FT2 and Paul Sinclair, FT2 is not the man in the photos Options

[Moulton]

If I haven't dropped my libretto under the seat, this is what I have...

Proabivouac talked voice (by landline telephone) to Paul Sinclair of Sinclair Associates.

PrivateMusings talked voice (by Skype) to FT2.

Thus each of them has heard the voice of but one of the (supposedly) two characters.

Now voices are fairly reliable ways to distinguish two different people who are not trained voice characterization actors.

Is there some way that PM and Pro can either compare notes as to how the voices sounded, or (better yet) is there some way PM can talk to the other PS in Bath and compare voices?

[dogbiscuit]

It would be helpful for Alex to explain about the third Paul Sinclair (not FT2, not TRPS but the Wikimedia fiction) as he knows him and can vouch for him. If Alex can simply confirm in clear language, none of that FT2 dissembling of you will not find FT2 admitting to being Paul Sinclair business, that the 3rd Paul Sinclair is neither FT2 nor TRPS then we can all go home happy.

Note that the Wikimedia fictional Paul did not ever file any legal documents associated with the company. Indeed, for a small company there would be no need for him to do so. With small turnovers, the directors can sign off the accounts - no need for qualified accountants anyhow, so there was no need for any qualified accountant to reveal their identity if they did not want to, they could have just done the accounts, passed them over to the idiots who could not do sums (as that is all that is required for small company accounts, you can even do the return online). More likely they needed a competent accountant to try and cover up the mess of a bunch of amateurs taking money from willing Wikipedians, offering nothing in return, but no doubt taking remuneration and or expenses for their services.

Having said that, this makes me doubt the accounting credentials of the 3rd Paul Sinclair, who just offered to be a treasurer as far as I am aware.

To correct an error above, Wiki Educational Resources Ltd, which seems to be trading as Wikimedia UK, has not folded, and currently is still trading and soliciting money from Wikipedians. However, it is operating unlawfully by not filing accounts and I would presume should be accumulating warning letters and fines for failing to do so. The Inland Revenue should also be taking an interest (but unless you can suggest that they are not paying significant amounts of tax, they aren't going to be that interested, though a failure to give a tax return, for which you need to provide accounts, will also rack up the fines).

We need accounts so we can see what sort of remuneration the directors have been extracting from the company. That might be embarrassing. Or the expenses. That might be embarrassing (though I doubt Jimbo "would have a problem with that"). It is also necessary to have accounts to understand if the company is solvent. It is unlawful to trade when insolvent and will get you banned from being a director in the future if you are party to it.

Generally, a lot of the difficulties associated with setting up the company are that they seemed to have been bothered about being treated as a company rather than a charity and claims that it would be difficult to sort out. It struck me that this was bad advice. Though the overheads of bank charges for companies are irritating, you can normally get some relief for the first year of trading, and having charges for paying in and making withdrawals is hardly a show-stopper for starting an organisation. Probably more of a show stopper would be that the banks would want personal guarantees that pierce the veil of limited liability if they wanted not just a bank account, but to get loans or overdrafts to do stuff with. Given that the board should be competent to manage a business, it fascinates me that they were unable to attract anyone half competent in these matters - including a director who styles herself as the CEO of Wikimedia who claims an MBA.

[Alex]

It would be helpful for Alex to explain about the third Paul Sinclair (not FT2, not TRPS but the Wikimedia fiction) as he knows him and can vouch for him. If Alex can simply confirm in clear language, none of that FT2 dissembling of you will not find FT2 admitting to being Paul Sinclair business, that the 3rd Paul Sinclair is neither FT2 nor TRPS then we can all go home happy.

What?

[dogbiscuit]

It would be helpful for Alex to explain about the third Paul Sinclair (not FT2, not TRPS but the Wikimedia fiction) as he knows him and can vouch for him. If Alex can simply confirm in clear language, none of that FT2 dissembling of you will not find FT2 admitting to being Paul Sinclair business, that the 3rd Paul Sinclair is neither FT2 nor TRPS then we can all go home happy.

What?

You said you thought you knew. Elsewhere on that list I think there was a comment that you could vouch for Paul Sinclair.

As I understand it Proab identified the 3rd possible Paul Sinclair.

I just thought you could straighten out some of the confusion caused by FT2's dissembling answers.

Simply put, can you confirm that:

a) FT2 (Paul, but apparently never Paul Sinclair) is not
b) Paul Sinclair businessfirst is not
c) The Real Paul Sinclair of Wiltshire with a surprising number of common interests with FT2?

[Milton Roe]

Last night, I spoke by telephone at some length to Paul Sinclair of Sinclair Associates, the man pictured in this thread…
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20192&st=0

…and on Hivemind:
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#338

FT2 was certainly the "Paul Sinclair" of the failed Wikimedia UK, but this man is not FT2. Accordingly, I suggest tarpitting threads in which this innocent man is exposed and criticized in FT2's stead.

Okay, to clear things up: we don't really know the name of the man who is FT2 and called himself "Paul Sinclair" in connection with Wikimedia-UK. That guy could be named Joe Blow, for all we know. But on WP, he's FT2. His use of the name Paul Sinclair is a ruse, and no such real person with that name in London connected with Wikimedia exists.

The other guy really is named Paul Sinclair and is a psychologist who lives in Corsham with office in nearby Bath, who has a private life with all FT2's interests incorporated (fetishism and NLP and life coaching and mediation), and has made and admitted ONE edit to WP as WilkoBilko, in order to get one of his own publications (as Paul Sinclair) into an article on The Big Five Personality Traits. He is the guy we have photos of from his personals site, and states he's NOT FT2, or any kind of Wikipedia wonk, and has only edited that one time. Despite which, his one and only edit to WP is surprisingly competent, consisting of adding a paragraph and a reference in one shot, with only a single space mistake (my error in thinking it was "perfect."). And needless to say, this guy is not connected with the Wikimedia foundation. That's the other guy who is FT2.

Is this your understanding from talking to the Bath/Corsham/psych/fetish guy?

Does anybody have ANY evidence that the UK-Wikimedia guy who is FT2, is really, really named Paul Sinclair?

[Lar]

I find this all confusing as all get out.

Which isn't the end of the world because
a) If it confuses me, it no doubt confuses everyone else, which seems a good thing since you're all busily trying to out people.
b) It's amusing to see all these pseuds industriously trying to connect real life identities together,
and c) It doesn't matter, really, who FT2 is... Who cares? Not me.

For the record I condemn all of this as BS, harrassy, stalky, and missing the point. Not to mention WR at its worst. Not that anyone cares but there you go.

Carry on playing silly buggers.

[Somey]

For the record I condemn all of this as BS, harrassy, stalky, and missing the point.

I was under the impression that the point, such as it is, is that several people here don't believe FT2 (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's assertions that his editing activity on articles relating to fetishism and bestiality is merely indicative of a high degree of interest in controversial topics in general, and that they may in fact be indicative of some form of bias or even a conflict of interest.

I agree that it's confusing, though... And one might also legitimately claim that FT2's editing activity on some of the articles in question might in itself be sufficiently suspect that his identity wouldn't have to be an issue. I can at least say that the mods here have had plenty of discussions about this, and there's almost unanimous agreement that he's both sufficiently controversial and influential enough for this level of scrutiny, even if it ultimately turns out that little is gained by it.

[Milton Roe]

I find this all confusing as all get out.

Which isn't the end of the world because
a) If it confuses me, it no doubt confuses everyone else, which seems a good thing since you're all busily trying to out people.
b) It's amusing to see all these pseuds industriously trying to connect real life identities together,
and c) It doesn't matter, really, who FT2 is... Who cares? Not me.

For the record I condemn all of this as BS, harrassy, stalky, and missing the point. Not to mention WR at its worst. Not that anyone cares but there you go.

Carry on playing silly buggers.

There's nothing silly-buggerish about ferreting out abuse of power on WP in service of POVs. I really don't give a fig if a WP admin screws pooches (even non metaphorically) and hogties his sex partners (even when they aren't hogs). It's when they push these points of view at the end of a block button that they start becoming at-risk.

I'f you (Lar) had indef blocked people for saying derisive things about LEGOS or even atheism on WP, and we didn't know your real name, you've be at-risk for being punished for power-abuse, too. But you don't abuse your power, and you use your real name, so that doesn't happen.

Look, in the real-world there is endless argument about sadism, masochism, bondage, pedophilia, zoophilia, and all kinds of other paraphilias. If WP mirrored the real world, there's be a more or less constant edit warring on those things, also. I see no honest way out of that.

But WP is nothing, if not dishonest. The reason the "what's ethical or tasteful or appropriate" war doesn't happen on Wikipedia, is that powerful people there have simply banned anybody who doesn't share their point of view. People like FT2 WP:OWN the zoophilia articles, and protect them. In the case of pedophilia, Jimbo decided that for the sake of the health of the project he was going to do the opposite, and simply ban anybody that even vaguely looked like a pedophile. That's how WP works. Not by concensus. Not by reasoned argument. But by people gaining power by subterfuge (see Gerard's oversights of FT2's embarrassing edits prior to FT2's RfA), and then by exercising it to silence the opposition.

You can call me a silly bugger all you like, Lar, and I'll call you a silly bugger right back. It's your site more than mine! I don't exercise power on WP. You're the guy who is the Steward there. If I were you, I'd frankly be embarrassed to mention systemic WP problems, because they all invite the comment of: "We do this on WR because nobody on WP has really addressed the problem."

Wikipedia's problem is far less anonymous editing than anonymous power-wielding in service of hidden POVs. This discussion is about that.

[wikiwhistle]

I find this all confusing as all get out.

Which isn't the end of the world because
a) If it confuses me, it no doubt confuses everyone else, which seems a good thing since you're all busily trying to out people.
b) It's amusing to see all these pseuds industriously trying to connect real life identities together,
and c) It doesn't matter, really, who FT2 is... Who cares? Not me.

For the record I condemn all of this as BS, harrassy, stalky, and missing the point. Not to mention WR at its worst. Not that anyone cares but there you go.

Carry on playing silly buggers.

Wouldn't it have freaked this Paul Sinclair bloke out too to have a random bloke Proab phoning him up Pro(a)bing him?

[Milton Roe]

I find this all confusing as all get out.

Which isn't the end of the world because
a) If it confuses me, it no doubt confuses everyone else, which seems a good thing since you're all busily trying to out people.
b) It's amusing to see all these pseuds industriously trying to connect real life identities together,
and c) It doesn't matter, really, who FT2 is... Who cares? Not me.

For the record I condemn all of this as BS, harrassy, stalky, and missing the point. Not to mention WR at its worst. Not that anyone cares but there you go.

Carry on playing silly buggers.

Wouldn't it have freaked this Paul Sinclair bloke out too to have a random bloke Proab phoning him up Pro(a)bing him?

Probably. But if he's not FT2 he's probably pretty glad to explain how he's done one WP edit, but had no more to do with it, than that.

[tarantino]

and c) It doesn't matter, really, who FT2 is... Who cares? Not me.

So you, Larry, are not bothered by some anonymous FT2 knowing your secrets?

[dogbiscuit]

and c) It doesn't matter, really, who FT2 is... Who cares? Not me.

So you, Larry, are not bothered by some anonymous FT2 knowing your secrets?

I'm less concerned about FT2, the guy with too much interest in writing bestiality articles with an anthropomorphic slant, than FT2, the power tripper who has sought to remould ArbCom into a tool to do his bidding and who worked in concert with others to alter the history of Wikipedia which by its own policies is supposed to be inviolate except for certain well defined situations.

As an example of the issue, it seems that for a year, the use of oversight to erase a link to a blog entry that was deleted was covered up. The involved parties could have been honest with the community and said this: "Peter made offensive and unsubstantiated accusations of a personal nature in a blog. We took the view that this was inappropriate so correctly used oversight to remove the link. The blog entry no longer exists." I don't even think, with that interpretation, doing it in the middle of the elections would be deemed inappropriate. Clearly FT2 and DG knew what went on, and clearly the evidence was there for all parties to see, yet FT2 and the others have gone out of their way to obscure what went on - DG, happy to stick his nose in on other people's business at the drop of a hat, stays smugly quiet on his own involvement.

My view is that FT2 is his own worst enemy. His dissembling* style generates mistrust. Put simply, he is incapable of giving a straight answer. That makes me want to know why this person is so interested in wielding power on Wikipedia.



*Word of the week, I'm afraid.

[CharlotteWebb]

PrivateMusings talked voice (by Skype) to FT2.

No, no voice chat.

I chatted (I think in gmail text chat - but maybe Skype text?) with FT for about 45mins / an hour on this one, and my recollection of his response to the direct question 'was that edit yours?' was along the lines of 'I have never abused the wiki'

He should have said his mother was a saint.

[EricBarbour]

I really don't give a fig if a WP admin screws pooches (even non metaphorically) and hogties his sex partners (even when they aren't hogs). It's when they push these points of view at the end of a block button that they start becoming at-risk.

That's it. Thank you for summarizing.

And I have no doubt that both FT2 and Gerard are reading this thread, and laughing their heads off.

[wikiwhistle]

I really don't give a fig if a WP admin screws pooches (even non metaphorically) and hogties his sex partners (even when they aren't hogs). It's when they push these points of view at the end of a block button that they start becoming at-risk.

That's it. Thank you for summarizing.

And I have no doubt that both FT2 and Gerard are reading this thread, and laughing their heads off.

You think so? DG might be lol, in one of the threads someones' made him sound like something out of Rocky Horror, I don't know if it's true Probably he and his wife are just sat in watching telly tonight like us, not out at the torture garden or something.

[Stochastic23]

For the record I condemn all of this as BS, harrassy, stalky, and missing the point. Not to mention WR at its worst. Not that anyone cares but there you go.

Carry on playing silly buggers.

I have to agree. I've been watching this site for a while before joining and posting but it struck me just how, 'stalky' some wp editors become. Kind of worrying in an amusing way.

[Eva Destruction]

Did this thread really need reviving?

[Milton Roe]

Did this thread really need reviving?

Yes. It's part of the stalking. Irony time.

[Kelly Martin]

Wow, zombie time.

[Milton Roe]

Wow, zombie time.

AND I totally missed that our zombie thread reviver is the brand new member Random23. Not to be confused with Random832. Doing this with his first and only post.