An FT2 Sockpuppet?, It quacks like a duck Options

[Random832]

The concept of the statute of limitations certainly has some influence on Wikipedia,

Is this why Jayjg's widely acknowledged abuse of the oversight tool has never been officially investigated?

[Milton Roe]

The concept of the statute of limitations certainly has some influence on Wikipedia,

Is this why Jayjg's widely acknowledged abuse of the oversight tool has never been officially investigated?

Nah. It's due to his name beginning with "Jay" and his friendships with the cabalistas. Before there was Shankbone there was Jay. Except Jay never had the compulsion to open up his life, so that we could see the motive behind his nearly single purpose editing, and his COI. Which were and are basically the same and Shank's, as regards the middle east. He probably gets more perks than Shank does (well, maybe not the free Fire Island stays). We've wondered if he might even be on retainer.

[Peter Damian]

The concept of the statute of limitations certainly has some influence on Wikipedia, witness the rehabilitation of Gwen Gale or Jack Merridew, for example. I personally do not think that 3-1/2 year old sockpuppetry is sufficient to take away someone's site privileges, absent some current offense. You may recall my comments in (I think) September 2006 (quoted in Piperdown's sig) to the effect that Mantanmoreland had been caught socking and stopped, so he should be left alone about it. That was correct as far as I knew at the time, and I stand behind that statement in its historical context. But also remember that I was the checkuser who answered the request to check Sammiharris, even though I knew it had been filed by Wordbomb, and I was the person who caught Bassetcat. The fact that I thought he should be left alone at a time when the best information available to me was that he was not engaged in current bad behaviors did not hinder me from taking appropriate action when additional information came my way that changed the picture. Likewise, without some evidence of current wrongdoing I don't personally believe that FT2 should be forced to step down over a 3-1/2 year old alleged offense, although I would certainly pursue current evidence if any exists.

I have already said that this issue is somewhat more serious. (1) The TBP account is an important piece of evidence linking FT2 to someone who practices NLP. FT2 has written widely promoting NLP on Wikipedia. That is a serious conflict of interest. (2) FT2 has used his influence in the past to secure the blocking and banning of users, some of them bona fide academics and researchers. TBP was part of that strategy. Do you not regard that as serious?

Then the argument turns to, "he is lying now which is a current offense." As much as I would like every human being to be honest, truthful and righteous, we are all flawed. There are things in all of our pasts that have the capacity to embarrass us and to hurt us. I shoplifted a candy bar when I was 10 years old; I can admit to that because it was a long time ago, and it was something childish and foolish that I think everyone can have some sympathy for. Could I have admitted it when I was 13? Probably not.

It depends how seriously you take conflict of interest and promotion of pseudoscientific views on Wikipedia.

So here we have a person who allegedly used a sockpuppet account. The account was active for 14 days spanning a 6 month period and made 188 edits, 0.5% of FT2's total 36000+ edits. Let's assume TBP was FT2, and not some other plausible explanation like a boyfriend or girlfriend, or professional colleague. If you've never even thought about using a sockpuppet to help out in a dispute over an article you felt strongly about, then you're a better person than I am. How many hundreds or thousands of editors act on that desire?

(1) I've often been tempted, but never succumbed. (2) FT2 occupies a position of great trust on Wikipedia, unlike most other users and editors. Why do you not regard this as important.

Surely, abandoning the effort before you are suspected or caught is the right thing to do. When called to account isn't embarrassment and denial an understandable human response?

When angered by apparent official endorsement of such behaviour as FT2's, the natural human response is angry and childish behaviour (such as placing a sockpuppet tag on FT2's page). If you can let FT2 off, can you not let Damian off?

The ultimate answer here is to launch a formal RFC, lay out the evidence that FT2 had a sockpuppet, and make the argument that either because of the sockpuppet (an old offense), or because of the allegedly contra-factual denial (a current offense) that FT2 should step down as an oversighter, checkuser, and/or admin. Let the community review the evidence, draw its conclusions, and make recommendations, cast votes, or whatever.

When can I do this, please (magic word)?

[No one of consequence]

Surely, abandoning the effort before you are suspected or caught is the right thing to do. When called to account isn't embarrassment and denial an understandable human response?

When angered by apparent official endorsement of such behaviour as FT2's, the natural human response is angry and childish behaviour (such as placing a sockpuppet tag on FT2's page). If you can let FT2 off, can you not let Damian off?

The ultimate answer here is to launch a formal RFC, lay out the evidence that FT2 had a sockpuppet, and make the argument that either because of the sockpuppet (an old offense), or because of the allegedly contra-factual denial (a current offense) that FT2 should step down as an oversighter, checkuser, and/or admin. Let the community review the evidence, draw its conclusions, and make recommendations, cast votes, or whatever.

When can I do this, please (magic word)?

I'm not interested in unbanning you just so that you can do something dramatic and attention-seeking in order to get blocked again at some future date.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Wed 21st October 2009, 10:44pm

[Peter Damian]

I'm not interested in unbanning you just so that you can do something dramatic and attention-seeking in order to get blocked again at some future date.

All I do is complain, not particularly vocally, about conflict of interest, promotion of fake science and so on. This is the proper job of someone who is helping to create a comprehensive and reliable reference work.

The drama consists in the reaction to these complaints.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 22nd October 2009, 8:17am

[EricBarbour]

When can I do this, please (magic word)?

I'm not interested in unbanning you just so that you can do something dramatic and attention-seeking in order to get blocked again at some future date.

Ah, so all that "we are all flawed human beings" stuff has some special exceptions?.....

If I am a "ridiculously important" part of Wikipedia accountability, it is because I choose my battles. I am largely responsible for desysopping 4 admins so far (I think, it might be 3 or 5). I have taken other steps behind the scenes that most people know nothing about. To the extent I am effective in seeking accountability, it is because I spend my credibility carefully.....

Methinks a little too carefully. What about that bogus sock accusation that was being pursued with demented zeal by Hersfold, Couriano and JzG, among others? There you have several senior users, including two senior admins, abusing a relatively new user and lying about checkuser data. Well, Thatch old salt, are you going to do something about them or not?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 22nd October 2009, 10:58am

[No one of consequence]

Methinks a little too carefully. What about that bogus sock accusation that was being pursued with demented zeal by Hersfold, Couriano and JzG, among others? There you have several senior users, including two senior admins, abusing a relatively new user and lying about checkuser data. Well, Thatch old salt, are you going to do something about them or not?

I don't see any lying about checkuser data. Hersfold says there was no point in checking, since the original SSS108 had not edited recently enough for comparison, which was true at the time he said it. (SSS108 only popped up after Sbs108 was blocked.)

What we have here is a follower of the guru opening an account and getting mistaken for another follower of the guru. That seems understandable to me. (Plus, the fact that the old account popped up so suddenly suggests the might be in communication, don't you think?)

[Peter Damian]

Thatcher has again failed to answer my question. Thatcher, there is in many professions what is sometimes called a ‘Daily Mail’ test (or substitute your favourite mass circulation newspaper). The test is whether you would be comfortable defending your professional actions when interviewed by a possibly hostile reporter from the paper.

Daily Mail: why was this user banned?
Thatcher: He was being disruptive
Daily Mail: how was he being disruptive?
Thatcher: He was writing articles while banned.
Daily Mail: You mean, articles about 13th century philosophers and theologians. An area in which he appears to have some expertise.
Thatcher: Yes, but he was banned.
Daily Mail: But why was he banned?
Thatcher: He accused a senior member of Wikipedia of a conflict of interest, involving undisclosed accounts, and asked questions about the COI on the user’s talk page
Daily Mail: Why should he be banned for that?
Thatcher: It was harassment.
Daily Mail: Were the allegations true? You seemed to accept per this public statement http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=321330043#Tip that you accepted them.
Thatcher: Er, I can’t really comment
Daily Mail: Were they true?
Thatcher: We did not investigate. The accused user certainly denied the allegations
Daily Mail: Did no one check the accusation?
Thatcher: We did not regard it as a high priority.
Daily Mail: Why would possible conflict of interest involving a comprehensive reference work not be a priority?
Thatcher: Even if it were true, it would not be serious.
Daily Mail: The accused user denied the allegation. Wouldn’t lying about it be serious?
Thatcher: We all make mistakes.

And so on.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 22nd October 2009, 12:01pm

[Random832]

Would you, in fact, continue writing articles if you were unbanned?

[No one of consequence]

Thatcher has again failed to answer my question.

I would say that you were blocked for persistently harassing another user rather than using the available dispute resolution mechanisms, such as the RFC I discussed above. Then, while blocked, you would create alternate accounts, write articles, and then jump up and down shouting, "I'm a banned user writing articles!" baiting other site administrators and forcing them to choose between blocking a productive account, and ignoring policies on banned users (thus creating a double-standard which could be very harmful in the case of other, less article-minded banned users). I would point out that I had suggested that admins should simply fail to take notice of your grandstanding, but that I obviously have less influence than you give me credit for.

I would further point out that you engage in intentionally provocative action rather than following the available dispute resolution mechanisms even when unblocked, so that several people, not just myself, who are generally sympathetic to you, are not quite willing to unblock you and give you another chance.

If pressed, I might also point out that I originally unblocked you, and that since then you have been occasionally hostile to me, when you aren't trying to be clever, and refer the reporter to the phrase "once bitten, twice shy."

Would you, in fact, continue writing articles if you were unbanned?

I'm sure he would. The question is what else would he do, and in what manner?

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Thu 22nd October 2009, 2:47pm

[Peter Damian]

I would further point out that you engage in intentionally provocative action rather than following the available dispute resolution mechanisms [...]

There is no available dispute mechanism, other than email l-arbcom, and wait a long time. You still haven't answered the 'Daily Mail' question.

Would you, in fact, continue writing articles if you were unbanned?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=...&year=&month=-1

[Random832]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=...&year=&month=-1

Am I to assume that link is to your contributions from before you are banned?

[Peter Damian]

Daily Mail: You keep referring to these attempts to expose the conflict of interest as harassment. Why is this?
Thatcher: Wikipedia policy.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 22nd October 2009, 7:28pm

[Happy drinker]

Peter Damian is indeed a good article writer, and in an area where they are few and far between. It is a loss to the project that he was blocked, but I really don't see what else could be done. WP:IAR means that the best contributors should get a bit of leeway since banning them or chasing them away would damage the project. However, you can only bend the rules so far before they break.

[Peter Damian]

I am beginning to suspect you are not on the side of Wikipedia at all, but are doing a clever job of giving us straw men to burn.

Anyway, assuming good faith (1) why is it that the rules are ignored for senior Wikipedians who abuse the trust put in them, such as abuse of multiple accounts (which I have never done). (2) Have you ever looked at what I was blocked or banned for. Examples: twice blocked for raising AfD's because it was 'harassment', even though the 'deletes' which were almost unanimous. Blocked for defending an editor who had done a good job in restoring neutrality to pro-pedophile articles. For complaining about a 'delete' template put on an article only 15 minutes old, and which when finished was agreed to be an excellent article. For voting 'delete' in an RfA. Banned for putting a sockpuppet tag on a user page that Thatcher now agrees was a sockpuppet of senior Wikipedian. And so on.

[Lar]

There is no available dispute mechanism, other than email l-arbcom, and wait a long time. You still haven't answered the 'Daily Mail' question.

That is your own doing. Other mechanisms were available but you failed to avail yourself of them. As others told you, at every available opportunity, but it was unfortunately to no avail. That's my eval, anyway.

[Happy drinker]

I am beginning to suspect you are not on the side of Wikipedia at all, but are doing a clever job of giving us straw men to burn.

Anyway, assuming good faith (1) why is it that the rules are ignored for senior Wikipedians who abuse the trust put in them, such as abuse of multiple accounts (which I have never done). (2) Have you ever looked at what I was blocked or banned for. Examples: twice blocked for raising AfD's because it was 'harassment', even though the 'deletes' which were almost unanimous. Blocked for defending an editor who had done a good job in restoring neutrality to pro-pedophile articles. For complaining about a 'delete' template put on an article only 15 minutes old, and which when finished was agreed to be an excellent article. For voting 'delete' in an RfA. Banned for putting a sockpuppet tag on a user page that Thatcher now agrees was a sockpuppet of senior Wikipedian. And so on.

I am very much on the side of building an encyclopedia for the benefit of those searching for knowledge. To some people here Wikipedia is all about writing articles. I say that's a means to an end, not the end itself, which is why to me the most important people are the readers, not the editors.

Having said that, it is of course important to write articles, and to do what is a necessary adjunct to that. Thus the best contributors are entitled to a certain amount of leeway. That's basically what WP:IAR means. You were given quite a lot of leeway; Thatcher unblocked you and at the time I applauded him. But alas you've used up all your leeway and more. Would that you hadn't.

Of course incomplete articles are often flagged with delete templates. It's happened to me more than once. You just have to adjust to it - it's a fact of life.

That is your own doing. Other mechanisms were available but you failed to avail yourself of them. As others told you, at every available opportunity, but it was unfortunately to no avail. That's my eval, anyway.

I must agree with Lar (as I do quite often).

[Peter Damian]

I am beginning to suspect you are not on the side of Wikipedia at all, but are doing a clever job of giving us straw men to burn.

Anyway, assuming good faith (1) why is it that the rules are ignored for senior Wikipedians who abuse the trust put in them, such as abuse of multiple accounts (which I have never done). (2) Have you ever looked at what I was blocked or banned for. Examples: twice blocked for raising AfD's because it was 'harassment', even though the 'deletes' which were almost unanimous. Blocked for defending an editor who had done a good job in restoring neutrality to pro-pedophile articles. For complaining about a 'delete' template put on an article only 15 minutes old, and which when finished was agreed to be an excellent article. For voting 'delete' in an RfA. Banned for putting a sockpuppet tag on a user page that Thatcher now agrees was a sockpuppet of senior Wikipedian. And so on.

I am very much on the side of building an encyclopedia for the benefit of those searching for knowledge. To some people here Wikipedia is all about writing articles. I say that's a means to an end, not the end itself, which is why to me the most important people are the readers, not the editors.

Having said that, it is of course important to write articles, and to do what is a necessary adjunct to that. Thus the best contributors are entitled to a certain amount of leeway. That's basically what WP:IAR means. You were given quite a lot of leeway; Thatcher unblocked you and at the time I applauded him. But alas you've used up all your leeway and more. Would that you hadn't.

Of course incomplete articles are often flagged with delete templates. It's happened to me more than once. You just have to adjust to it - it's a fact of life.

That is your own doing. Other mechanisms were available but you failed to avail yourself of them. As others told you, at every available opportunity, but it was unfortunately to no avail. That's my eval, anyway.

I must agree with Lar (as I do quite often).

What do you mean 'given quite a lot of leeway'? That implies I was doing anything wrong in the first place. Can you explain why being blocked for a successful AfD is being 'given quite a lot of leeway'?

Part of article writing means ensuring the neutral point of view is maintained. This involves more than just writing, as I explain here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...nd_Peter_Damian

Why are you saying that defending the neutrality of the project against pedophile activists requires 'being given leeway'? Here is what I actually said

The effect is to support the efforts of paedophiles, isn't it? PHD is an exceptionally good editor and has a strong scientific knowledge of the subject. Why was he banned in the first place? Why this secrecy? Hinnibilis (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Ryan Postlethwaite interpreted as meaning 'FT2 is a pedophile', which it clearly wasn't.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 24th October 2009, 10:25am