Well fancy that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis#Comment

He sadly makes no mention of the oversighted edits.

On the idea that he made 'minimal edits to Zoophilia' I rather think not.

Or if you can't wait for Kate's tool, his top edits are:

753 Zoophilia
391 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
283 Labrador Retriever
250 Neuro-linguistic programming
220 Cultural and historical background of Jesus
147 Polyamory
134 Animal sexual behaviour
130 Christianity and Judaism
128 Principles of NLP
128 History of Wikipedia
126 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia
126 Reliability of Wikipedia
117 Zoosexuality and the law
111 List of eighteenth century journals
110 NLP and science

[edit] I see the stupid fool is still editing my talk page with his endless tweaks. Oh well. I'm off to practice some Vivaldi.

This seems to belong in the Editors Forum.

Jon

Bear in mind that his NLP contributions are much vaster than will be shown by reference to the main article, as they are distributed among dozens of sub-articles, such as:

NLP
Principles of NLP
Research on NLP
As-if (NLP)
Positive and negative (NLP)
Anchoring (NLP)
Rapport (NLP)
NLP and science
History of neuro-linguistic programming
Representational systems and submodalities (NLP)
Representational systems (NLP)
Strategy (NLP)
Well-formed outcome
Reframing (NLP)
Milton model
Worldview and working model of neuro-linguistic programming
etc.

Jon is right that this belongs in the editors section, particularly FT2's own sub-forum with the catchy subtitle.

Mod Note: Moved from General Discussion - The Joy

Point 6 that FT2 makes is rather telling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis#Comment

He adds diffs of discussion, but totally avoids the issue of his own edits. He uses terms such as "slur campaign" to misrepresent what has been happening here in regard to the actual diffs showing him posting OR, multiple pov forking to promote NLP, protection of pederasty promotors, protection of NLP practitioners and so on.

Then he says he hopes it is not seen as aggressive?

Its aggressive alright. Aggressively sociopathic.

Basically, FT2 is working desperately to distract from his actual wrongdoings as shown in the diffs. He works hard to ban or slur editors who's diffs show a well sourced and well intended cleanup of his POV pushing distortions.

Distraction from material edits, and conflation of editors with alleged wrongdoers, is the only strategy that FT2 can attempt.

Just a quickie on NLP -- I was exposed to the teachings years ago before it became anything official in the 90's. There was two main groups -- the ones that ran the seminars and the ones that actually used the study in various fields. The second kind was probably lesser known, since it was passed around word of mouth less than the seminars. It mixed in with computer science for how A.I. can think. That field obviously doesn't carry any of the self-help or psychological aspects. It was a memory tool at best. It's changed over the years and lost its technical cyber-affair links. Anyways, maybe some history worth reading about that will present a different viewpoint.

Point 1 His opening remark is something I will address elsewhere (he claims that I altered my allegation of 'practice' to 'promotion' much later). This is provably incorrect, and he should not slur my character in this way.

Point 4 "You were offered a further unblock on condition you ceased, and also provided full disclosure on your off-site defamation actions, but it seems you did not provide these to the blocking admin " I cannot for the life of me understand why he is tactless enough to raise this. I certainly did provide these to the blocking admin, then they were oversighted! Obviously no one is going to continue with the process on-wiki if that is going to happen. He obviously does not realise that the blocking admin has separately and privately confirmed seeing the edits. But I still cannot believe he is stupid enough not to have checked this.

Note Alex has now weighed in



His final point "I write this in the attempt to show you that there are good reasons you should doubt all that Headley has ever told you. " He should know I rarely take anything that anyone tells me on trust, and always check for myself. I went through nearly all of "Headley's" edits earlier this year and what I found is a separate question.

Your initial posts about "how can someone be elected who edits subject X" rapidly became "this person is an X-ist".

Thanks for the article names PB, very helpful. I have checked these all originated with FT2, and provide links. I am doing some further research into these edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_NLP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_NLP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-if_%28NLP%29 (Refers to Vaihinger)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_and_negative_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLP_and_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ne...tic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representatio...ities_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representatio...stems_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_outcome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reframing_%28NLP%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview_and...tic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_%28NLP%29



If you read the linked-to articles above, it is pretty clear which group FT2 belongs to. It mostly illiterate rambling nonsense. In one of the articles he 'sources' his claim with a link to a usenet discussion:

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/phobia-research-2.html

But even this contains the candid admission that



FT2 uses the word 'model', which should not be confused with a scientific 'model'. A scientific model is a representation of the world which has explanatory power. It is not a mere list of conditions: a successful model must explain reality with the minimum number of assumptions (for example the geocentric model of Ptolemy contains many more assumptions than the heliocentric Copernican one, which rapidly superseded it).

An NLP model by contrast is a mere list of behavioural characteristics observed in top performers in their subject (typically top performers in businesses and corporations) on the assumption that copying these 'behaviours' (use of this abstract noun in the plural is a giveaway of NLP practitioner, though the usage has unfortunately passed into common parlance in the business world). See e.g. here

http://www.inspiritive.com.au/talent.htm



None of this has anything to do with science.

[edit, 14 July 2008]

A section on articles pushing NLP which FT2 has not touched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Faulkner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_code_of_NLP (an interesting one because extensively edited by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_NLP - almost certainly Michael Carroll, who is head of the London NLP academy based in Croydon).

In light of "community-and-arbcom banned" DPeterson's block log…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:DPeterson
…I would read it as a threat.

This shows FT2’s tendency to distort something that has been shown to be erroneous in concept, and has failed to show even a normal efficacy according to controlled studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=26883867

FT2 is saying it’s all really complicated so you have to dismiss the battery of controlled studies that showed this obvious pseudoscience failed the test.

This, of course shows a strong similarity to FT2’s determination to retain and boost similarly pro-zoophile OR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=89948995

More of this sort of thing is very similar to other POV pushing that is going on in the pederasty and related articles.

This is partly discussed on this thread
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18909&st=40

Anyone want to vote more of such editors in as admins?

Damn! I know this sort of thing goes on quite often on WP, but the slickness factor here is practically off the chart. He's basically saying, "NLP can only be understood by self-identified experts because nobody is qualified enough to identify NLP experts independently." And he's clearly got the Faithful completely snowed on this and other topics, as evidenced by his en-masse support in the ArbCom elections and elsewhere. That, or they just don't care enough about the subjects he's involved with to really check out what he's doing, and how.

My question is, how does a person like that become so popular? Is he some sort of super-nice guy, unfailingly polite to everybody, or does he do editorial favors for people? (From what I've seen, he does seem to be unusually polite.)

Or does it have something to do with his "willingness to tackle difficult subjects," which is taken as a relief for others who clearly don't want to deal with those subjects themselves? It's hard to imagine even Wikipedians actually reading material like that and concluding that he isn't trying to put one over on them.

The first I think. If you write long reams of bullshit and stay polite all the time everybody assumes you'll be a good admin, even if everything you do is completely stupid.

Well sheeee-it then, what's stopping me from doing it?

I confess to being baffled by this. If you work through carefully what he says, it is quite transparent. He drops in a lot of stuff about 'community', he lies when he thinks he can get away with it, anything difficult he proposes in such obscure and convoluted language that no one can possibly object. So how does he get away with it?

My explanation is that few of the people taken in by this have enough RL experience to spot what is going on. He talks in exactly the way that cult leaders do, and uses exactly the same techniques. Generally young people, who love easy to digest slogans, lap this sort of thing up.

No one with an ounce of sense would be taken in by this for a second (I hope).

A reply by FT2 to Alex on my talk page



This has to be is a clear lie. The oversights have been the main feature of my campaign since December, and he would have been aware of this through my three emails to the Arbcom mailing list. It's difficult to see how he gets the benefit of the doubt here.

What he says about the duration of the oversight logs is absolutely true, though. The devs changed it to limit the history two days after I was +oversight. Apparently, the unrestricted size of the logs (they're not paged) was causing browsers to crash.

Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure.

There seems to be a bit more to it than that.

Basically, yes, FT2 is into being polite, and as much as possible, but FT2 will also try to take the credit for the banning or controlling of any critical editor.

So there's a contrast there that can make FT2 look more polite than the reality.

If you look at the way he addressed Hinnibilis, it verges on incivility. And the way the HD article is written looks like FT2 can be as vindictive as you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

Again, I don't see any vandalism in any of HD's edits.


So you have an editor who claims to have expertise in banning other really really nasty horrid socks and abusers. Yet is really polite to anyone else.

And of course, then FT2 tries to re-write much of the checkuser article to make it easier to ban anyone a bit antiNLP antiZoo, antiPedo, and to reduce the importance of verifiability (treat verifiability as if someone is making a point) so he can dismiss anyone else's edits that don't come up to the FT2 rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148039225

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=220733802
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=205281635

Basically take a look at whatever policy pages FT2 has worked on. They will tend to prioritize the notion that people are pulling one over on you if they present good sourcing.

And the solution to "situation and handling" ???

Call them a sockpuppet, accuse them of smear campaigning etc, and you can basically dismiss whatever verifiable information has been presented.

They could run a direct SQL query on the server itself, though. So no, it is not impossible to search by name.

Excellent Docknell. I am now working on a comprehensive document detailing the malignant influence that FT2 is having upon the project. I had a few 'policy' diffs but hadn't spotted those. Please let us have more!

True. Far as I know, oversight just pulls the record from the main table and stuffs it into a separate one entirely, thus every edit that's ever been oversighted is still available. All it would take is raw access to the tables.


... or something

If you don't mean to keep it a secret, and are happy working in MS office format, use google docs or the like. That way others can add things. I think you and Docknell could do a lot of good work here. Knowing only a little of the history here, I can only say that an investigation is well warranted, and for obvious reasons cannot by fairly undertaken on Wikipedia. People are watching this, so let's keep it professional, and make sure we're not throwing in random diffs of the kind one sees at RfArb nowadays. I think with Google docs, we can approximate not just spreadsheets, which can come in handy (see Matt57's sock report format) but also some kind of wikilike use of MSWord - just sign comments manually.

I think the more transparency the better. Presumably Google docs allows only certain people write privilege, unlike a Wiki? And how does it work? Heard of Google spreadsheets, never docs.

You hit the nail on the head when you said "he talks in exactly the way that cult leaders do". Wikipedia's community is a cult, the Cult of the Encyclopedia. One of the observed facts about cults is that some people are more prone to being suckered in by a cult than others are. There are many known reports of people being serially sucked into multiple cults. I think that's why FT2 does so well in Wikipedia: Wikipedia's community-selection filter already selects for cult-prone individuals, and so they're predisposed to fall for his cultic rhetoric.

Perhaps FT2 will end up being Jimmy Wales' David Miscavige.

Google Docs and Google Spreadsheets both allow four levels of access to files:

1. Closed editing solely to the file creator
2. Open editing to creator and creator's invitees
3. Open editing to creator, invitees, and invitees of invitees
4. Open editing to the whole world

Thing is, we experienced a series of bugs with the "invitees" process. I've never had a problem with levels 1 or 4, though.

Greg

There is a classic "HowTo" textbook on the political skill of conversational bamboozlement...

I can't believe it. FT2 is trying to push NLP as some sort of legit psychological model.

According to Hunt (2003) P195
http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Religion...t/dp/0754634108

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/may2006/nlp1.html

NLP is an alternative to Scientology.

That link seems to be full of reliable sources. The ref section is missing, but its easy enough to find them all in the prebanning version of NLP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52940476

It seems to be something that FT2 can't really control. I think once you have committed to NLP (by paying money to become a registered NLPer) then it really does become a psychological trap.

Of course the sort of psychological defense mechanisms to cope with the social stigma of zoophilic activities will also tend to cause the subject to commit the defensive excuses to writing, as can be seen by FT2's contributions to the zoophilia article. The same with pederasts, pedophiles and so on.

Basically, FT2 writes about NLP like how an NLPer would like it to be represented. He writes about zoophilia like a zoophile would like it to be represented. He works hard to block, slur or damage any other editor who tries to properly represent any of the opposing views. Its an ownership POV.

I am sure quite a few administrators find him so embarrasing they would like to see him booted. Judging by the coverups and denials though, there are plenty more embarrasements to come.

There is a good message from a fan he keeps on his user page



This user spends a lot of time on minor edits to 'Def Leppard' articles. What are Def Leppards?

[edit] Reading through that comment carefully another characteristic of cults springs to mind, namely the way they acquire support by befriending those adrift in life, who need some human companionship and kind words. Which is all very good, except (1) there is always something a cult demands in return and (2) this is, as the guy says, a project to write an encyclopedia and not some social website.

Thanks for the heads up on bugs.

I think another thread here is a good candidate for google docs. I notice you can make it 'not public' on google docs, but still have those that need access to it can see it and edit it.

Note the talk page referred to above with the 'extraordinary message' has now been deleted.

Yes, and you've been reblocked, all for the same reason. You can't post private correspondence on-wiki without consent of all involved parties. But you already know this.

Folk may not agree that this is a just rule, especially if the parties involved have been busily outing others. But it is a rule. Imperfectly applied? Sure, as with much else, but it ought to be the working assumption of anyone who wants to retain posting privs there that they not do that.

I'm done trying to help people on wiki that don't seem to grasp this point. I have bigger fish to fry, and there are only so many hours in a day. Scorn me if you like... about that, I [[WP:DGAF]].

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

No I didn't know this. I checked the rule, and it said that no consensus had been achieved.

[Going to check]

Which I can't know find, because everything has been deleted. Lara, does that mean the messages that FT2 left on my talk page have gone forever?

They're not oversighted. Just deleted. They still exist, but are only viewable to administrators. Is there something in particular you wish to recall?

Oh yes, and for your reading pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._correspondence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...cement_by_block

You probably read [[WP:PRIVATE]], but it's outdated. I'll go update it.

Another example of Wikipedia's true policy being hidden in obscure corners of the wiki, where only those in the know would know to look for it.

Wikipedia policy isn't expected to be followed; it's merely held in reserve to be used as a weapon against anyone who has been deemed undesirable. When no policy can be found that can be used to usefully strike at an undesirable person, existing policy is conveniently stretched, something which doesn't appear to be policy (such as an off-hand comment in some random arbitration case, or a comment on Jimbo's talk page, or something of that sort) is promoted to policy, and then used in the same way.

And one day you may find yourself on the shitty end of that stick, in a way you cannot now foresee, inasmuch as what goes around eventually comes around. So be prepared not to blubber at that time.

Oh, absolutely. I have no illusions on that score. Feel free to laugh at me at that time if I somehow forget that.

ArbCom doesn't make policy. You can't quote an ArbCom ruling and pretend it's policy. (I know lots of people do, but Lara is too honest.)

If you swim in shark-infested waters, remember this: What goes around chums around.

The rationale for this is that one must do what is best for the project.

Is it possible that the appearance of unfairness itself undermines the project?

More specifically, is it good for the project that FT2 is now on the Arbitration Committee? Is it good for the project that WP takes a positive approach to bestiality and pederasty? Is it good for the project that WP promotes "Neuro-linguistic programming"? That's what's being protected here.

So the insistence upon not being a system of justice and not doing due process, while not a priori unreasonable, has not produced and is not producing the intended results.

Absolutely. And I do my best to be fair and just in my dealings, to the maximum extent possible. I just can't promise that everything comes out roses every time.

I don't mean to imply it's policy. Simply this is the grounds for the removal and the block. Though, the block was more than just about the edit-warring over the email, rather what is considered harassment of another user. I do, however, realize that perspectives of the situation are different for those here than they are for those on Wikipedia.

Its interesting to see how Hinnibilis gets blocked for restoring private correspondence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=500&type=block
16:23, 6 July 2008 LaraLove (Talk | contribs) blocked "Hinnibilis (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: restoring private correspondence, see RfAr/Durova)

Yet FT2 gets to post private correspondence with HeadleyDown on the Wikipedia HD article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...own#Other_notes

How long has it been there? Years!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62577899

It seems that most of the harassment on WP is from administrators who slur and harass editors that offer good research that disagrees with the particular administrator’s worldview. Again, check the diffs by HeadleyDown. Mostly just good research that happens to be painful to FT2.

WP admins, as inconsistent and self-serving as ever.

Good catch, Docknell. We can be certain that LaraLove will now block FT2 indefinitely.

Don't understand this. FT2 left a message on my talk page that contained several allegations which were patently untrue. One of these was quite serious: that I had remained unblocked Dec-May because I could not back up my allegations of biased editing. This is entirely untrue: I did back this up with diffs, and then the diffs were deleted.

Given that deletion removes all record - apparently even those with oversight privilege cannot see back to December - my only resort was to publish the correspondence with Scribe. Please note also this was not a private email, but a document circulated around Arbcom. I don't see the big deal about publishing it.

Or are you referring to my publishing Flo's email? Well that's ironic because that is the email where she says FT2 had been warned about harrassing me on my talk page.

I am trying to walk away from this, but there are some basic principles involved. I would like you to explain what the harrassment was, and who I was meant to be harrassing.

[edit] And Lara, have you noticed the title of this thread? What is it?

Indeed, or the view of their friends, which is why Chip Berlet or Lulu of the Lotus Eaters can be so influential.

Interesting that Lara says (on her user page) she was named after the character in Dr Zhivago. One of my favourite all-time films. I love the scene where the apparatchik says "There is no cholera in Moscow".

I'll look into the history. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a Moulton/the_undertow situation. Just in case, bookmark this.

Now, this is interesting.



What's going to be on that page? "It is recommend that LaraLove is admonished, and she will concede to being slapped around with a blue-belly trout no more than 7 times for each unfortunate shortcoming revealed from other admins and Arbcom members by her quite hasty but direct, good-faith, action."

Oh, don't worry.

And if you know anything about the symptoms of cholera, it's doubly funny that anybody, up to their ankles in a tide of liquid diarrhea, would be trying to deny the existence of an epidemic of it. WP reminds me of this again and again: "Gee, I hope this doesn't become one of those unfortunate Mantanmoreland or Moulton things." Because those were, well, just unfortunate.You couldn't see the problems at the time. So "mistakes were made." (but not by us). We all acted absolutely correctly given what we knew at the time. Just like the Iraq war. Yes, we had critics at the time saying we were insane, but you know those guys. They're always carping about something or other. We never listen to them because, well, they're always wrong.

Now, can be just get past this and quit focusing on the past?

Oh, yeah, as for the present problem. Right. Well, it's not clear. We're all doing the best we can, uh, based on the information we have. Yes, we have our critics. But their information isn't to be trusted. If it later turns out to be correct, well, we'll deal with that when we come to it. We're human. If in the future we turn out to be wrong, at least we can say at that time that we did the best we could based on what we know now. Which includes the fact that our critics are just angry with us. And we have incomplete information...