These are not unusual opinions. I've heard people call NLP a cult, say bestiality is wrong, and one only has to look at the Skeptic's dictionary site to get a feel for it. If one were for instance on a sceptical forum or mailing list, you would probably get people sharing those ideas about the site.

With the downfall of the UK chapter, as Private's post clearly states.

An excellent question to which I, too, would like to hear a straight answer.

FT2, per your earlier comments, there is much here to discuss. However, since you mentioned a lack of appreciable interaction between us, I believe I first heard of you when you showed up out of nowhere - presumably solicited from IRC - and, without warning, blocked me for a week for attempting to warn contributors that if they use their real name, they are likely to be attacked under that name on Wikipedia. Perhaps just another routine meatpuppet/adminpuppet block for you, but it made an impression on me. The second interaction between us was your and JzG's deletion of my very detailed and accurate sockpuppet reports (Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos, the first resigned, the second still an administrator) and subsequent indefinite block of my account - immediately overturned, but leaving a very false charge of "harassment" in my account history. Reporting administrators for sockpuppetry is not "harassment." So, two more questions for now:

1) Given that you're so protective of your pseudonymity, why did you join in violating mine, and in ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't fairly warn new volunteer contributors of what can happen there?
2) What benefit do you see in covering up evidence of administrator sockpuppetry and dishonesty?

[Moderator's note: thread moved to appropriate forum. - gomi]

(Someone moved it. Took ages to figure where to find it!)

Lots to reply to, I hope this catches the main ones. I've priorotized them a bit, or tried to, so if I miss one, PM me with a link to the post number thats missing.

First and easiest - now confirmed on my wiki talk page.

Damian and Rootology - as explained, I'm not in the habit of assuming all WR users are (whatever). I may ignore individual ones after a time, but I'm no sitting here waiting to confirm some impression of the site. I know roughly what to expect, and asked for an account to be created being aware of that already. The so-called "bitter pill" crowd seem to be roughly two groups: HeadleyDown (WR's "Docknell") and Damian is one rather small group, and those who act as if they want to score points and soundbites, or generic "wikipedia- or arbcom-opposers" is roughly the other.

Kohs - you and I may only have a limited amount of interaction. I was willing to support you and look into your case on-wiki in April, but your claim to be an unrepentant sock-user in it for disruption, as two posts here seem to say, is a problem. On the other hand a third post of yours is clearly a well thought out debating point and not disruptive, so when you do make perceptive comments, it's appreciated. For the record in citing Alex B as an admin, I am (rather obviously) not endorsing everything he has said, nor everyone he says it to, and you know that. He has said what I cited him as saying, and is competent as an admin to say it. (And if my assessment of you is mistaken please contact me to discuss.)

Headley - As since 2005, the denials wear thin; pack it in. You only fool few people, and those few... well, so be it.

Damian - you had been given links to a wide range of other users' comments on Headley on several occasions. Evidence was given to you exactly as to others, many times. Also your own research with respect is also not of the best - for example, the presentation of some junk O.R. you said was good content, that blatantly wasn't (unsourced, uncited, and plain blatantly wrong). Let's leave it all till mediation though. I appreciate the offer of peace, and I would rather follow it up than respond unhelpfully or be seen as attacking in any way.

Somey - I don't run away easily. I added content that was, for the most part, researched rather than O.R. I could probably do better with experience. Some day I should go back to those topics for that purpose. It's just not a priority. Headley has spent from 2006 to now - over 2 years at this time - trying to present it as biased editing, and trying to get others via email, to push that viewpoint with him and for him. It hasn't worked so far for him on wikipedia, and even at WR, where you'd think he might get natural traction, I don't get the impression of much real belief.

Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.

Kelly Martin - you said You will find such sockpuppetry games unwelcome on WR, FT2.. Technically Docknell isn't a sockpuppet - he's using one account here and if it's not in his better known name, who cares. I can affirm 1/ Damian doesn't use socks so far as I know, and 2/ Damian isn't Docknell/Headley, for the record, and if there was a third pusher of Headley/Docknell's meme who joined in or since December, I think even the gullible at WR would have noticed. However the unfortunate fact is, something being welcome or otherwise does not mean it doesn't exist.

The irony is that this does expose the double standard. A number of users here who will endorse and encourage socking when used at wikipedia, will not endorse or encourage when they find it was used against them or "their" forum.

I'll try to come back to the rest (if any were important) in a bit. One or two need their own separate posts.

I'm surprised to see you (if this is FT2) assume someone is a sock/one particular opponent just because they share any opinion. I thought you were more sophisticated than that.



Of course I don't believe it of you But have you thought (playing devils advocate here) that some people are simply being tactful, or not saying they agree with the suggestion because alleging it led to some people being blocked, or because they want to stay on wikipedia? You are in a position of power on WP. It would be hard and unwise for people to publically agree or say that they think there might be a grain of truth in allegations of scandalous things about you, on the record. Just saying

Here is that diff, for future reference.


Whatever the case may be, it's unnecessary for to keep calling him that.

Then why did you take credit for User:TBP's work?

What a nest of guttersnipes!

I'll say!

The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved.

And Mr. FT2, you're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley." Around here we call him "Docknell." User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it?

I have fond memories of FTA — I'm wondering if FT2 is any kin?

Jon

Indeed, and in fact there seem to be many HDs on this article,

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

all no doubt with similarly sizzling levels of virulence.

I am actually none of them, and I'll not be packing anything in whatsoever. The diffs are there for anyone to examine.

Doc









Just a simple question FT2.

The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way.

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

They are generally against the promotion of pseudoscience.

And the articles you created and conflated are indeed being deleted against the persistent arguments from yourself.

Do you feel that all those editors who are against your POV pushing should "pack it in"?

Doc

Chapter 2. Wherein Jon begins to suspect that all ArbComedians are really sockpuppets of Fred Bauder.

Jon

Answered in its own thread.

Why, belated greetings from me too, Mr FT2.

It's so delightful to see someone who has edited several of the same articles as I have. I look forward to resuming our collaboration - whenever you say, Mr FT2!

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply. Please note I have left Wikipedia for good. This refers

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235343699

so there will be no need for mediation.

On your comments about users exasperated with Headley. You originally cited Thatcher and Alex B. Thatcher has said he had never even heard of Headley Down (private email, can't cite). Alex B I don't know about. Was he involved with Headley?

And who were the others? I asked Woohookitty, and he (or she) said they didn't want to be involved any more. There were some others involved in the NLP dispute who obviously weren't too keen on Headley, but the vocal ones are all connected with the NLP industry in some way. E.g. Comaze who has admitted on-wiki to being an NLP practitioner.

Could you find us a truly independent person to comment on Headley? Thanks

[edit] And regarding Doc's post above: he is correct. Nearly all the scientific evidence I have looked at discredits NLP. And on the NLP articles I nominated for deletion, there was an overwhelming majority (apart from you and a handful of others) for 'delete'. Doesn't this suggest that Headley's editing, which was generally sceptical of the claims of NLP, was all right?



Sorry, what was this? By the way, on WR mores and culture, it is considered impolite not to source any claim with a diff or reference of some sort. Could you give precise references for your claims. And note the falsely attributed quote from Lakoff which you used earlier against me is still there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...of_users_of_NLP

(see the bottom). The quote attributed to Lakoff is not by him at all, but by an NLP practitioner. Again, could you please accurately source anything you say here, thanks.

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

Slightly more seriously, I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" )

Quick comments -


Noted about referring to Docknell as "Docknell" here, that's fine. I will refer to Headley the wiki sock-master as Headley, the WR editor as Docknell, and not use the one name for the other. I call him that since I'm used to him by that name, whatever name of the day he uses on-wiki.

One correction - far from not having edited for 2 years, he has edited pretty much without break from 2004/05 to August 2008. The last edits identified as him on-wiki were June 2008, and that is the customary name all concerned (including him) have consistently used.

I don't consider a mere change of nick to signify "hasn't edited".



There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange.


Did I say that my basis for stating it was "just that they shared an[y] opinion", or is that just an assumption? I think it's the latter.

An introductory post isn't the place for detailed analysis, plus, that debate's been had numerous times on-wiki from 2005, for 3 years and some 60 - 80 socks, now. It gets predictable.

When I said he's subtle to detect, I meant it. But all that means is, you need someone to show you. One of Headley's annoyances is I've never told anyone except people I'm fairly sure won't leak to him, and only told people what's needed to ID a specific sock, never all of it, in case they do. Even so he's been affirmed by probably dozens of users over time -- are they all wrong? Doubt it. The evidence isn't usually trivial. They, like you, start knowing nothing and requiring good evidence. And yes that caution isn't usual, and ... that's how it is.


Yeah, sadly some people will not be honest about how they see things. They imagine others act as they would, or as they believe others will. The idea some don't, is hard to fit into their world view.

My commitment, and I make it publicly in case anyone does have this concern - I will not take action (nor for the suspicious, will I ask others to take action) for views, concerns and other matters expressed on Wikipedia and within wikipedia site norms. I also will not import views from here, to there, other than blatant statements of intent to disrupt or do harm, or evidence relating to actual bad conduct or likely future conduct, or the like. In other words, no, I don't and won't be going "OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING NASTY SO I WILL FIND A WAY TO HURT THEM FOR IT". Thats not okay, that's not the basis anyone should have who's an admin or arb, and anyone who thought it, can forget the possibility.

I'd respect some people a load more if they'd ask thoughtful questions for good cause, rather than mere assumption.





I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

And no, I haven't. My computer issues have been annoying, and a serious impediment, and lasted from beginning July to now. The alternatives were two laptops - one with a busted keyboard and overheating, and a borrowed one with so little memory that opening a web page is a 90 second adventure. I hope they're over, but god knows. The tech guys don't understand either (multiple components tried with multiple components). At worst it may all go back for testing, and likely I'll pull it offline for 24 hours to do testing anyway here. But today for the first time since June it passed [[Memtest]]. I wish I were as confident as memtest is. As a result I haven't done the full review on that case, which I'd have wished to. Its on my "get caught up" list.

Ahem this is simply not true. Your first edits (in July 2004) I shall pass over for now (there is a thread about them below). You edited it extensively from 2004-early 2007. My issue with them is nothing to do with 'yuk' factor, but what appears to be highly slanted and promotional editing, selective sourcing and so on. Example given below, of an edit war you had with Skoppensboer. I have included Skopp's comments only, but they were all directed at you. Link to the archived page is given if you want to check.

-------------------------------------------------------







-----------------

FT2, you said:


"There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange."


Well, let’s look at that with a few diffs shall we?

You seem to be removing well sourced information that is condemnatory to bestiality

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141077281

And you seem to have shown a desperate need to save zoophiles from the normal and obvious comparison with pedophiles, and you add NLP vaguery to the opening that quite frankly a pedophile would want to add to the lead of the pedophilia article. That’s not science, its pure promotion.

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

There is a definite need to deal with the ick factor. There is an increasingly vocal element among Wikipedians (especially during ANI’s and AfDs that seem to have been complaining about your activities) that seems to cry for the whole of Wikipedia to have such ick hosed out of the project, contributing arbitrators and all.

Or do you think casually dismissing the obvious incidence such fringe promotional editing is normal, natural, and acceptable for arbitrators such as yourself?

Doc

FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

Yes, answers needed. Let's spell this out. Here is the contribution history for Hani_Miletski

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

from which you can see TBP began the article, and left it in pretty much a finished state.



FT2 claims to have 'substantially rewritten' the article but when you look at his overall contributions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52713521

they are just referencing, adding tags and a vandalism revert. What is going on?

You mean the "wretched hive of scum and villainy"?

----------------
Now playing: London Symphony Orchestra - Star Wars Main Title and The Arrival at Naboo
via FoxyTunes

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2
First edit to self-nom
06:13, 17 June 2006 FT2 (Talk | contribs)

TBP's last edit
01:19, 16 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Animal cognition ‎ (→Emotion: fix section head)

How long was checkuser data retained at the time?
No, it cannot be definitively proven at this time that the accounts were run by the same person. I've seen users with less mojo templated on weaker evidence, but frankly, it is one of your lesser transgressions. I'm a little busy on another matter that the wikiverse will soon feel the effects of to review your alleged socking, but if you wish to clue us in on this matter, feel free.

You really just don't get it, do you, FT2? Do you think my whole point of messing with Wikipedia's corrupt and illogical systems is to just have a chuckle over them? Do you think I ran for the WMF Board just for giggles, and not to point Wikipediots on a path toward excellence and accountability? Try -- I know it's difficult for some of you -- but just try to think outside the box for once, and don't cite "WP:POINT" when someone is actually proving to you a very good point.

Greg, you can't expect someone addicted to the kool-aid to really understand why we disrupt Wikipedia. They've internalized the rule against "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" so deeply that when they see a disruption they immediately conclude that the disruptor is an unrepentant enemy and stop thinking further. No enemy of Wikipedia would ever have any meritorious point. There is no need to worry yourself with trying to understand what the point of the disruption was.

Frankly, I'm rather unimpressed with FT2's effort to fling poo here; it's plainly obvious that he is here to strike an effective blow at the enemy. If he will stop tossing feces long enough to actually have a discussion, I suspect he will find his continued participation more welcome.

It's not just the poo, it's the confusion. Once again, why does FT2 claim to have completely re-written an article (Hani Miletski) that user:TBP in fact wrote? That makes no sense, and FT2 hasn't answered it either.

Now, Greg, you ought to know this bit by now. Try to play along — you donwanna up↑set the Wiki-Peeneut Gallery, now do you? After all, up↑setting the Wiki-Peanut-Brains is my job.

FT2 is just the latest in a long, long — long to the WP:PUNT of TL;DR — long, long line of PR agents from the Wiksliver Kill The Messenger Service that we all know as Wikipedia. He will quite natterly feel a bit naked without his Waleser-PPK™ and his License2Kill® over here, so try to be gentle with him @ 1st, will you? He will quickly learn the trick, if he hasn't already, of deftly ignoring anyone who is e-wake e-nuff to speak the discomfitable truth bak@im, devoting his e-tentions to all the X-Boys-Staters and X-Girls-Staters who are so Gawdawful Frank 'n' Earnest 'n' Beans about the ArbCommodious Side-Show known as ARBCon.

So all us old BarFlies might as well sit back, relax, have a Strohs (IceCream or Beer, name yer poison), and laugh our arses off at the Comedy of BarfLies that we are about to see Wiki-Paraded b4 us.

Cheers!


Jon

I'll drink to that!

Does this look about right? That first line probably dates from 24 July 2006. Not earlier, and certainly no later than 30 September 2007.

Yes, but even the wretched hive of scum and villany has to use the loo. One of the funniest "Scenes We'd Like to See" back in MAD's heyday, was a "cut" scene where Luke visits the even more puzzling *lavatory* of the Mos Eisley Cantina. The fixtures cover the walls and floor and have multiple shapes, holes, attachments, suction cups, stuff that you don't want to know about....

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

Of course I'd be delighted if FT2 bought me a drink, though of course I'd keep a sharp eye to check it wasn't spiked. I'd also be very happy to show him why Tie and tease deserves its own article.

And FT2, can you please unblock RachelBrown as she wasn't covered by the ArbCom ruling; Dmcdevit blocked her on his own initiative on no evidence at all. (Since she hadn't edited for over a year before the ban, there could have been no "fresh technical evidence" against her.)

Or perhaps he is simply expressing uncertainty that you are a woman.

I've not read FT2's posts much on wiki, but I'm surprised to see he falls hook, line and sinker for all the stories about people, not only that but I thought he'd have a smoother style of debate than bringing it up to the people concerned, or even those that haven't been accused before like Docknell.



What's more, are we all socks of Headley?

That's because we're all in England with generic occupations and only six photos each.

Request for FT2



Yes Bambi thats likely to be FT2 (the first one).

There is a lot of other FT2 personal information to see from the diffs (especially concerning promotional activities), and the whitewash has spread over to WR. No problem, its not about cleaning up FT2's crap, just flagging it for others to step around.




Hi FT2, give us some more to flag!


Perhaps you would like to make another pleading defense of your "pet" subjects: NLP and bestiality?

Or perhaps you would like to accuse some other people of being virulent socks? I'm sure many others would like to join the list.

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

In fact, go ahead and write "Docknell" there also.

Put me somewhere in the "Used to attack Ted Kenedy" sockpuppet brigade. I never liked his choice in ties, and he's conveniently suffering from a deadly illness right now. And don't worry about lots of people here noticing that the IPs on that section come from:

24.147.97.230
Massachusetts

and

Pompano Beach, Florida
66.176.129.11

You can always blame it on IP proxies, or the vast army of meatpuppets that anti-NLP and anti-zoo science oriented editors seem to blatantly and virulently employ so thoroughly.

I'm about as much a sockpuppet as Flavius, Damian, or all those other editors who voted to delete your acres of banal excuse ridden NLPbabble. Go ahead, just paste my name anywhere you like in your little hate list. I'm sure you will be able to select from a wide range of excuses for it.

Doc

The thing that most irritated me about the long list of 'Headleys' was the PhDarts one. The account was apparently 'used to attack the Paedophilia articles'.

Why 'attack'? I went through all the darts edits carefully and there is no evidence of attack. For example, Darts was trying to insert a well-sourced comment that child pornography is central to the existence of a paedophile (I'll find the exact quote later). The pro-paedos removed this, of course, and there was a revert war. Eventually one of them complained and mentioned on their talk page they were going to get Darts banned. The next day Darts was banned by FT2. I complained about this myself and was banned (eventually repealed, but should not have happened).

I don't know: what was FT2 thinking?

[edit] In case of confusion, there is no evidence that FT2 has had any more to do with the paedo stuff than this. But the fact he failed to make any elementary sense check of the issue speaks volumes. It seems to me he confuses anyone who opposes his point of view with a 'Headley'. Indeed, if you look at one of his early comments on this thread, you will see he confused me with Headley as well (he says he has been trying to ban me since 2006, which is nonsense).

[edit] Here is the post by FT2 where he confuses me with 'Headley'

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125110



I never crossed paths with FT2 (except briefly) until late 2007. It was Headley who was 2006. I don't think there's any genuinely bad faith here, in fact. If I may say, I think that FT2 finds criticism difficult, and rationalises it as all coming from one person. Hence the myriad number of people banned from the project for being 'Headley socks'.

I highlight once again FT2's plainly unsound methodologies in identifying purported sockpuppets of Headley Down:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=110399

While of course it's possible that some of the accused are, indeed, sockpuppets, this page makes it plain that FT2 lacks both the competence and judgment necessary to identify them as such to any acceptable degree of reliability and accuracy (barring checkuser, of course, which is the fruit of political, not investigatory, skill.)

I disagree on this one point: Its not a confusion. FT2 is clearly deliberate about compiling a hate list for the purpose of self-promotion and crank defense.

The Ted Kennedy group of socks that FT2 conflated is dead a giveaway:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21556798

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...arget=Agiantman

They don't even remotely agree with Headley and others, and their language is different.j


FT2 has a profound mental model of fringe belief to defend. It seems that as soon as the HeadleyDown bannings occurred, FT2 started conflating a list of supposed virulent sock vandals, and tried to get his interests well defended.

In the meantime, Ft2 has been working very hard to inflate his status as a sock sleuth, and a sock expert. Its a weird sort of contrived synergy.

Wikipedians allow him to do it, consciously or not

I'm enjoying FT2 turning up here. I do think FT2 is unaware of some things: The extent that a lot of people can see through his promotional fringepushing smokescreens. Only an extensive session of overwrites will remove the damning evidence, and we have printscreens on our side.

Doc

This is something that's often irritated me - there seems to be a tendency for wikipedia critics to think that screenshots are worth the bits they're printed on. They're easy to fake. This doesn't mean that yours are faked; rather, it means it's equally easy for anyone who doesn't want to believe what your screenshots "prove" to claim that it's fake.

Ah, yes, I´m reminded of an old biology class about ..crabs. (Crabs have one pair of socalled "copulation organs" (called gonopods); on edible crabs you can easily find the pair on the males, and the matching two openings in the female.)

Well, we had a biology teacher who got a bit carried away on the subject. One unforgettable sight: him, literally jumping up and down, shouting enthusiastically: "They´ve got stereo equipment! They´ve got stereo equipment!"

Think about it, finding some Mos Eisley Cantina candidates in the most unlikely places, say, the fish marked

Ok, back to more serious stuff:

Huh? I was actually thinking of the allegations about FeloniousMonk which were (first?) raised in October 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....B7_contribs.29
Have those allegations been addressed anywhere? (Sorry about your computer problems (I know all about it), but you cannot all have been suffering from that the last 10-12 months?)

Just a hint, Random

Recognition is a far more powerful truth signifying device than recall. Recall pf supposedly real events can even be imagined. Recognition is something that just happens automatically, without any processing whatsoever.

Show a printscreen that someone has seen the likes of before, and it will be recognized as at least intuitively correct.

In this case. You know it by the smell!

Doc