Changes

== Criticism of FT2 ==

== Criticism of FT2 ==

The problem with FT2 that combines all the defects into one: the untalented ''apparatchik'' with a penchant for blocking decent content contributors, the promoter of crank material and cruft.  He seems to me to embody everything that is bad about the project and which needs fixing, and yet I am the one who gets banned when I make complaints (OK, strongly-worded complaints) about his behaviour.

The problem with FT2 that combines all the defects into one: the untalented ''apparatchik'' with a penchant for blocking decent content contributors, ''and'' the kind of promoter of crank material and cruft that I have been battling ''en-wiki'' for more than five years.  He seems to me to embody everything that is bad about the project and which needs fixing, and yet I am the one who gets banned when I make complaints (OK, strongly-worded complaints) about his behaviour.

I first came into contact with FT2 in the early part of 2007.  A group of editors on the philosophy pages were concerned about a user (who has since been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ALudvikus blocked for 2 years].  FT2 was called in to mediate.  This process, which should have been simply a matter of blocking the offender, was an interminably drawn-out affair, protracted by FT2's insistence that every point of view should be represented.  This was incorrect.  An approach to the history and characterisation of philosophy should be defined by the reliable secondary source material.

I first came into contact with FT2 in the early part of 2007.  A group of editors on the philosophy pages were concerned about a user (who has since been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ALudvikus blocked for 2 years].  FT2 was called upon to mediate.  This process, which should have been simply a matter of blocking the offender, was an interminably drawn-out affair, protracted by FT2's insistence that every point of view should be represented.  This was incorrect.  An approach to the history and characterisation of philosophy should be defined by the reliable secondary source material.  This incident was instrumental in causing a good editor (the Oxford philosopher and Wikipedia administrator Mel Etitis) to leave the project for good.  See his perfectly incivil, but accurate comments about this editor.

This prompted me to look at FT2's edit history, where I soon found (in early 2007, note) his work on bestiality and neurolinguistic programming.  I did not bring this up at the time because he was merely another editor, and I had no idea of the immense power that he was beginning to acquire on the project. The problems with his approach to the project are as follows:

 

This prompted me to look at FT2's edit history, where I soon found (in early 2007, note) his work on bestiality and neurolinguistic programming.  I did not bring this up at the time because he was merely another editor, and I had no idea of the immense power that he was beginning to acquire on the project.

* He has no real knowledge of the subjects he edits, although he claims to have it.

* He has no real knowledge of the subjects he edits, although he claims to have it.