Never thought this one would rear its head again. Someone who is suspected of being 'Headley Down' (Lam Kin Keung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../Lam_Kin_Keung) has been reported by an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FT2 to FT2.

Even more risibly, the IP thinks that Dave Snowden is Headley Down.

There is a lot of gnashing of dicks on ANI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...d/Incidents#NLP

Strangely, Connolley has come down on the side of NLP, probably because he is desperate to get back editing on global warming. And that idiot Off2rioRob is weighing in too.

The background, for those who have not been around that long, is that NLP is pseudoscientific junk which FT2 and a bunch of NLP practitioners have fought to lend support to on Wikipedia. Headley Down and Snowden and myself (when not banned) have tried to preserve some neutrality on that page.

Unfortunately NLP is not Scientology so it is possible that FT2 and co may win this.

The funniest thing is FT2's pious cant about not outing people and about the importance of privacy, when he was the one that threatened to report Baxter to his wife's employers, and many other horrible things.

This is why no subject can ever be treated neutrally on Wikipedia.

Yes, the NLP squawk was one of those things that belongs in a book. "Local color".

Classic thread about FT2.

Amazing how the worst WPers are usually from the UK, Ireland or Germany....

William Connolley is now getting very confused. He has struck off Lam Kim Keung, who is the real Headley Down, from the Headley Down SPI. The SPI has now been accepted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...estigations/NLP .

The reason he is confused is that LKK has been removing commercial links from NLP related articles. That is a good thing, and Willliam has been persuaded by Wikipedia folklore that Headley Down was some sort of evil demon, and therefore a bad thing.

The idea that Headley Down was originally the victim of a cabal of commercial NLP tag-teamers simply does not occur to William. For Headley was convicted by Wikipedia ‘due process’ (which included Kelly Martin as part of the then Arbcom), and Wikipedia justice cannot be mistaken.

I emailed William about this last night but he is incapable of comprehending. Wikipedia is very very good. Even when it is not good, there is a greater good that will counteract any lesser evil in. William is also trying to appeal his subject matter restriction, so lesser evils are OK at the moment anyway.

The other thing to take home from this is that once you have been labelled as a ‘bad’ thing and cast into the outer darkness, the Wikipedian faithful will never revisit that label. You remain as an evil folk memory, a demonic legend that Wikipedians chastise their children with. If they had children, which they don’t, for they are children.

Hopeless. You're a good man to try, but Connolley lives in another world.


Ya got that right. I've looked at the contribs for all 1527 of them. Certain patterns appear repeatedly, no matter what they say they are interested in.

A large number of them were high-school or university students when they started, esp. the Americans and Canadians. Remarkable numbers of those guys (maybe 5% are female) spent a good deal of their early days, in the 2004-2007 era, editing the same things, if they weren't just gnomes who obsessed over chasing vandals or fixing minor issues. Sports, military history, video gaming, anime and manga, other comic books, The Simpsons and Futurama, Star Trek/Star Wars/Stargate, other forms of science fiction and fantasy. And the British ones often obsessed over Doctor Who. Exactly the things that snotty young males want to talk about, not even necessarily "nerdy" subjects.

And in that you serve a very useful purpose.

Wikipedia's unworkable "consensus" model necessarily results in utter stalemate if the community is universally inclusive. The only way for Wikipedia to function is to remove a group of people and declare each to be persona non grata with the appropriate kangaroo court procedures followed by the correct application of badges of shame. If some character has been excluded from Wikipedia, it must mean that the character's personality traits, causes, ideas, goals, or identities were somehow inimical to the subtextual "goal" of the Wikipedia enterprise. Different editors will decide on different lessons to be learned from the removal of such bad apples.

That Dr. Connolley deigned to even communicate with you, banned as you are, is something which, if the right lurkers got wind of it, would consign him to a lower circle of hell than he already inhabits. The only Wikipedian immune from such automatic damnation is NewYorkBrad who functions as their Erasmian one-eyed king.