User talk:Willyfreddy

Snowded and Lam Kin Keung / HeadleyDown Meat/Sockpuppetting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/HeadleyDown

[Rm outing: William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Note the comment: by James Donnelly

I am a skeptic myself like some other NLPers. However, the NLP article is far from balanced. It looks like a blatant attack on NLP. The website you linked is quite clear on one thing: Pro NLPers have never been banned. That should tell you something: Wikipedians other than youself realize your editing is highly biased. Of course they allow others in to balance the picture.Good luck with promoting your side and routing your foes. I think it will backfire badly though. You and your pseudoskeptic friends will just end up getting banned again. CheersJamesD

Here's what happened the last time: [[1]]

And last but not least, the Wikipedia ban on HeadleyDown+sock/meatpuppets and any reincarnation of him, based upon BEHAVIOR.

Alright, but what can I do about this? Nothing. How do we involve people with more authority within the Wikipedia community? Willyfreddy (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeadleyDown William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to have been closed, on the day it was created, by Elockid. Willyfreddy (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

==Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [unsigned, from Snowded]

[My response to the ANI] - I use Wikipedia often to research concepts/subjects that I am (newly) aware of, but not very familiar with. As I mentioned to Snowded when I first got involved in the discussion, I have avoided editing/discussing pages on Wikipedia because of the us vs. them mentality that often prevails (and is especially present here). Nevertheless, NLP was one subject that I had a passing interest in where the corresponding Wikipedia page was (imo) abhorrently lacking in informative, and unbiased, content. I first heard about it through my sincere interest in Erickson's work, but found most of the books on NLP to be awful. And so I chose to get involved.

Now, as to the "charges" against me from Snowded. They are all patently false. I never was involved in the HeadleyDown conspiracy theory. People pointed out their theories to me on my talk page, and I asked about getting someone with authority involved. That was my level of involvement. Secondly, I never offered 122.x (and his previous names) blanket support, not at all. In the past, Snowded has labeled me as a "proponent of NLP" simply because I disagreed with him (if I had more time, I'd find the diff on the talk page). And it is the same situation here: I have regularly disagreed with him and so he is labeling me as a confederate of 122.x. Furthermore, by highlighting this statement on some website: "Disagree with other pro editors when necessary for the sake of appearances", he is now able to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of working in collaboration with 122.x. If I agree with 122.x then I'm guilty. If I disagree with 122.x then I'm guilty as well. It is because of users like Snowded that I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again.

Regarding the state of the NLP page, I do agree that it is in awful shape. Honestly, I think it's embarrassing. The majority of the lede is now devoted to criticism, and it amazes me that anybody could consider the article as demonstrating an NPOV. Snowded and LKK, two of the most active and vociferous editors on the page, both believe that NLP is "a fringe pseudo-science." (again, apologies, but I don't have time for the diffs) As long as both of them have considerable control over the article, an NPOV will never be achieved.

[The only response to my post] - "...I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again", that statement needs clarification. If you were never involved with Wikipedia before? then you couldn't get involved 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see that those participating in the ANI process were no more interested in making constructive progress on the article than were the entrenched, self-serving, resident "guardians". In retrospect, that whole episode (and the NLP article in general) perfectly demonstrates the inherent failures, and inevitable corruption, of websites driven by user-managed content. Willyfreddy (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]