Rather than confuse the other threads, here are the points I have regarding FT2's visit yesterday (1 Sep 2008). He has not answered any of them.

1. He claimed to have edited the Zoophilia article only sporadically, yet a cursory glance at the edit trail showed he edited almost continuously since joining in July 2004 (his first two edits were to that article).

2. He claimed on the first thread here opened here, that I am ("not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements"). I asked him to justify this, but he did not reply. I also mentioned about the misattributed Lakoff quote still being there, but he did not respond.

3. I asked him about the TBP sock issue, and why he claims to have written an article that was written by TBP.

[edit] As a background to (2), this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...deling/Evidence

written by FT2, containing evidence for academic endorsement of Neurolinguistic programming and this

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

is one of the pages referred to. The latter contains a quote attributed to George Lakoff, an eminent linguist, apparently endorsing NLP. It is not by Lakoff. The last time I complained about this on FT2's talk page, I was threatened with a block for 'harassment'.

It is this poor sourcing from Google and evident support of pseudoscience (and other 'fringe' subjects that is my #1 reason for mistrusting FT2. Everything else comes a poor second. Encyclopedic content comes first, always. Such a person (in my humble view) should not be occupying an important position in the world's favourite encyclopedia.

(I have similar issues about the poor sourcing and blatant OR on the Zoophilia article, but let that pass).

He's never going to answer. He may continue to reply with his peculiar tl;dr screeds, but he will never really answer. Same shit, different website.

Hmm I was about to scrub this thread - not for the reason that he wouldn't reply (in whatever way) but because these more or less petty questions don't get to the underlying issue that I have with FT2. And I'm still thinking about what that issue is.

[edit] And here it is. I see myself as a good content contributor (and if you follow the current discussions on WP:AN you will see even my enemies agree with that - even FT2 grudglingly admits this). By 'good content' I mean stuff that is well-written, well-sourced, and is academic in the sense it is not mere ephemera. I write about subjects which will still be relevant in their current form if Wikipedia exists in 200 years' time (unlike Doctor Who or Star Trek or Pokemon).

My fundamental issue with FT2 is that he is not only responsible for a lot of poor content on Wikipedia (I mean the NLP stuff, the idiosyncratic articles on other fringe subjects), but he is directly or indirectly responsible for the eviction or banning of many other good content contributors on the project. I mean Giano, Proabivouac, Flavius, Headley, Phdarts, Ciz. Skoppensbauer is the only editor to confront FT2 who has ever survived, to my knowledge. That is not an acceptable state of affairs. We cannot have an encyclopedia based on FT2's narrow-minded conception of civility, to the exclusion of all content.

And here yet again we have FT2 giving us this narrow conception of civility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235757129

(From the current case regarding Giano). No attempt to address the problem of what incivility (blocking content contributors, putting hand signals on their talk pages, generally acting like those ill-mannered and self-important security guards at festivals) really is.

And above, lest we forget, are the questions I would be happy to see answered.

Just reminding FT2, if he pleases.