QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sat 9th July 2011, 7:57pm)
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 lifeMy 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: 
Catherine Sanderson is not a sockpuppet of me!, Another episode of sockpuppet paranoia by Sciencewatcher and JFW
Angela Kennedy Catherine Sanderson is not a sockpuppet of me! 
