An FT2 Sockpuppet?, It quacks like a duck Options

[tarantino]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210302485

Using the wrong account to comment on a sockpuppetry case... how classic.

Looking back on his recent deletion of my Orderinchaos sockpuppet report, it's now clear that FT2 had an undlisclosed conflict of interest.

Yeah, I was going to say this reminded me a fair bit of the OIC accusation you made.

Do we wait for FT2 to blame MSN?

The account FT2 accidently used to post to ANI, Lovingboth, is easily traceable to a fairly prominent member of London's LGBT community. He's livejournal buddies with Wikimedia UK's Alison Wheeler.

FT2 and Lovingboth have both edited on the following pages
1. Prostitution
2. Swinging
3. Talk:Acronis_True_Image
4. Talk:Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Regarding TBP, the preponderence of evidence indicates that it is FT2 and he used it to game an edit war on NLP. Though the TBP account has only 185 edits, it's intersected with FT2 on these 22 pages
1. Animal_cognition
2. Animal_loss
3. Animal_love
4. Death
5. Edgeplay
6. Emotion_in_animals
7. Enumclaw,_Washington
8. Ethology
9. Great_ape_personhood
10. Hani_Miletski
11. Kenneth_Pinyan
12. List_of_unusual_deaths
13. Loss
14. Mr_Hands
15. Neuro-linguistic_programming
16. Rainbow_Bridge_(pets)
17. Zoophilia
18. Zoosadism
19. Zoosexuality
20. Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming
21. Talk:Zoophilia
22. Category:Zoosexuality
FT2 tacitly admits it's his sock on his user page. He brags

Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ]Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ]

. Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account.

[Proabivouac]

The account FT2 accidently used to post to ANI, Lovingboth, is easily traceable to a fairly prominent member of London's LGBT community. He's livejournal buddies with Wikimedia UK's Alison Wheeler.

FT2 and Lovingboth have both edited on the following pages
1. Prostitution
2. Swinging
3. Talk:Acronis_True_Image
4. Talk:Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Regarding TBP, the preponderence of evidence indicates that it is FT2 and he used it to game an edit war on NLP. Though the TBP account has only 185 edits, it's intersected with FT2 on these 22 pages
1. Animal_cognition
2. Animal_loss
3. Animal_love
4. Death
5. Edgeplay
6. Emotion_in_animals
7. Enumclaw,_Washington
8. Ethology
9. Great_ape_personhood
10. Hani_Miletski
11. Kenneth_Pinyan
12. List_of_unusual_deaths
13. Loss
14. Mr_Hands
15. Neuro-linguistic_programming
16. Rainbow_Bridge_(pets)
17. Zoophilia
18. Zoosadism
19. Zoosexuality
20. Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming
21. Talk:Zoophilia
22. Category:Zoosexuality
FT2 tacitly admits it's his sock on his user page. He brags

Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ]Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ]

. Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account.

Wow, I just noticed this. Terrific work, Tarantino, as always.

[Peter Damian]

Seconded, Tarantino.

[Alex]

So is this a "Who is FT2" thread now?

[Peter Damian]

So is this a "Who is FT2" thread now?

Er, you are suggesting there is something ethically wrong with this? You are bringing right and wrong into the discussion?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 30th June 2008, 2:31pm

[Kelly Martin]

While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons…

What obvious reasons?

Admins can get desysopped for even hinting that they might reveal the content of deleted material to WR.

Meh, that was an excuse. We just wanted an excuse to desysop Everyking, who had been a pain in the ass for such a long time.

Of course, by now the Everyking Rule is firmly ensconced in the mindset of the average Wikipedian, even though it was intended as a one-off "get rid of the annoying prat" action and was never expected to become a binding regulation.

[KamrynMatika]

So is this a "Who is FT2" thread now?

It's more a, "Which accounts are FT2's" thread, now.

That's an amazing find tarantino. An arbitrator who sockpuppets? Hah. And he's just the one who got caught...

[Peter Damian]

From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.

In the light of what we have learned over the past 3 days, I would 'Just say yes'.

Nov. 18th, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Just say no
I regularly have the question "How can we trust wikipedia when anyone can edit it? Shouldn't we bam it from our school / college / office / newsroom?" asked of me.

And my answer, every time, is a question: why do you trust *any* source of information? If you read a book, a newspaper article, a story on a website, hear something said to you by a friend or on a radio report, what makes it 'valid' to you, how do you choose to judge whether what you are reading or hearing is true, likely to be true, probably false, or even a definite lie.

We all make judgements about 'knowledge' every day. Sometimes we'll decide that "It is a nationally-known broadsheet newspaper" means we should implicitly just what is written there (though maybe not on April 1st; I still recall the island of Sans Seriffe!) or we'll recognise the particular author as someone who we've trusted in the past to get it right and we'll presume that they've got it right this time. Your friend may have 'been there and saw it themself' but you don't need me to remind you that from a different viewpoint the situation may have eben completely at odds with what your friend believed.

In every case - and that includes the content of Wikipedia - it is a matter of judgement and deciding for ourselves whether the sources quoted are resonable. Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia or reference work, is a secondary source; it takes information from a multitude of authors to present to you a summary, an overview of a topic for the interested person. It isn't the primary source of that data, indeed polict prevents original research being added to Wikipedia articles.

But the reverse is also true; Wikipedia is the ultimate in the 'Peer review' that we all seek in official journals; scientific, medical, social, geographical. The 'peers' of Wikipedia may be you and me, but will almost certainly include researchers, lecturers, students, and many others closely interested or connected with the subject.

And isn't that really more important? Each of us have our individual interests that have grown with us, whether it be transport or technology, socrates or sociology, we should take comfort in being 'amateurs'. People who have an interest in the subject for its own sake, something that we research because we want to know more. Then we add some of these newly-learnt facts to Wikipedia so that others may benefit.

And benefit is what it is all about.

So yes, 'anyone' may edit Wikipedia. But that 'anyone' is more likely to be someone who knows and cares for the quality of that information rather than someone seeking to mislead you. With over two million articles in the English language, and over eight million over more than 250 languages, there are remarkably few serious errors or examples of long-lasting vandalism.

Wikipedia; you learn, you edit, you extend the gift of knowledge.

[guy]

From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.

Ah, an expert on sockpuppetry who ran two admin accounts (using one of them to edit her bio and defend it against deletion) and when caught was allowed to let one of her accounts continue as an admin.

[thekohser]

From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.

Ah, an expert on sockpuppetry who ran two admin accounts (using one of them to edit her bio and defend it against deletion) and when caught was allowed to let one of her accounts continue as an admin.

Ah, yes... Alison Wheeler. I started a thread on this message board about her, and Kato followed up with the sockpuppetry allegation. It became a very popular thread (96 replies, 5,195 views). One of the very, very rare times where I bring any value to this forum, without it being a self-serving pitch for Wikipedia Review.com. Must have been a mistake on my part.

[guy]

One of the very, very rare times where I bring any value to this forum, without it being a self-serving pitch for ****.com. Must have been a mistake on my part.

Not a mistake you're likely to repeat.

[Milton Roe]

TBP quits editing 31 days before FT2's failed self-nomination for adminship. For his second, successful candidacy, he was nominated by jossi.

Nominated by Jossi, eh? No doubt on the basis of mutual admiration for their work in NLP-related issues. Are you getting this, Proambivouac?

[Peter Damian]

TBP quits editing 31 days before FT2's failed self-nomination for adminship. For his second, successful candidacy, he was nominated by jossi.

Nominated by Jossi, eh? No doubt on the basis of mutual admiration for their work in NLP-related issues. Are you getting this, Proambivouac?

Well I'm getting it. Thank you for that.

[Peter Damian]

Just spotted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../211.26.207.122

[Alex]

Just spotted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../211.26.207.122

IP geolocated to Australia... FT2 is Australian now?

[Peter Damian]

Just spotted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../211.26.207.122

IP geolocated to Australia... FT2 is Australian now?

Well it could be a Headley sock deleting his own contributions, but very strange all the same. But then they were edits to FT2's own special Headley memorial page - why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them by now?

[edit] Let me explain. Ft2 has a special page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

which he still uses to log Headley 'abuse'. The edits entered by the anon IP are still there. So why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them? V puzzling.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 19th August 2008, 12:18pm

[Docknell]

Just spotted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../211.26.207.122

IP geolocated to Australia... FT2 is Australian now?

Well it could be a Headley sock deleting his own contributions, but very strange all the same. But then they were edits to FT2's own special Headley memorial page - why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them by now?

[edit] Let me explain. Ft2 has a special page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

which he still uses to log Headley 'abuse'. The edits entered by the anon IP are still there. So why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them? V puzzling.

Its more likely just another proNLP meatpuppet


There seems to have been a lot of them working from Australia
http://www.nlptrb.org/nlp/trainers/directory/

eg this character seems to be working from the same area
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=97119138

The Headleydown page that FT2 wrote infers that the virulently evil bogeyman HD is naturally omnipresent, possibly in several hemispheres and dimensions at once.

Basically its just more information giving a strong indication that FT2 is supporting and working with proNLP meatpuppets.

[Peter Damian]

Two comments that belong in the 'TBP; thread. Both relate to the fact that FT2 claims to have written an article (on Hani Miletski, sexologist) that was in fact written almost entirely by an account called TBP.



Originally posted here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125322

Quick comments -
…

FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

Yes, answers needed. Let's spell this out. Here is the contribution history for Hani_Miletski

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

from which you can see TBP began the article, and left it in pretty much a finished state.

(cur) (last) 20:03, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:02, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:58, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:56, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:43, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:41, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:39, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) m (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:30, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs)

FT2 claims to have 'substantially rewritten' the article but when you look at his overall contributions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52713521

they are just referencing, adding tags and a vandalism revert. What is going on?

Originally posted here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125360

Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2
First edit to self-nom
06:13, 17 June 2006 FT2 (Talk | contribs)

TBP's last edit
01:19, 16 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Animal cognition ‎ (→Emotion: fix section head)

How long was checkuser data retained at the time?
No, it cannot be definitively proven at this time that the accounts were run by the same person. I've seen users with less mojo templated on weaker evidence, but frankly, it is one of your lesser transgressions. I'm a little busy on another matter that the wikiverse will soon feel the effects of to review your alleged socking, but if you wish to clue us in on this matter, feel free.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 2nd September 2008, 5:56am

[Peter Damian]

Lets really really spell this one out. On his user page dated 11 December 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=93572655

FT2 claims in the 'major edits' section to have 'Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch' a number of articles, including one on Kenneth Pinyan (a man killed by an unusual encounter with a stallion). But the edit history to the article shows it was begun by and exclusively edited by User:TBP up to here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43114609

when it was substantially in its present form. The only subsequent edits by FT" were the following EIGHT by (in reverse date order) . All were minor, consisting of reverts or minor alterations to sentences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62100396 revert (changes 'animal abuse' link to 'moral panic').
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=60854811 revert (details of animal pornography videos)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=60185130 (citation needed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=56979354 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=56963824 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53650262 adds moral panic link (see above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53328053 adds source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50841115 adds source

Shortly afterwards the authorship claim was moved to a subpage here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=93717337

and is still there under his 'article contributions'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Article_contributions

where he lists it in bold type, to indicate where he was the sole author 'or effectively the main part was rewritten'. Interestingly the Hani Miletski is now listed as co-authored. Presumably with User:TBP? But then why did he claim earlier that he completely wrote it? And why is he still claiming to be the sole author of the Pinyan article?

[Peter Damian]

Whoever he is, I have put this obvious plagiarist of FT2's work on the wanted list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

And left a friendly message on FT2's talk page to warn him about this virulent sockpuppeting plagiarist.

But Thatcher disagrees

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=236183153

commenting on FT2's talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=236183689 FT2

That account hasn't contributed in 2-1/2 years. Please find another row to hoe. Thatcher 07:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher the point is to be on our guard and ever vigilant. These 'sleeper' accounts can spring to life at any time, and what good to the project then?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 4th September 2008, 7:25am