Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/HeadleyDown"
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1282&target=KrishnaVindaloo KrishnaVindaloo] 28 April 2006 - 5 December 2006 (1282 contributions) | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1282&target=KrishnaVindaloo KrishnaVindaloo] 28 April 2006 - 5 December 2006 (1282 contributions) | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Addisababa Addisababa] 25 June 2007 - 3 July 2007 (9 contributions) | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Addisababa Addisababa] 25 June 2007 - 3 July 2007 (9 contributions) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Alan Barnet == | ||
+ | |||
+ | It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
+ | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive175#NLP_update_-_Some_COI_issues_and_reluctance_of_some_editors_to_get_along_.28and_some_positive_points.29] | ||
+ | |||
+ | Having compared the version from December 1 with the current version, it seems to me very much as if Comaze and a few others are promoting rather than documenting the concept. The article becomes more promotional with each batch of edits, and the fundamental fact that NLP is essentially a cult with no scientific validity is more and more obscured. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=94711304] | ||
+ | |||
+ | You are reading far more into it than is warranted. NLP is a cultic system (per numerous sources), but that does not imply that anyone who is involved with it is a cultist or cult victim. The entire nest of NLP articles exists primarily to promote the cult of NLP, and that is a pressing problem. Several involved editors have a vested interest in promoting it, that is a pressing problem, too. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive-Jan-2007] | ||
+ | |||
== References == | == References == |
Revision as of 18:40, 14 December 2008
HeadleyDown is the name of a Wikipedia editor who, according to Wikipedia itself, is "a community-banned Wikipedia vandal and habitual reincarnator who specializes in massive sneaky pov vandalism with multiple sock/meatpuppets (around 50 - 80 over some 3 years, often 3 - 10 at a time on multiple articles), and devastates articles by long term damage, and driving away of bona fide editors. It is not always clear which editors are socks, and which are meats [i.e. supporters] run by his associates."
What did Headley actually do?
Attacks on the Zoophilia article
- JP Logan 17 September 2005 to 12 April 2006
- J Hartley 30 June 2006 - 8 July 2006
- F Fodor 8 July 2006 - 11 July 2006
Maypole 29 April 2007 (68 contributions)
Attacks on NLP
- D.Right 27 January 2005 - 16 September 2005 (211 contributions)
- DoctorDog 18 March 2005 - 12 September 2005 (89 contributions)
- EBlack 23 March 2005 - 15 September 2005 (186 contributions)
- HeadleyDown 5 August 2005 - 4 June 2006 (1509 contributions)
- DaveRight 12 October 2005 - 18 April 2006 (350 contributions)
- Bookmain 13 October 2005 to 6 June 2006
- HansAntel 29 October 2005 - 6 June 2006 (87 contributions)
- JaseC 12 November 2005 (2 contributions)
- Camridge 28 November 2005 to 9 June 2006
- Mindstore 12 July 2006 - 17 July 2006.
- Mindstore specialised in ironic references to the 'effective' nature of NLP, inserting links such as this to obviously exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of NLP. For example "NLP is the most effective so far - Hello all. I don't see how people here could have overlooked it. NLP is by far the most effective. A cure in a single session! Nothing else can beat that'. User:Mindstore 03:35, 12 July 2006 [1]. "NLP (Neurolinguistic programming) makes use of Chomsky's science of linguistics in order to produce amazing therapeutic results, such as single session cures of phobias."[2]
- Figleaf_Riverdance 24 April 2006 (1 contribution)
- SteveB110 5 April 2007 - 29 June 2007 (124 contributions)
- LemonMnM 21 April 2006 - 24 April 2006 (3 contributions)
- Newtonspeed 29 April 2007 - 29 June 2007 (73 contributions)
- Raises science-related COI here
- HongKongMasterofSci 9 June 2006 (6 contributions)
- MastaMan 11 June 2006 (2 contributions)
- Medius_Maximus 16 April 2006 (1 contribution)
- BrightonRock101 12 June 2006 to 28 July 2007
- RomanX 17 December 2005 (10 contributions)
Attacks on Alternative Medicine
- Docleaf 23 February 2007 - 30 December 2007
Attacks on Pederasty
- Phdarts19 May 2008 - 29 June 2008
Attacks on Pseudoscience
- KrishnaVindaloo 28 April 2006 - 5 December 2006 (1282 contributions)
- Addisababa 25 June 2007 - 3 July 2007 (9 contributions)
Alan Barnet
It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [3]
Having compared the version from December 1 with the current version, it seems to me very much as if Comaze and a few others are promoting rather than documenting the concept. The article becomes more promotional with each batch of edits, and the fundamental fact that NLP is essentially a cult with no scientific validity is more and more obscured. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC) [4]
You are reading far more into it than is warranted. NLP is a cultic system (per numerous sources), but that does not imply that anyone who is involved with it is a cultist or cult victim. The entire nest of NLP articles exists primarily to promote the cult of NLP, and that is a pressing problem. Several involved editors have a vested interest in promoting it, that is a pressing problem, too. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [5]
References
- Request for arbitration on NLP opened 22 November 2005.
- Check user report
- Feb 2006 Workshop on NLP.
- NLP talk page June 2006 leading up to Headley ban. Shows Headley was actually very polite and helpful.
- Woohookitty asked to act as mentor by Dcmdevit]
- [The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. [...] The selected mentors are Jdavidb, Katefan0, Ral315, and Woohookitty. They will get to know the situation and actively monitor this article. Any questions of enforcement or questionable conduct should be directed to them. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC) [6]
- Wikipedia page on HeadleyDown