Catherine Sanderson is not a sockpuppet of me!, Another episode of sockpuppet paranoia by Sciencewatcher and JFW Options

[Angela Kennedy]

Someone called Catherine Sanderson has been accused and kangaroo judged to be a sockpuppet of me (or meatpuppet). This is at least the second time accusations like this have been flung at me and other people by 'Sciencemaster'.

But the paranoia is buzzing there now on the Simon Wessely talkpage and on this user's page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Catherine_Sanderson

If anyone is able to show I'm not her I'd be grateful.

I try and keep away from Wikipedia except to see how certain editors and admins are misrepresenting certain things.

Having this level of paranoia and accusation flung at you when you're not even part of Wikipedia is actually creepier the longer I'm away from it.

In other news - Guy Chapman was recently slagging me off AGAIN with a couple of anons on the Bad Science forum for the work I'm doing (nothing to do with Wikipedia). I just can't get that dude out of my life! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

But- it should be noted - this also does come at a time when I am officially and publicly expressing concern about an article in the Lancet in terms of patient safety, and calling for a retraction of that paper.

It feels like I've travelled back in time to 2008! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[Abd]

Following the discussion at User talk:Catherine Sanderson

The account was established 17:24, 11 May 2011. It appears that Catherine lost her password, because assistance is requested in edits from Special:Contributions/86.154.117.80. We may reasonably, from this, assume that the IP is that of Catherine Sanderson. In this edit, the IP appears to admit to being a banned editor. JamesBWatson points out that there are other possible interpretations, but given the simple one, I'd say that the account of Catherine Sanderson is toast, given either (1) it's Angela Kennedy or (2) it's a friend or close acquaintance, acting to pursue the same agenda or (3) it's terminally stupid.

And, Angela, why are you causing us to waste time looking at this here? You may well have been wronged, originally, I have utterly no opinion about that other than to confirm that It Happens, but ... this is not the way to fix it.

My sock EnergyNeutral was just checkusered, with no apparent request, by an arbitrator, and I'm not making a fuss about whatever might be improper about that, I'm just documenting the response, which reveals certain things, as will be shown in later analysis. No big surprises, to be sure.

This case is boring, sock was identified because sock had self-connected with the IP through obvious behavior and sock had, as IP, admitted being banned. The case reveals nothing but the practice of blocking accounts which are admitted socks of blocked or banned users. Q.E.D.

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor. I don't see any seriously negative comment about Angela Kennedy in the discussion on Catherine Sanderson's talk page. "Angela Kennedy" is really a red herring here, there is no specific evidence that this is Angela Kennedy, to my knowledge. The only way that this would be relevant to Angela Kennedy is if the latter tries to return to Wikipedia and is accused of socking as Catherine Sanderson. (That might also relate to other possible socks mentioned.)

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Somey]

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor.

You mean someone else is pretending to be Angela Kennedy using the name "Catherine Sanderson," as in the classic double-bind sock-proxy maneuver? Isn't it vastly more likely that there's a real, separate person named Catherine Sanderson who just happens to also not be so fond of this Simon Wessely dude? And is living in England in a similar way?

For the record, the closest thing we have here on WR, poster-wise, to 86.154.117.80 is Giano. Second-closest is an account named "lolwut," whom we had to suspend for making highly inappropriate comments about... well, let's not go into that right now. Ms. Kennedy's IPs aren't totally far-off, but I suspect that's because she's in the UK and it's a common range there.

I'm not saying it's impossible or even all that unlikely, but having the first of the four numbers match occasionally is far from conclusive evidence of multiple-account abuse.

So it looks like a "bad block" to me, but that's true of most of their blocks, I suppose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Abd]

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor.

You mean someone else is pretending to be Angela Kennedy using the name "Catherine Sanderson," as in the classic double-bind sock-proxy maneuver?

Given the edits of the IP, most likely, it would be "someone else" who is also a banned editor. Catherine Sanderson did not pretend to be Angela Kennedy, explicitly.

My real point here is that Angela Kennedy wasn't libeled in this sequence. So what if Catherine Sanderson is not Kennedy? What the record showed was sufficient for blocking, under common Wikipedia standards.

Yeah, those are abusive,but so is a whole lot else. This setup was "normal abuse," and it's "abuse" because Wikipedia does ban based on POV, which demolishes neutrality.

[Angela Kennedy]

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor.

You mean someone else is pretending to be Angela Kennedy using the name "Catherine Sanderson," as in the classic double-bind sock-proxy maneuver?

Given the edits of the IP, most likely, it would be "someone else" who is also a banned editor. Catherine Sanderson did not pretend to be Angela Kennedy, explicitly.

My real point here is that Angela Kennedy wasn't libeled in this sequence. So what if Catherine Sanderson is not Kennedy? What the record showed was sufficient for blocking, under common Wikipedia standards.

Yeah, those are abusive,but so is a whole lot else. This setup was "normal abuse," and it's "abuse" because Wikipedia does ban based on POV, which demolishes neutrality.

I am being libelled, because I'm being accused of sockpuppetting and desperately trying to get back into that cesspool, when I am actually NOT some wikipedia obsessor trying to get back in. I'm actually an academic working on something important- who made the mistake initially of believing wikipedia was an arena where correctin of misinformation could be done. I didn't realise it was the cesspool it is at the time. But now- as someone who is critical of wikipedia as an academic, as someone who is critical of other issues as both an advocate for her daughter AND academically, getting accused of socking like this is in danger of discrediting my good name!

Jeez abd, we don't all LOVE wikipedia and want to get back into their bed! I have actually have real world consequences upon me as a result of this shit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Maybe you should read my history there as well.

[Angela Kennedy]

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor.

You mean someone else is pretending to be Angela Kennedy using the name "Catherine Sanderson," as in the classic double-bind sock-proxy maneuver? Isn't it vastly more likely that there's a real, separate person named Catherine Sanderson who just happens to also not be so fond of this Simon Wessely dude? And is living in England in a similar way?

For the record, the closest thing we have here on WR, poster-wise, to 86.154.117.80 is Giano. Second-closest is an account named "lolwut," whom we had to suspend for making highly inappropriate comments about... well, let's not go into that right now. Ms. Kennedy's IPs aren't totally far-off, but I suspect that's because she's in the UK and it's a common range there.

I'm not saying it's impossible or even all that unlikely, but having the first of the four numbers match occasionally is far from conclusive evidence of multiple-account abuse.

So it looks like a "bad block" to me, but that's true of most of their blocks, I suppose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Thanks Somey. So it's a case of 'living in a similar way' i.e. somewhere in/near London? Well- there is only two of us living somewhere in/near London, and the other person runs a fan club dedicated to Simon Wessely- no wait- he IS Simon Wessely! (That's a joke, by the way- you can't be too careful nowadays (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) )

[Abd]

I am being libelled, because I'm being accused of sockpuppetting and desperately trying to get back into that cesspool, when I am actually NOT some wikipedia obsessor trying to get back in.

But that's how they think, they believe they are the center of the universe and that everyone else wants to be there. Actually, they are a low place in a muddy area and polluted area.

I'm actually an academic working on something important- who made the mistake initially of believing wikipedia was an arena where correctin of misinformation could be done.

The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even experts. Oops! Not anyone. Anyone with a point of view is to be excluded, only experts with no point of view are welcome. Which is an oxymoron. Experts always have a point of view, though there are some who are also capable of objectivity; still, to non-experts, even these can seem to have a point of view to "push." Like, what they know!

I didn't realise it was the cesspool it is at the time. But now- as someone who is critical of wikipedia as an academic, as someone who is critical of other issues as both an advocate for her daughter AND academically, getting accused of socking like this is in danger of discrediting my good name!

Nah.

Look, Angela, this incident didn't result in charges against you of socking. Catherine Sanderson was blocked for her own behavior. There is some suspicion expressed, that's true, but the conclusion was that it didn't matter if CS was AK or not. No SSP report was filed, and CS has not been tagged as a suspected sock puppet of AK, at least not yet.

This is what CS wrote (as her IP) that caused strong suspicion that she was you:

I was banned from editing any pages of Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales, in October 2007, following a kangaroo court on the Admin Discussion pages (I keep Mr Wales' email framed in the downstairs cloakroom). My crimes were "Wiki lawyering" and using my own discussion page for alleged "Soapboxing". Even the suitability of my User name was discussed by some Admins, as it matched a website of the same name.

We are led inexorably to a conclusion: CS is you, or CS is impersonating you, other possible explanations are weak and unlikely. In either case, they will think, blocking CS is appropriate.

If CS is not you, Angela, then you can be glad they blocked her!

Jeez abd, we don't all LOVE wikipedia and want to get back into their bed! I have actually have real world consequences upon me as a result of this shit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Maybe you should read my history there as well.

Why? Angela, the story is boring, it's so common.

You, and hundreds or thousands of cases like you, demonstrate Wikipedia's lack of commitment to true consensus, which would require careful deliberative process, and which is essential to neutrality. "POV-pushing" is an essential part of that process. But because WP did not develop methods of engaging in the conversations that would produce true consensus, and because it is actually averse to such -- they can be long! -- POV-pushing is considered Bad, resulting in what I called, in an essay about to be deleted, "MPOV-pushing," majority point of view pushing, where minority opinions -- or what are thought to be by a majority of the core cabal to be minority opinions -- are rejected and excluded.

It's a result of the election method used for administrators and arbitrators, in fact, it will lead to this kind of situation, like clockwork. The power structure does not represent minorities, at all.

By the way, you were, on the face of it, blocked for making legal threats. Technically, this block should have been lifted if you retracted the threats. Did you ever do that? (Making legal threats on Wikipedia, which includes statements like "I'll forward the information to my solicitor, can be expected to result in immediate block. My question would be: why did you do this? By all means, forward mails to your solicitor, and let your solicitor contact someone, or file a suit, but don't say a whisper of it on WP!) And then refuse to discuss it if asked.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Angela Kennedy]

I am being libelled, because I'm being accused of sockpuppetting and desperately trying to get back into that cesspool, when I am actually NOT some wikipedia obsessor trying to get back in.

But that's how they think, they believe they are the center of the universe and that everyone else wants to be there. Actually, they are a low place in a muddy area and polluted area.

I'm actually an academic working on something important- who made the mistake initially of believing wikipedia was an arena where correctin of misinformation could be done.

The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even experts. Oops! Not anyone. Anyone with a point of view is to be excluded, only experts with no point of view are welcome. Which is an oxymoron. Experts always have a point of view, though there are some who are also capable of objectivity; still, to non-experts, even these can seem to have a point of view to "push." Like, what they know!

I didn't realise it was the cesspool it is at the time. But now- as someone who is critical of wikipedia as an academic, as someone who is critical of other issues as both an advocate for her daughter AND academically, getting accused of socking like this is in danger of discrediting my good name!

Nah.

Look, Angela, this incident didn't result in charges against you of socking. Catherine Sanderson was blocked for her own behavior. There is some suspicion expressed, that's true, but the conclusion was that it didn't matter if CS was AK or not. No SSP report was filed, and CS has not been tagged as a suspected sock puppet of AK, at least not yet.

This is what CS wrote (as her IP) that caused strong suspicion that she was you:

I was banned from editing any pages of Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales, in October 2007, following a kangaroo court on the Admin Discussion pages (I keep Mr Wales' email framed in the downstairs cloakroom). My crimes were "Wiki lawyering" and using my own discussion page for alleged "Soapboxing". Even the suitability of my User name was discussed by some Admins, as it matched a website of the same name.

We are led inexorably to a conclusion: CS is you, or CS is impersonating you, other possible explanations are weak and unlikely. In either case, they will think, blocking CS is appropriate.

If CS is not you, Angela, then you can be glad they blocked her!

Jeez abd, we don't all LOVE wikipedia and want to get back into their bed! I have actually have real world consequences upon me as a result of this shit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Maybe you should read my history there as well.

Why? Angela, the story is boring, it's so common.

You, and hundreds or thousands of cases like you, demonstrate Wikipedia's lack of commitment to true consensus, which would require careful deliberative process, and which is essential to neutrality. "POV-pushing" is an essential part of that process. But because WP did not develop methods of engaging in the conversations that would produce true consensus, and because it is actually averse to such -- they can be long! -- POV-pushing is considered Bad, resulting in what I called, in an essay about to be deleted, "MPOV-pushing," majority point of view pushing, where minority opinions -- or what are thought to be by a majority of the core cabal to be minority opinions -- are rejected and excluded.

It's a result of the election method used for administrators and arbitrators, in fact, it will lead to this kind of situation, like clockwork. The power structure does not represent minorities, at all.

By the way, you were, on the face of it, blocked for making legal threats. Technically, this block should have been lifted if you retracted the threats. Did you ever do that? (Making legal threats on Wikipedia, which includes statements like "I'll forward the information to my solicitor, can be expected to result in immediate block. My question would be: why did you do this? By all means, forward mails to your solicitor, and let your solicitor contact someone, or file a suit, but don't say a whisper of it on WP!) And then refuse to discuss it if asked.

Are you an apologist for wikipedia or something Abd? I'm talking about real world repercussions on my reputation here. Do you not understand that?

I've seen your stuff- you seem heartbroken at how mean people have been to you on wikipedia. Has this had any real world effect on your reputation? Do you know anything about my history on there, where a majorly defamatory and libellous claim related to REAL LIFE was made about me by none other than Guy Chapman? Hence the legal threats. I'm guessing you don't know about that- or you wouldn't say my situation was boring. Or is anything that isn't about you boring?

I'm shocked at your defence of the status quo here. Whoever that person is, CS got falsely accused of being me and I being her! I got falsely accused of trying to get onto wikipedia! Again! After I got for mentioning legal issues AFTER I WAS DEFAMED. It all has bad repercussions for my personal and academic reputation- I don't know what effect it has on her - all because we share the same internet provider and live somewhere in or near London?????? Why on god's green earth should I be pleased about any of that, either the attack on my integrity or hers?

You seem very conflicted abd. I've seen so much handwringing on your part about the betrayal you've suffered at the hands of wikipedia, pages and pages of it- but when it comes down to it, you actually love them and want them to love you, so you thought you'd diss my problem? Maybe Guy Chapman will see how sweet you are really and give you a cookie? WOW. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Suzy Chapman]

Following the discussion at User talk:Catherine Sanderson

The account was established 17:24, 11 May 2011. It appears that Catherine lost her password, because assistance is requested in edits from Special:Contributions/86.154.117.80. We may reasonably, from this, assume that the IP is that of Catherine Sanderson. In this edit, the IP appears to admit to being a banned editor. JamesBWatson points out that there are other possible interpretations, but given the simple one, I'd say that the account of Catherine Sanderson is toast, given either (1) it's Angela Kennedy or (2) it's a friend or close acquaintance, acting to pursue the same agenda or (3) it's terminally stupid.

I'd like to clear up any possible confusion here.

"Catherine Sanderson" is unknown to me.

In November 2009, in a publicly viewable thread on Phoenix Rising Forum, I authored a post about my experience of being banned by Jimbo Wales in October 2007, shortly after Angela was banned. I was banned partly because of my association with Angela. Wales wrote to me "...I do not know what degree of responsibility you have in all of this, nor do I care. I just want you all to go away and leave us alone..."

"Catherine Sanderson" had quoted an extract from my post on Phoenix Rising. She had not authored that post, herself.

The statement: "I was banned from editing any pages of Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales, in October 2007, following a kangaroo court on the Admin Discussion pages (I keep Mr Wales' email framed in the downstairs cloakroom). My crimes were "Wiki lawyering" and using my own discussion page for alleged "Soapboxing". Even the suitability of my User name was discussed by some Admins, as it matched a website of the same name."

is mine. I am the owner of several WordPress sites, one of which is called ME agenda.

The pseudonymous WP Admin, "JamesBWatson" got himself in a tangle, here, over whether "Catherine Sanderson" was claiming to have been banned, herself, or whether she was quoting a post which she had found on a forum (Phoenix Rising).

I've been aware of this issue since May, but took no action until yesterday. Last night I emailed WP Admin Jacob de Wolff and Guy Chapman (JzG) and clarified the following:

That "Catherine Sanderson" is unknown to me.
That "Catherine Sanderson" had been quoting an extract from my post on Phoenix Rising, from November 2009.

That the IP "Catherine Sanderson" is said to have been using is an IP within the BT range 86.148.0.0 - 86.159.255.255.

That BT is a very common internet provider in the UK.

That we have never used BT, ourselves.

That since late 2007, we have had a static IP through Zen Internet.

And I requested that "JamesBWatson" be advised that if he considers I am in any way connected with the now banned editor, "Catherine Sanderson", that he is mistaken.


Neither Dr Wolff nor Guy Chapman has responded. However, I note this morning that the content of the User page and Discussion page of "Catherine Sanderson" were deleted late last night, the deletion logged after I had contacted these two gentlemen with my concerns, and presumably in response to my concerns.

The deletion is logged in the History as having been carried out by JzG.

History: User_talk:Catherine_Sanderson

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

I have written to both, today, noting that the pages containing "JamesBWatson's" "deductions" have now been wiped by JzG and requested that "Watson" is advised of my concerns for the assertions he had made in his comments.

(Since "JamesBWatson" is a pseudonym and since he appears to provide no means of contact other than via his Discussion page, which, as a banned editor, I have no access to, there is no means by which I can contact him, myself.)

So, to recap.

"Catherine Sanderson" is not me and is not known to me.
The IP quoted for her/him appears to be a BT IP.
I am not and never have been a user of a static or dynamic BT IP though many UK residents do use BT as their service provider.

Yes, these WP sockpuppet/meat puppet allegations are tedious.

But there is a crucial difference between Watson, and Angela and myself. Angela and I work under our own names. We are accountable for any assertions we make on the internet. We both work on the basis of having documentary evidence to support what we write. We have no means of responding to any unsubstantiated claims that may be made about us on Wikipedia.

Watson is pseudonymous.

If he were operating under his own name, perhaps he would be a little more careful about any claims he makes and references to alleged "evidence". I hope in future he will take care to ensure that he can back any claims he makes.

Anyway, "Watson's" comments and "Catherine Sanderson" User pages have now been excised from WP (other than the History) by JzG, but I have a copy of "Watson's" comments on file.

Let's hope "Watson" sticks with his Maths and doesn't aspire to a career as a detective.

Suzy Chapman

This post has been edited by Suzy Chapman:

[Angela Kennedy]

They've still got the accusations on the Simon Wessely talk page (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

One thing that has occurred to me is that when I was defamed by Guy Chapman and banned in 2007 it was? I had virgin as my ISP, not BT. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Suzy Chapman]

They've still got the accusations on the Simon Wessely talk page (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

One thing that has occurred to me is that when I was defamed by Guy Chapman and banned in 2007 it was? I had virgin as my ISP, not BT. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I was informed by Wales on 22 October 2007, that he had banned me.

So you would have been banned around the 21 October 2007. According to emails from the time, you were still using Virgin as your ISP provider at that point - not BT.

I've checked our correspondence and on 27 June 2008, you EMd that you had been having problems with Virgin and had had to switch to BT.

[Angela Kennedy]

They've still got the accusations on the Simon Wessely talk page (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

One thing that has occurred to me is that when I was defamed by Guy Chapman and banned in 2007 it was? I had virgin as my ISP, not BT. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I was informed by Wales on 22 October 2007, that he had banned me.

So you would have been banned around the 21 October 2007. According to emails from the time, you were still using Virgin as your ISP provider at that point - not BT.

I've checked our correspondence and on 27 June 2008, you EMd that you had been having problems with Virgin and had had to switch to BT.

Thanks Suzy. It's interesting because whoever has been investigating Sanderson here in 2011 would somehow have had to find a way of checking me as well - long after I was banned from Wikipedia.

I was accused falsely by Sciencewatcher of having a sock a year or two ago also. Alison kindly checked that out and corrected those false allegations then.

People should be aware that there has also been a flurry of accusations against the ME/CFS community from Simon Wessely and others in the medical/science press recently, with some pretty ludicrous comments made. ME/CFS sufferers and their supporters have been implied as akin to Iraqui and Afghanistan terrorists, dangerously outraged Muslims or gays (so he managed to insult those two groups as well) - called suphorous etc. To the reasonable observer, these comments have somewhat jumped the shark, but to the less critical observer, they function well as derailing ad hominem, sadly.

And obviously I have not even been part of One Click for over 5 years now, FWIW.

This post has been edited by Angela Kennedy:

[Suzy Chapman]

A further point. In his comments left on the now deleted User and Discussion pages of "Catherine Sanderson", the pseudonymous JamesBWatson had written (my bolding):

"
[...]

In this edit someone at the same IP address says "I was banned from editing any pages of Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales, in October 2007, following a kangaroo court on the Admin Discussion pages (I keep Mr Wales' email framed in the downstairs cloakroom). My crimes were "Wiki lawyering" and using my own discussion page for alleged "Soapboxing". Even the suitability of my User name was discussed by some Admins, as it matched a website of the same name." So we have an editor editing in the same area as you and editing from the same IP address (and therefore from the same computer or another one on the same local network) stating that they have been banned. The month in which they were banned was the same one in which Angel [sic] Kennedy was banned. Angel [sic] Kennedy ban followed communications in which Jimbo Wales took a part. MEagenda was banned at the same time, and the username was questioned as being related to the name of a relevant website. Both of those two accounts had been involved in similar editing in connection to the same article as has recently been the case with the IP address. Without bothering to go into further details it is perfectly clear that the person who made that post from that IP address had previously used one or both of those two accounts. "


Well no "Watson", it isn't "perfectly clear" and it's interesting that "Watson" chose not to "go into further details".

"Catherine" had not said she had been banned, herself.
"Catherine's" IP is reported as being a BT IP (within a BT dynamic range) therefore cannot safely be "matched" to any other IP in that range and certainly not with a Zen static IP.
"Catherine" presumably had edited or attempted to edit the Wessely Discussion page.

But neither Angela nor myself had edited the article page, itself, in 2007. Our editing had been confined to the Wessely Discussion page, so "Watson" has failed to properly inform himself about what had taken place in late 2007 but assumes we had edited, or had attempted to edit the Wessely article page. Not so, we were banned without having edited article pages.

Not what you'd expect from a Maths graduate. Let's hope "Watson" does not aspire to a career where a logical approach is required.

This post has been edited by Suzy Chapman:

[Suzy Chapman]

...
And obviously I have not even been part of One Click for over 5 years now, FWIW.

Yes, I don't think either de Wolff nor Guy Chapman has grasped that you ceased involvement with ONE CLICK in 2006 - seems like it's become an obsession for them, this scapegoating of you.

[Guido den Broeder]

I see that JWF is applying his usual tricks again. Everone that disagrees about the current, ridiculously biased article on Wessely, gets accused of being a sockpuppet of Angela, me, or one or two others, and then promptly banned.

Abd, be aware that the users reacting to this article are not always seasoned editors that know the rules and hazards of Wikipedia. Oftentimes they are victicms of Wessely or the Wessely school (if they live to tell the tale), found the article because it showed up at the top of their google search, and grew very angry when they saw this monster portrayed as a hero.

[Suzy Chapman]

I see that JWF is applying his usual tricks again. Everone that disagrees about the current, ridiculously biased article on Wessely, gets accused of being a sockpuppet of Angela, me, or one or two others, and then promptly banned...

I find it ironic, Guido, that on his User page, the pseudonymous JamesBWatson writes:

"Me in real life

My name is not James, nor Watson, nor do I have the middle initial "B". Why JamesBWatson then? No special reason. When I first registered on Wikipedia I intended to use my real name, or a version of it if someone else had already taken it. However, I found myself reading a message warning me that using your real name on Wikipedia might not be a good idea, and, doubtful about it, I picked the first fictitious name I thought of. In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories..."


Well, he's quite right. Using ones own name on Wikipedia is fraught with problems. If one does elect to edit transparently (and as a site owner, I'm not comfortable editing or posting on forums under a pseudonym) it means that should one find oneself banned, there is often no means of correcting misinformation on Wikipedia about oneself or of easily challenging unsubstantiated allegations or countering inferences of sockpuppetry.

It means that named members of the public are not being afforded the same rights by Wikipedia as "living persons" who have article pages about them and they are not protected from pseudonymous and cocksure admins who cannot and do not provide evidence for the claims they are making.

Would "Watson" have been quite so confident in his/her dodgy "deductions" were he/she editing under his/her own name and providing a contact email address?

By the way, neither Wolff nor Chapman has confirmed to me that my concerns have been forwarded to "Watson" nor have I received an apology - all that has happened is that "Catherine's" User and talk pages have now been wiped, by JzG, following my having contacted them.

An apology would be nice.

-------------

ETA:

I say he/she because I don't know and because some WP editors appear to have a somewhat tenuous grasp on what gender they are. I don't know whether you noticed, Guido, that in June 2008, the editor known as "Keepcalmandcarryon" had written:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Re:_Henry_Bauer


Also, man, be more careful. Here you remove the Time magazine source that I had just added because of incorrect quoting, but 15 minutes you have forgotten about it, and you prod the article here saying that it has only two sources from Bauer's website and a college newsleter.
--Enric Naval (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enric. You might want to "spend more time looking for stuff" before you "chastise" other editors for inconsistency. You would then realize that I didn't remove the NAS membership, I simply moved it out of the lead and into a relevant section, explaining my actions. And as for two versus three sources mentioned in my prod, I referred only to the ones present at the time, not all sources that had ever been used for the article. Would you have preferred that I bring up your blatant plagiarism of the Time article? I suspect not, and I didn't, because I assumed in good faith that you didn't know it's not appropriate to cut and paste into Wikipedia.

By the way, the "man" appellation doesn't work for me. Try not to make gender assumptions with people you don't know. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'm given to understand that a few months ago, Keepcalmandcarryon was claiming to be male.

This post has been edited by Suzy Chapman:

[Suzy Chapman]

The final edits on "CS's" now wiped User talk page read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=431079405

[...]

This user has been disrupting the CFS pages for quite a while with various sockpuppets including User:Barny Toll and User:Byanose, as well as a whole bunch of disruptive edits using her ip address. Also I wouldn't be surprised if User:Mileswaves2000 is another sockpuppet - at the very least this incredibly nasty, ignorant (and frankly laughable) user seems to be a friend of "catherine sanderson". --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The repeated "leave catherine alone" comments are a bit of a give-away, are they not?! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Latest revision as of 22:44, 8 July 2011 (edit) (undo)
JzG (talk | contribs)

(Sockpuppet or meatpuppet, nobody really cares. Agenda account with agenda orthogonal to Wikipedia's mission.)

Line 1:

#redirect User:Catherine Sanderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_Sanderson)

------------------

Well, JzG, they do care. I care.

Angela cares.

No-one should be expected to tolerate unfounded insinuations of sockpuppetry whether it's from WP admins who operate under their own names, like NHS doctor, Jacob de Wolff, and are therefore accountable for their actions, or those who admin from behind a pseudonym, like "Watson".

[Guido den Broeder]

Keepcalmandcarryon is a sockpuppet of a user that had the same gender problem with their earlier account.

Cheers,

Guido

[Suzy Chapman]

Keepcalmandcarryon is a sockpuppet of a user that had the same gender problem with their earlier account.

Cheers,

Guido

Interesting.

[Somey]

No-one should be expected to tolerate unfounded insinuations of sockpuppetry whether it's from WP admins who operate under their own names, like NHS doctor, Jacob de Wolff, and are therefore accountable for their actions, or those who admin from behind a pseudonym, like "Watson".

Agreed, but after a few years, you get used to it... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

There have probably been dozens of threads here in which this has been stated in dozens of ways, but the sad fact is that even after 11 years, they've never been able to get past the size-of-world problem. It's not just that six billion people is just too many for any one person to comprehend; six million is too many, six thousand is too many. For some people, six hundred is too many. So they compartmentalize, shrink the world so that they can properly conceptualize it - and they end up thinking, surely there can't be more than one person in the world who has both an internet connection and a strong dislike for Simon Wessely! It's just not credible! ... and so on.

And over time, this has become the de facto rule, codified into a ridiculous, unjust, and stupid policy formally stating that it doesn't matter if everything else proves otherwise, if an account shows up that behaves like another account that's banned, the new account must be the same person, and therefore gets banned too.

Anyway, welcome to WR, Ms. Chapman. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)