted the block by FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180379394

All he is doing here is removing the claim that alternative medicine is a term for health care practices that MAY NOT HAVE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR THEIR EFFECTIVENESS.

The edit is perfectly in order. The term 'their effectiveness' is what we linguistic philosophers call 'presuppositional', it makes an implicit claim by referring to something whose existence is in dispute, ergo whose existence should not be presumed. In this case, the effectiveness of alternative medicine. Before the edit, the article was saying, in effect, 'alternative medicine is effective, but there is no explanation for its effectiveness'. Since it makes the POV claim that such medicine is effective (nothing wrong with citing evidence that it is, but don't make the claim in the encylopedia), the blocked editor was right to remove it.

But, nonetheless, FT2 blocks the guy (or girl) without any reason given. That is utterly f---ing unbelievable. I really cannot understand why this is happening.

And here's another sinister page from his user space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180924286



The implication is, be as well-behaved as you like, you may still be blocked if you cross with FT2. Surely at some point, despite his extraordinary, and to me inexplicable, popularity in the community, some decent people are going to start questioning all this? There are still many decent people there, you know.

Of course you can't. There is a reason: "you are making cogent, well-supported arguments that I don't like."

Blocking people for specious reasons appears to be a recurring pattern or practice that ArbCom apparently turns a blind eye to.

It turns out Docleaf is an incarnation of Headley Down. But as his edit record shows, he has done nothing disruptive. He has just left a little message to FT2 on his talk page.

Not on Wikipedia, they won't!

Mmm, I'm not sure about that. I had a look at some of the original Headlydown edits and they seem to persist. Its just the finer points that seem to get hidden or minimised by FT2 and cranks.

I see FT2 has generally been pushing the bestiality line subtly (well as subtly as any admin blunderbuss can) e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62331938

FT2 seems here to be saying science supports zoophile claims. Supportive of what claims? That zoophilia is fine?

FT2 removed the rather blatantly obvious notion that bestiality is generally compared with pedophilia (this is also main part of the ethical concern (duty of care). I think I'm going to investigate this particular editor further. FT2 is almost definitely going to be a huge embarrassment to WP. The deviant and pseudoscience pushing going on there seems to be the tip of the iceberg. I'll have a shufty at the pedophilia related FT2 edits also. Nell

Well done. It gets much worse than that. Unfortunately a really damning edit was removed by Wales and co after I pointed it out to them. However, there is much more, particularly when a user called Ciz complained about the bias in the article. He only made 21 edits before the zoo-cabal got him banned from editing anything to do with Zoophilia. For example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8527205 FT2 removes a NPOV tag that Ciz had quite properly placed on the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8475397
Revision as of 01:38, 16 December 2004 (edit) (undo)
Ciz REMOVES "professionals and people who know genuine zoophiles and their partners personally over a period of time (whether knowingly or unknowingly) often find it hard to see abuse..." which is entirely POV and unsourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8475603 A user called PMC who was 15 at the time and claims to be a Satanist, REPLACES the edits Ciz removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8469920 FT2 REMOVES
"There are others who respect and care for animals but still believe that having sex with animals is abusive, no matter the reason." which is surely true, isn’t it? FT2 comments “rvt more Ciz vandalism” !!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...1&oldid=8271423 FT” REPLACES
"Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings." With the comment “verified mainstream research - Ciz, do NOT remove information that doesnt suit your POV please. Discuss on the talk page if you feel this is unsupported.” – this ‘verified mainstream research has yet to be cited!

There is much more. The worst thing, as I say, is that at the time there was a whole group of zoophiles editing the article, and Ciz got royally beat up. At the arbitration, they could say things like, everyone is fed up with this user. Also it’s hard in such a situation not to lose your cool, and Ciz did in a couple of places. And he had to face abuse from others. E.g. look at the article talk page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...a&oldid=7664626

Steele the wolf (they all have tags like this) says “This is coming from a rabid anti-zoo, asairs pawn ..” – I need to explain that ASAIRS is a now defunct organisation that campaigned against zoophile sites and got many of them closed down. Ciz replies “I dont like animals being molested. If that makes me an anti-zoo, then fine”. Steele calls him “intolerant and a hypocrite”. And so on. Steele the wolf was one of the cabal that FT2 later defended at arbitration. E.g. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._against_Steele

Later FT2 thanks Steele

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=102133957

for the rFA support. ‘It was well earned’ says Steele.

There’s much more, but they may delete these if anyone is reading WR, so I’m saving powder. You need to go back to 2004-5 FT2 edits mostly.

Goodness, you are right. The HeadleyDown article has been removed, yet supposed sockpuppet accounts remain. eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EBlack

So basically, FT2 is removing bits of information that involve direct discussion with HeadleyDown. What's the chance that FT2 has admitted to being an NLP certified editor? Considering FT2's defense of obvious NLP editor/companies, I think the likelihood is high. Docknell

The best way to understand his effect on NLP is to look at the article as of of 31 December 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=33400304

and then as of 17 December 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=178579988

It puzzled me for a long time how he was one of the most popular administrators on Wikipedia, then it struck me. He is unfailingly polite, except to those he has identified as targets. He then evicts the targets very speedily. He also presents a superficial appearance of NPOV. Finally, he supports pretty much any fringe editor on any fringe subject. This makes him massively popular, except with the people he bans. But they can't complain any more.

On involvement with NLP, yes, he is a practitioner.

And another one User:Aberdeenharbour
21:57, 13 January 2008 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Aberdeenharbour (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Reincarnation of banned user - see User:FT2/DENY)
This one was active on Asian_fetish.

Where's Taxwoman when we need her?

Probably tied up elsewhere.

Jonny

And this is completely bizarre.



Either he's saying you are completely stupid because you never actually check (for reasonableness, evidence &c) what some fellow editor claims.

Or he means that this is a blocked user, ergo is evil, ergo he hopes you aren't going to continue saying what he was saying. This guy (FT2) gets more sinister by the minute.

Sinister? Lol. FT2 is one of the most reasonable admins I've come across.

That doesn't surprise me. There are some other admins that regularly push pseudoscience and fringe sexual practices, and who protect COI editors who push those subjects. FT2 seems to be most keen on turning the rules of WP to that end. FT2 does it very reasonably. So if you are anti-pedophile, science based, or against the practice of zoophilia, then you will be reasonably chased off, booted, and have your effigy burned by FT2. I suspect there are a few editors who do it less reasonable than that. WP is full of well sourced facts, that are systematically and highly reasonably organized in order to be presented to make them as misleading as possible to the reader. This is especially the case where vested interests are an issue. Perfectly reasonable distortion. If you reason things through properly, with a bit of work and sociopathic shoe-polishing, you will be able to make WP your very own pretend reality. Thats what makes it so hilarious and alarming to view from the outside.

LOL to you. I can give you hundreds of diffs of outright bullying, lying, distortion, blocking, the works. He is incredibly pleasant, to be sure, for most of the time. So was Essjay, of course.

For example, here is one of his most spectularly blatant edits. This is a quote from Sharpley, a scientist who whose research has exposed the fraudulent practices of the ‘Neurolinguistic programming’ cult.



FT2 omits the bold bit at the end, to suggest that Sharpley supports its apparent endorsement by "clinicians in the field".

When another editor (not me) pointed this out and attempted to set the record straight, FT2 quickly got him blocked. This has happened to every editor who has attempted reasonably to oppose FT’s slanted and idiosyncratic view on fringe subjects such as NLP, zoophilia, chiropractice &c.

Note FT2 has written nearly all the articles in the NLP stable. Go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

and look at the box on the right. All his own work. Compare the enormous range of material on this pseudoscientific crap with what you find in a standard encylopedia (which is zero), or compare the length of the articles on Richard Bandler or John Grindler (NLP charlatans) with the length of those on Aristotle or Wittgenstein or Dickens, and see for yourself.

Attempt to delete or change any of this stuff and you will join the large crowd of people evicted from the encylopedia for even daring such a thing. He will be incredibly nice and polite for 90% of the process, but as soon as he sees where you are really coming from, bang, you are out.

Not that well-sourced even. FT2 put this in the philosophy of perception article once:



Which is nonsense because the work of these snake-oil sellers has nothing to do with the philosophy of perception. Fortunately someone (again, not me) spotted this and removed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=39058614



How much more of this crap is out there?

But this is someone living in England in a similar way to Poetlister, etc. - even at the same university. He should be blocked at once!

In the early years of electricity, magnetism, and radio, a number of entrepreneurs sought to market electromagnetic induction technologies as therapeutic devices. Notwithstanding such snake oil, electromagetism does have its legitimate uses, including some in medicine.

NLP may well have a similar history.

Look at the sociological books that include NLP as a subject. NLP is a new age development, and considered in the same bracket as scientology. The subject is built the same and is just as pseudoscientific. So it does have its uses. Its good for gaining money for misleading desperate individuals. Just about every mind myth spills out all over NLP, from eye movement mythology, to left right brain dichotomania. Its an archetypical pseudoscience. In truth its about misinformation. But it is useful if you want to use it as a sort of cult or new age religion.

Let me touch on this subject a bit more.

I would rather look at books on cognitive science than sociology.

But more than merely using the faculty of vision, I'd prefer to use the faculty of insight.

Ironically, although the faculty of audition is not my most favored channel, I first learned about NLP some 30 years ago when I heard another researcher describe it in terms of which sensory modalities a person was most attuned to.

Having said that, it's undeniable that some of the questionable uses to which NLP has been put smell a little fishy to me.

The latest research into cog science says the more sensory "channels" you integrate well, the better. The recent research on VAK (aka superpowerlearning theory pseudoscience) says that telling people that they have any particular preference in one of those so called channels, will likely restrict their learning/thinking ability. Its not just the uses NLP is put to; eg, magick, energy (qi) therapies, personality testing with the enneagram, speed seduction, management training etc. The fact is, as NLP is so disimilar to cognitive science in conceptualization, and has failed the test so many times, the only people who can really make sense of it are those sociologists who study groups who practice wicca, voodoo, shamanism, and so on. Mentioning NLP as if it is something to do with cognitive science would be highly embarrassing. The two areas are more appropriate for contrasting science and pseudoscience. The subject of NLP is given as an example of pseudoscience within undergraduate courses on distinguishing science from quackery. That fact is not likely to get a mention on WP. There are too many admin who care about it enough to protect it or protect the COI parties, and there are not enough scientists on WP as they tend to be driven off by ludicrous rules that seem to make it easy to remove facts, and impossible to maintain them. WP is a perfect device for misinforming the public.

Concerning mental telepathy, one time I tried to read another person's mind, but I kept drawing a blank.

You know what's really weird? The word brevify. It's a word frequently used by FT2 in his edit summaries. It appears 20 times on WP, and all but 2 of the results are authored by either FT2 or HeadleyDown and his suspected socks. Google returns 171 results out of billions of web pages, and many of them are misspellings of brevity.

Maybe it's some NLP neologism, but I doubt it. Do you know Action potential?

I'll have to look closer at this later.

It's not a valid Scrabble word.

Now that is really really weird.

I suppose Action Potential (WR) could possibly be the same as Action Potential (WP). Particularly since the former spends most of his or her time browsing the NLP related articles here.

More common synonyms would be condense, shorten, or abridge.

It looks to me like the discussions on the NLP article tended to turn into pure comedy due to the cultish nature of NLP language. I think the skeptics there tend to take the piss quite a lot and often by pretending "NLP mimickry". They also seemed to do it without being uncivil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...1#Swish_example

Action Potential, and others such as Fainties seem also to have been running around various newsgroups promoting NLP or snooping in general. It looks fairly easy to find some of those related names just by googling.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wwbc/message/20830

Though I imagine it would he harder to find those NLP proponent names on any pedophilia related groups. FT2 seems to have been more careful not to disclose a realname.

Anyway, I imagine thats how Action potential / Comaze / Scott Coleman would find info here.

It'll no doubt all get denied one way or another though. In the end, the diffs show the story pretty well.

After the block of Phdarts as a sock of HeadleyDown…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Phdarts
…I took a look at the HeadleyDown situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
FT2's tips on how to spot a HeadleyDown sockpuppet are not enpouraging:


For example, consider these editors who, FT2 claimed, were sockpuppets "used to attack Zoophilia":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...ttack_Zoophilia

Two of these three editors were blocked by FT2 himself, in direct violation of the Blocking policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:FFodor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:CSIvor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes

The "evidence" to which FT2 appeals in their block logs is a link to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY

FT2 claims that CSIvor was "also attacking Canada, Paraphilia, Criminal law and Crime scene photography. Here are what FT2 described as attacks on Canada and Crime scene photography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=64632818
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=64636452