Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: tarantino

Between 17 October 2005 and 16 May 2006 the sockpuppet TBP made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=185&target=TBP&month=&year=, all in relation to animals, sex, animal sex or Neuro-linguistic programming. There is perhaps only one other editor on enwiki with similar tastes.

TBP's career highlights -
Started the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&dir=prev&action=history, AKA Mr Hands, a man notable for dying in an unusual way.

Started the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_Miletski&action=history, a pioneer in the study of beastiality.

Started the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_in_animals&limit=250&action=history.

Edited the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgeplay&limit=100&action=history. Later, FT2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taxwoman&oldid=149804589#Cites_needed_-_any_idea_of_reliable_sources.3F current persona non grata Taxwoman on the subject.

Edit warred on Neuro-linguistic programming and sparred with HeadleyDown on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=26610872&oldid=26610429.

This eventually lead to FT2 filing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming. FT2 actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=28199367 the sock's involvement.

TBP quits editing 31 days before FT2's failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2. For his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2_2, he was nominated by jossi.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Lol. Very nice, Sherlock. That's more or less a slam-dunk. Better let jossi know he's been had by a classic sock, in a strictly neurolinguistic way. You know, jossi's such a sweet soul that he'll doubtless thank you and then try to do the right thing, now that the error of his ways has been pointed out. Jimbo, too.

And, as for the other thing that bothered me..... yeah, that's it! THAT is what it was about FT2's rhetoric that was making my eyes glaze over. Keeping me from getting though even a complete paragraph of his writing. He's a professional NLP-style councelor.

From his userpage: I do a lot of dispute handling and regular second opinions for other administrators and users, including a variety of informal mediations, dispute smoothings and other decisions.

Anybody who uses the word "guidance" that much, has got to be a boy scout leader or a professional stress therapist. Maybe a little animal therapy?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I think they call that a Horse's Ass Whisperer …

Jon

Posted by: Milton Roe

That's it, Cesar! FT2-- the dog-ass-whisperer. He trains editors. He rehabilitates animals. He sniffs anything.

Posted by: Proabivouac

There was also this from the other day…

I haven't had the chance to consider if User:Lovingboth is FT2, but it sure is funny in the context of the discussion.

Posted by: Moulton

Why is this even an open question? Candace Pert has a book out called The Molecules of Emotion. These same neuropeptides are found in most species (especially mammals), and play comparable roles. Virtually every creature has the emotion of fear. Moreover, there is a theory of emotions and learning that identifies emotional states keyed to learning. And many animals (especially mammals) are able to learn.

Posted by: Milton Roe

But strangely enough, somebody very conversant about BiCon when bisexual people came and slept on your floor and used your computer in the middle of an edit, just as self-illustrated earlier here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BiCon_%28UK%29&diff=prev&oldid=18905157

And in general edited while holding hands, and logged into each other's accounts, in a generally similar gay trainpulling way. Lordy.

Oh, look at the attention to the David Irving article. Criticize this one and you'll be a Nazi and holocaust denier, too. You thought I was kidding about all this, didn't you?

Posted by: Milton Roe

It is weird that anybody even debates this, isn't it? I can't imagine anybody who's had a moderately bright cat or dog who doesn't know full well that they have emotions and think (though of course not with words).

Geez, my cats have a "want food" meow. And they have a "purr in anticipation of feeding" which is just the same as you'll hear a mother cat aim at her kittens. It's practically "cat" for "chow time". Just as a peculiar jaw-chatter is cat for "bird!" You can get the "chow time" purr when you go for a can of catfood, and you can get it before you OPEN the can. They know very well what you're about to do.

I once had a cat who figured out that I could be counted on to knock bugs off a wall when they were too high up for the cat to jump (cats love bugs and this one particularly loved them). Once, he came to get me to knock down a particularly big beetle from an interior home wall. "Okay, okay" I said. As I approached, the cat sat under the beetle and understood that I had the idea-- the beetle was about to come down. And for that, I got a very loud "here comes food!" purr. That was one happy cat. Anticipation is the best part, even if you're a cat.

Posted by: Docknell

Yes I think this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=28199367

is highly damning. As you can see from TBP's edits, he has played a rather large role in both the NLP and the bestiality promotion drive.

And taken together with the "lovingboth" account; If FT2 (and friends) were to apply his own banning approach to himself, he would have been perma-banned many times over.

Its going to be worth checking out the bestiality and NLP article for more potential FT2 socks. Especially now those fringe articles are under increased likelihood of people allowing the majority weight to get a proper chance. FT2 will no doubt be utterly livid that his religion and practices are being scrutinized and criticized. Judging by the control freak level of his editing, I can only imagine more dodgy admin behaviour appearing.

Posted by: Peter Damian

That’s incredible. FT2 also admits to being trained in NLP. The subjects and interests (Miletski, Pinyan &c) are identical. V strong probability indeed.

I was put off him from the very start, by the use of the word ‘behaviours’ in the plural. This reminded me of those awful training sessions and awaydays one was forced to attend in the lowlier days of employment.

Another thing, I’ve been searching to find who his previous identity was on Wiki. I’m sure there was one, because his very first edit was on Zoophilia, now oversighted. It’s generally received wisdom that someone who goes straight in like that is a sockpuppet, especially when they show such proficient editing skills.

I had thought he was Erik Moeller (Erik having started the article on Zoophilia) but the editing styles are so different I rejected this. But FT2 must have had some connection with the higher echelons from the very start, or obvious reasons. So perhaps it’s time to ask the question: who is FT2. The information provided by the TBP edits is interesting. He started off in England. That also explained something that puzzled me: he is based in the US, but often uses English spelling conventions.

One to ponder…

Posted by: Miltopia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=210302485

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

And one in which the two people "were exceptionally close and used the same computer".

Hope you wiped it off, FT2.

Posted by: Proabivouac

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

Posted by: dogbiscuit

It is worth noting that the "other person" had not been editing, there is just a low level of ocassional trivia being entered. I can understand that FT2 might sign out of his computer to allow someone else to use it to keep privileges secure, but I would then have expected to see some sort of editing session if someone had signed in. Unconvincing, though there doesn't seem to be anything of interest being edited on the account. (It doesn't even make sense as a sock account, unless there are oversights to cover tracks).

So is this abusive socking covered up with abusive oversights?

May be nothing, may be very fishy. What larks.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

He's "not right" and when I said that to someone else they said, "you don't have to have a genius IQ to be able to see that."

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Maybe not quite as uncommon amongst zoophiliacs as in the general population, as people in my experience get into learning NLP due to wanting to get round a lack of social skills. And few things must influence your feeling of confidence socially more than knowing what the person you're talking to would think of you if they knew your proclivities.

Also-

Are we accusing these two people of "liking animals in a similar way?"

Posted by: Alex

I have to say this looks pretty compelling... although there'll be no CheckUser logs for the TBP account, so there's no way it can be proven. The "friend" staying over, and logged into Wikipedia seems way too farfetched imo.

Posted by: Moulton

Don't most admins also have non-privileged accounts?

It's only an issue if multiple accounts weigh in on community consensus debates or vote-stacking. I've seen Odd Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.237.4.140 while not logged in from his office computer at Macys San Francisco IT Center.

Posted by: Peter Damian

This is getting v puzzling. LovingBoth has a very different edit pattern to FT2, so odds are they are genuinely different people. But then if so, (1) that disproves the whole line of argument that FT2 was making in that very thread. How ironic. (2) It raises the question of what an English editor (LovingBoth) was doing at FT2's place on the East Coast of the US. The mind boggles. Stranger than fiction.

[edit] I mean, LB has done some work on 'TravelCard Zone 3' for goodness' sake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelcard_Zone_3

And what a crap article that is, by the way. How many of Wikipedia's 2m pages are like that?
Or this

This is much scarier than the animal stuff.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Ermmm...he tries to disguise the country he lives in because of the terrible stalkers he deals with. (no joke)

Posted by: guy

Wikipedia ISNOT a crystal ball.

Posted by: Kato

Loveinboth was certainly in the UK this week. It looks like he was doing exactly the same thing as me: Recalling just how bad a snooker player Willie Thorne was, yet Thorne gets to disparage the techniques and shot choices of great players like O'Sullivan and Hendry every April/May on TV. How does that work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_snooker_players_with_over_100_century_breaks&diff=prev&oldid=210530945

Posted by: Alex

Do you know where FT2 is located?

Posted by: wikiwhistle

I cannot say- but I've been told he doesn't want people to know which country he's in sometimes, due to "stalkers"

Other than that, Alex, your guess is as good as mine or you probably know more than I.

Posted by: Alex

I won't say either, I'm not into this "stalking" business. But FT2 has left no personal information on himself as far as I'm aware, so I can't see it being a problem.

Posted by: Miltopia

I didn't think about this before, but why was Lovingboth even logged in to begin with? His most recent edits with that account were in late April...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lovingboth

Here's what I think happened: Lovingboth had made some edits before acting as FT2 on the noticeboard, and then once FT2 realized his blunder, he oversighted them. He couldn't oversight the noticeboard comment because there was already a reply and it would make the diff look funny. So the answer I think is yes, he is willing to use abusive oversights (or at least oversights that would make FloFlo say "I BEG YOUR PARDON???" again) to cover his tracks.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

I wonder/assume that the name "lovingboth" means loving both animals and humans?

Posted by: Miltopia

I assumed it was both men and women, since it had posted on some bisexuality topic, the name of which escapes me.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

lol ok my mistake

Looking at this "lovingboth"'s contribs it really would be a piece of acting for this to be FT2, unless he has a side to him we don't often see highlighted. Lovingboth seems very lighthearted in temperament, he reminds me of someone else, not FT2

Posted by: Peter Damian

Editing patterns are incontrovertibly East coast US. Hence my puzzlement.

Posted by: Moulton

If he happens to be anywhere near Boston, he can come visit me any Saturday afternoon at the Museum of Science, where I will be glad to http://underground.musenet.org:8080/bkort/Puzzle.Background.html him.

Posted by: Alex

You do realise that people can edit on topics that are not related to their country?

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Nor me, but I also think people are sometimes a bit overly concerned with "stalkers." Though given the number of outings there've been recently, I can now completely understand.

Posted by: Peter Damian

This is going by average editing times, not by subject. FT2's editing pattern is typical of someone editing US eastern time.



Yes exactly. My initial reaction is they are not the same editor, based on the style, and the content. But what was he doing at FT2's place, and how was he logged in? That is v bizarre.

[edit] oo er missus I see I have just made it into Encyclopedia Dramatica, on the Arbcom page - see under FTZoo - they have quoted my real name as well. Oh well, there goes the neighbourhood.

Posted by: Docknell

This seems to show very clearly that TBP is an abusive sock of FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=26762694

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=26740945

TBP is following the same line as FT2, that all the minor research papers on NLP should be present, whereas HeadlyDown has already shown the reviews of all research (the opinions of qualified scientists who can make sense of all research findings).

TBP’s push for listing all the research on NLP, rather than the reviews, goes as far as to quite the sort of half-truths that FT2 is prone to using

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=26723763

And of course, FT2 later started listing all the separate little research findings on NLP, rather than the overviews from Scientists.

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

Interestingly, Action Potential (Aka Comaze (Comaze.com)) works with a company called Inspiritive, that also lists a huge amount of research supposedly supportive of NLP (since the info was last presented here, Action Potential has removed the web pages, though I have the printscreens)

http://www.inspiritive.com.au/nlp-research/database.htm

Of course, the main reviews of NLP have been left out. It’s a typical pseudoscience tactic designed to appeal to confirmation bias.

So basically, you have TBP (FT2) admitting to being an NLP practitioner. Its not surprising they are all so happy to have the NLP article in such an obscured state. TBP seems also to follow the typical POV forking of “negative views on zoophiles = views on zoosadism”. The cleanup of that article has been so incredibly slow. Its only just recently that the lead section has had the previous NAMBLA-esque conclusion removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=198831644&oldid=198041101

Pro-bestiality editors there were very reluctant to lose the “dog-lovers riding into the sunset happy ending” and they kept it there for years.

Posted by: Peter Damian

[replying to Docknell] Tht's VERY serious. There were 3 incidents when FT2 ganged up with other like-minded people on Zoo and NLP articles, basically goading them until they reacted uncivilly, for which they then got indef-blocked. I had always thought this was a case of merely bullying (not that bullying has anything to recommend it). But doing this… Even if the sock is not coming at you at the same time, it multiplies the number of enemies you think you have, and can cause you to blink, and that’s it.

The Arbcom should look at this one again, har har.

[edit]

.

That is also very damning. Note TBP’s excessive (and grammatically incorrect) overuse of scarequotes, just like his friend.

Posted by: No one of consequence

Not really. It depends on how many times Lovingboth and FT2 have edited from the same place vs a different place, and how many times Poetlister et al. edited from the same place and different places.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

From 2006-07-24 IRC log capture:

FT2` (i=FT2@87.113.13.183.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net) 87.113.13.183 | PLUSNET TECHNOLOGIES LTD * UNITED KINGDOM

appears to be a DSL account in London

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=87.113.13.0-255&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=

I don't know if this yields any clues.

Posted by: Shalom

Daniel, check that IP against this one: 58.178.135.242. TBP accidentally signed with that IP address while logged out on October 31, 2005, then logged in to correct it.

I've taken close to an hour to review the contribution logs for editing overlaps and similar interests and habits. It's difficult to come to a conclusion. Having recently challenged FT2 on the Poetlister case, I am in no position to make a neutral statement on an allegation that FT2 may have used a sockpuppet. I would consider forwarding my data to someone else (maybe Proabivouac?) and letting other people handle this.

There are multiple instances where FT2 and TLP edit the same pages within less than 20 minutes of one another. It doesn't prove anything, but it makes me suspicious. I take allegations against a sitting arbitrator very seriously, so out of fairness to him, I will not say more.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

58.178.135.242 appears to be a DSL account in Melbourne, Australia. Don't see him in my IRC logs.
Here's the http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=58.178.135.0-255&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

They will just say it's all in the past so forget about it, like they did with SlimVirgin.

Posted by: Dawson Impersonator

I've never followed this business with checkusers. Poetlister and Taxwoman are screamingly screamingly not the same person, right? No way from here to China are they the same person. So what if they used the same computer sometimes? Is that an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor?

Posted by: tarantino

I think that's just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=26980039&oldid=26979950, but he forgot to no wiki the 4 tildes.


FT2 has also edited from the UK IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.86.166.33.

Posted by: Shalom

I see now. You are correct.



Yes, I know. I don't understand why SlimVirgin was not desysopped for using a sockpuppet to double vote. It's hard for me to interpret WordBomb's evidence any other way, and even though he's WordBomb, I still think he's telling the truth. How is SlimVirgin any different from other administrators who have used sockpuppets to double-vote? Thatcher wrote something about not chasing her off the project: well, if exposing misconduct is going to chase someone off the project, that doesn't mean you should conceal the misconduct and unblock the sockpuppet as an "inappropriate block" (ahem, Jimbo).

Posted by: Giggy

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?

Posted by: wikiwhistle

They didn't deny it as far as I know, particularly- they just said it was two years ago, and counterbalanced by her work for the project since.

Posted by: Shalom

Good point, Wikiwhistle. I went and read the ANI discussion (archive 290), and you're right. I forgot how old the alleged activity was. I certainly would not advocate desysopping for it, and I retract my statement above where I said that I would. If SlimVirgin's adminship is ever reviewed for other reasons, I would consider the sockpuppet issue an aggravating factor, but by itself it doesn't amount to much. I hope that clears up my opinion. Sweet Blue Water is not in the same category as other known sockpuppets of admins. One double-vote on an FAC is not as bad as multiple double votes on DRVs, for example. As the Talmud says, "dai lechakima bevirmiza": a hint suffices for the wise person.

Posted by: Docknell

It’s more likely that FT2 will just have to lump it. He will have to keep away from all his agenda hobbies. Sure, arbcom will probably not punish FT2 formally even with the bestiality fringe promotion and bullying. But the situation shows such a high level of agenda-pushing corruption.

If they keep admins such as FT2 who have been shown to have serious and highly embarrassing agenda pushing and dishonesty building problems, and ban/punish misinformation cleaning editors who fall prey to bullying and get a little uncivil as a result, then the whole rotten picture just gets more obvious.

I have no doubt that there are many well meaning editors and admins who find the likes of FT2 utterly abhorrent. With FT2 being kept on, it’s likely that only FT2’s main hobbies will be under scrutiny. Most of FT2’s policy page updates seem to be pushing for a demotion of verifiability, and an increase in sockpuppet paranoia promotion. And with his long history of support for COI pseudoscience editors, alleged-sock conflations, and rambling sociopathic tweakfests, it looks like any prior cred has just bitten the dust. Most of the articles he worked on in any depth have demonstrated a persistent obsession to push for his vested and sexual interests. Its looking more and more like FT2 has become a rather embarrassing “banner for the pervs” if you’ll excuse the pun.

Posted by: Shalom

Would you cut it out? There's a line when it comes to accusing Wikipedians of malfeasance, and you've crossed it in my opinion.

Posted by: Docknell

Please be specific, or are you just trying to shut me up in general?

Posted by: Moulton

Perhaps you will find the elusive line illustrated http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/error.html.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Docknell seems spot-on to me. People do commit malfeasance, Shalom. No one disputes that; people are blocked or banned all the time for it. Are they not "Wikipedians?" Indeed, Peter Damian was a "Wikipedian" as well, of several years' standing: he was blocked indefinitely due to a claim of malfeasance, specifically that he maligned FT2 by alleging that he supported bestiality.

Have you ever been indefinitely blocked, Shalom? I was, just the other day, in a set-up arranged by…FT2. For reporting administrative sockpuppetry, in a case where the administrator used the, erm, "close friends using the same computer" defense. Now it turns out that FT2 1) is a sockpuppeteer 2) who has "close friends using the same computer."

It's a little late, then, for you to fret about Wikipedians being accused of malfeasance.

Posted by: Proabivouac

I appreciate your confidences, however I might not be widely accepted as neutral, given that FT2 blocked me for a week, and then set me up for an indef (both quickly overturned, but still.) That said, I'm fairly confident that TBP = FT2; the only reason I wouldn't say I'm completely certain is that I haven't spent enough time with the evidence, perhaps there are times they'll stop sounding so much like one another, and what I have looked at, the discussion on Talk:NLP, is an aberration. Doubt it, though.

Posted by: Docknell

Of course FT2 is working really hard to distract from this and dispel all the negadividy that would prevent a properly neurolinguistically programmed individual from accepting those of all “creative” sexual orientations. It’s a matter of trust and credibility. “No your honour, the dog made advances to my leg first and I consented”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption&diff=prev&oldid=211185060

And in the process, FT2 is still working hard to keep at bay the nasty negative editors who point an accusing finger at those who promote the perfectly “broadminded” idea of “loving” children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=prev&oldid=211084656

What sterling work, how about some sort of promotion? That would really be the icing on the cake.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Wasn't it just an excuse for using the "malfeasance" meme for amusement value, from Shalom? That's how I interpreted it.

Posted by: Moulton

The problem is, using the term 'malfeasance' in a jocular, jesting, or joshing manner could be perceived as an instance of malfeasance, if one is doing so to evade a genuine duty of responsibility.

Posted by: Peter Damian

That’s interesting. This

http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381.pdf?ck=nck

suggests that the edit war between Dr Mercer and Dr Becker-Weidmann has a parallel in the academic world (forgive me if I am not up to scratch on the actual details).

The difference is that in the academic world the dispute is normally settled by reference to content, and rarely (given the sort of types who frequent the academic world) by reference to behaviour. In the Wiki world, it is the other way round. It is not about truth, verifiability, accuracy, evidence or whatever. It is simply who plays, or games, the rules of WP:CIVIL best. Truly bizarre.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Seemed earnest enough to me. We want to maintain collegiality. Okay, that's a worthy goal. What I tried to point out is that whatever collegiality may or may not have once been present was gone the moment the blocks started going around (and it seems Damian wasn't the first.)

I think it should be in some kind of arbitration, actually - say, a fair and impartial WikiJury? Instead of a set-up backed by blocks to silence whistleblowers, false charges of "smear campaigns," and misuse of oversight aimed at covering up the truth. What do average Wikipedia contributors in good standing think about all this? That's exactly the question that our oversighter didn't want answered, at a time when it would have been very relevant, the ArbCom elections.

If someone mentions this TBP sockpuppet on WP, will they be banned? Some people think so, and with good reason. We're all supposed to move along and pretend we don't know that a sitting arbitrator has abusively socked to promote, what is it they call it now, "loving both?", and to aggressively defend a very dubious therapeutic practice in which he has - so it appears - a direct commercial interest?

Posted by: tarantino

There is apparently more that's been scrubbed from FT2's history than the 2 oversighted edits that Peter brought to our attention. http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/User:FT2 (Providing social transparency to Wikipedia), provides a link to http://wikidashboard.parc.com/dashboard/detail?page=5205068&user=FT2&e=20060101&l=20080516 that are no longer available to mere editors. The links don't provide the page title, only the edit number, so I'm unable to tell if they were from XFDs, admin deletions or oversights. There's plenty of provocative edit summaries though. Here's a small sample -

Are there any admins here who can confirm the method of deletion for these edits? PM me if you don't feel like attaching an answer to your WR account name.

I've archived a copy of the list http://boxstr.com/files/2023459_abums/detail_mod.html modifying the links to point directly to WP, instead of going through wikidashboard.

Posted by: Docknell

It looks pretty clear that DPeterson(and possible friends) has got into trouble by outing FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive97#Administrator_FT2_Talk_abuse_of_status

Here is further evidence of FT2’s probable reasons for being active on the Attachment Therapy article. Peterson (Weidman?) was quite anti-pseudoscience and anti-NLP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Further_evidence_of_FT2_abusing_admin_priv.3F

It also seems that Fainites started of in the Attachment Therapy article simply to make sure NLP was not associated with the pseudoscientific elements of the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attachment_therapy/Archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=114379868

Of course this is just more evidence of the sort of pattern that appears around a lot of fringe pushers and abusive admins.

Posted by: Peter Damian

What? None of these are on my list of FT2's edits at all. Can you confirm whether the date that appears is the date of the oversight, or the date of the edit itself? I assume the latter.

[edit] OK mystery solved. These are not oversighted edits. They are from a subpage in FT2's user space, which he has deleted. Thus the record of the edit summaries remains, but because Wikipedia remembers versions of a page (rather than diffs, which it constructs from the 'diff' between versions), and because the whole page has disappeared, there is no record in the database.

The page must have been from his own user space, because it was deleted before he had oversight or admin privileges (it seems to have been deleted in Jan 2007, when he first ran for admin, yes?).

The edits are all to do with animal pornography, which he seems to have a comprehensive knowledge of, and which was no doubt acquired for research purposes.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Down to brass tacks:

Why is Wikipedia being run by a COI-afflicted disciple of Neurolinguistic programming - a professional crank - who's used WP to promote bestiality?

Why was this individual promoted to the top of the heirarchy?

Why was evidence which might have - and should have - nipped his ArbCom candidacy in the bud suppressed?

Why was the whistleblower blocked indefinitely?

I want answers, but all I've heard is silence.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Just to make it completely clear, my position is that no respectable publication would be associated with this kind of thing.

Posted by: Moulton

I can empathize with your frustration.

Posted by: guy

Because Daniel Brandt thought that his own interests would be better served by having FT2 heading ArbCom rather than Newyorkbrad.

Posted by: Moulton

Damn, it's hard to sort out unintended consequences from intended ones. I keep dropping the ball when it comes to accurately adducing the http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html in these long-running soap operas.

Posted by: tarantino

They are not necessarily from a user subpage. The dates are when the edits were made. When you look through his history you can see the holes. Examining them a little more closely, the text inside /* */ is the title of the page section edited, and the text after is a manually added summary which he rarely did at the time. http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Zoophilia are similarly constructed. I'll have to search for the section titles to see if any remain.

The numbers after oldid and prev in WP urls are page versions, and every single edit on WP can be referenced by just using the oldid field. The page title in the url is not even needed and seems to be ignored. With a manually constructed url, you can compare any two diffs in the database and insert any title you want. The comedy potential in doing this is large, and perhaps should be the subject of a WR contest. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drama_central&diff=298606&oldid=211451045 .

FT2 first ran for admin in June 2006.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Are you sure?

http://wikidashboard.parc.com/dashboard/detail?page=5205068&user=FT2&e=20060101&l=20080516

This URL has a page number (5205068), just as do all the other pages he edited shown here

http://wikidashboard.parc.com/w/index.php?title=User:FT2#

So my logic is as follows:

1. The missing edits are all from one page
2. For all the versions to be missing, the page must have been deleted.
3. Only pages in user space can be deleted if you aren't admin (which he wasn't until 2007)

------------------------------------------
[edit] Interesting that the contents of /* */ are section headings. Sorting these alphabetically, it looks like an article (in preparation, if I am correct) with the following sections:

Abuse
Abusive films
Add "activism" section
Animal pornography and culture
Animal pornography not including humans
Animal sexuality
Background on sexual aspects
Cartoon and other representations
Erotic stories
Faked activity
Features of animal pornography
History of animal pornography
Human-animal sexual activity
Images
Legal issues
Legality of sale, transportation and ownership
List of relevant laws
Major producers of animal pornography
Modern times
Notable aspects in animal pornography
OLD ZOO POSTS
Pre-modern times
Production and distribution
References
See also
Textual representations

I'm guessing 'See also' and 'references' came at the end. Wonder what the order would be.

Posted by: tarantino

Yes, that makes sense. In another list of http://wikidashboard.parc.com/dashboard/detail?page=34512&user=FT2&e=20060101&l=20080517, all the versions seem to be from the Zoophilia article.

The page was probably deleted though sometime after the date of the database dump which wikidashboard is using. I think it's from August 2007, the same one that wikiscanner uses.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Yes but one of his admin mates could always have done it, to help him out.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons, I can confirm that the article in question was entirely in a userspace sandbox and the sandbox itself was (legitimately) deleted as it only had one editor. Having read the (deleted and never posted to mainspace) article in question, while it's on a fairly unpleasant subject, it's undoubtedly a legitimate, referenced academic article. That said, I can see why he didn't post it into mainspace, and (while I dislike him for other reasons), I think he's to be commended for not posting it after putting so much effort into it.

Not that any of you are going to take any notice of me...

Posted by: wikiwhistle

The struggle between the dictates of one obsession and another?

Posted by: Eva Destruction

I prefer to think "realised after he'd written it that it wasn't appropriate". I know I sound like a broken record on this one but just because someone writes an article on something doesn't have to mean they personally support it...

Posted by: Proabivouac

What obvious reasons?

Posted by: Peter Damian

I'm not tempted to take much notice. Why is it a 'legitimate' article? What makes it legitimate, i.e. legal? What makes it referenced? Not much of anything else FT2 has been written is referenced (except to pornographic websites - this is not what we call referencing).

Why is he to be commended? Normally if you put a great deal of work into something, you publish it. Why didn't he publish it?



No of course it doesn't. Unless they say or imply they support it.

And as PB says, what are the obvious reasons for not disclosing the content? That makes no sense.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Why all this concern to ensure FT2 looks perfect, to the extent of others oversighting his posts? If there isn't something to hide, why hide it?

I mean we all make mistakes or sometimes do things that later don't appear politically correct. And yes other members of the cabal's posts are oversighted sometimes, aren't they?

But it seems particuarly so in this case. But then we are perhaps viewing the actions or requests of an intensely introspective/secretive personality.

Because he wanted it gone- because it reflects badly on him or could be construed as doing so. Ok I will tell you one that was in my userspace, after I delete it lol

Ok it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merkinsmum/Accusations_of_paedophilia_against_Muhammad but as you can see if it hasn't gone yet, the tone was quite constructive and NPOV. But I might not want something with that title if I was on/running for ArbCom.

Posted by: guy

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

Posted by: Proabivouac

The typical rationale behind this - and a fairly good one - is that the deleted material contained some kind of libelous charge or personal information. If this was a just well-referenced article with a neutral and clinical tone, that wouldn't apply. It was released under GFDL, and like any other article could conceivably be undeleted at any time. The only basis for complaint that I can see is, well, it was in FT2's userspace. But so what? All of this begs the question, if it doesn't reflect poorly upon FT2, then why was it deleted, and what would be the problem with anyone looking at it? Correspondingly, the only way that revealing the content could be construed as a way of damaging FT2 is if there is something not quite right about it.

Nevertheless, Eva Destruction, thank you for providing the background on this.

Posted by: tarantino

Regardless of what one thinks of FT2, he has some good ideas. He's the one who came up with idea and provided sample code for those http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Footnotes&diff=prev&oldid=87158#Footnote.2Freferences_solution that are widely in use, and he wrote the http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcomers_guide_to_installing_on_Windows&diff=86391&oldid=86390 over Christmas in 2004.

My favorite though that I've seen so far is, you find some out of the way project, say the Cornish Wiktionary, and you can http://kw.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=FT2&month=&year= while running for arbcom, away from the prying eyes of your home wiki. His user subpages there are the most http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/WA/TablesWikipediaKW.htm of the whole wiki, with nearly a 1000 edits among them.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

oh, anything about horses, golden retrievers etc?

Posted by: tarantino

The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=210302485, Lovingboth, is easily traceable to a fairly prominent member of London's LGBT community. He's http://lovingboth.livejournal.com/profile 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FT2&diff=93630810&oldid=93572655#Major_article_edits. He brags
. Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account.

Posted by: Proabivouac

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

Seconded, Tarantino.

Posted by: Alex

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

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...

Posted by: 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'.

Posted by: guy

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.

Posted by: thekohser

Ah, yes... Alison Wheeler. I http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15501 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.

Posted by: guy

Not a mistake you're likely to repeat.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

Just spotted

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

Posted by: Alex

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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:Long_term_abuse/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.

Posted by: Docknell

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=User_talk:AlanBarnet&diff=prev&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.

Posted by: 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=&showtopic=20105&view=findpost&p=125322

Originally posted here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20105&view=findpost&p=125360

Posted by: 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=User:FT2&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=Kenneth_Pinyan&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=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=62106369&oldid=62100396 revert (changes 'animal abuse' link to 'moral panic').
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=60862670&oldid=60854811 revert (details of animal pornography videos)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=60226726&oldid=60185130 (citation needed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=56979429&oldid=56979354 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=56979354&oldid=56963824 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=54183311&oldid=53650262 adds moral panic link (see above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=53650262&oldid=53328053 adds source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Pinyan&diff=53285054&oldid=50841115 adds source

Shortly afterwards the authorship claim was moved to a subpage here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FT2&diff=94414905&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?

Posted by: 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=User:TBP&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=User:TBP&diff=236188961&oldid=236183153

commenting on FT2's talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=236189082&oldid=236183689 FT2

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?

Posted by: Peter Damian

I have assembled all the evidence about the TBP account here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/TBP

The evidence is overwhelming that they are operated by one and the same individual, and therefore that FT2's recent claim (see his talk page) that TBP was a co-editor is false, indeed a 'conscious falsehood', sometimes known as a 'lie'.

To those who say that I spend too much time on FT2 and I should drop it, I reply

1. I don't spend much time at all on FT2.

2. That is not an argument for or against TBP being a sock

3. I only spend time on FT2 when he is engaged on some egregious lie or deception, as this one clearly is. He spent a long time avoiding the question of whether he operated the TBP account. As it is now convenient for him to deny it (given his long and continuing lectures about the immorality of abusive socking regarding the Geogre case) he is denying it.

4. In addition, it is also convenient for him to deny it in order to justify my one-month block for complaining about this affair.

5. If FT2 apologises or if some other remedial action is taken - such as clarifying when socking is OK, whether there is a time limitation or not - then I will shut up again.

To those who say that this is quixotic and that the Wikipedia administration is corrupt enough to let it pass, I reply, let us see if the administration can act in a moral and upstanding way. Occasionally it can. I have discussed this with at least one arbitrator, and there is an indication that it is being taken seriously.

Posted by: sbrown

I cant imagine a better use for this site than to try to do something about FT2.

Posted by: Moulton

Well, if you expect me to jump up and write a song parody about him, you can jesfugiddabouddit.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Still dragging on

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Vandenberg&diff=prev&oldid=318228326

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions&diff=prev&oldid=318256195

Posted by: Appleby

An admin has a sock and denies it till he's blue in the face despite conclusive evidence. ArbCom is reluctant to do anything about it.

That's news?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Thatcher: official sockpuppeting now OK, official lying ("perjury trap") now OK.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Mmph. If you ask me, Thatcher and Hochman are both twats.
Does one twat cancel out another twat? Seems so....

Posted by: Lar

I disagree about Thatcher as I think he tries very hard to do the right thing and is often a voice of reason. Further he understands many of the issues that so many wkipedians remain blind to. Having him on the audit committee was goodness.

YMMV.

Posted by: privatemusings

what do you think about the whole FT2 maybe running another account, and fibbing about it, Lar? - I've been a bit busy, but will probably reply at Thatcher's talk page next week sometime trying to explain why I think it's a good thing to look into properly, and resolve one way or the other.

If, on balance, the socking is likely I think it would be best for FT to stand down from being a 'functionary' (fwiw I think I felt at the time of the orange marlin broo ha ha that it would be best for FT to stand down from all positions, not just arbcom)

I vaguely recall having a chat with Thatcher about Essjay before the news hit the mainstream press, and vaguely recall Thatcher not seeing a problem with essjay's behaviour (was it thatcher who gave the 'if anything this has made you more cool' quote? - sincere apologies if this is an inaccurate recollection of a muddled mind - but it is what I remember!).

more later prolly........

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Including "user"?

Posted by: privatemusings

ah come on... there's better puns on 'positions' than that! (no-one is to mention 'doggie style' - that would be inappropriate.)

Posted by: No one of consequence

Remember that the Essjay business was revealed one piece of information at a time. When it was first revealed that he had pretended for years to be a northeastern theology professor, sending Daniel Brandt on a wild goose chase as detailed here, I thought it was a terrific piece of misdirection. But then it turned out he lied to the reporter, which is not so cool. Finally someone brought up a few incidents where Essjay had used his mock credentials to influence AfDs and even write a letter to someone in real life, which was unacceptable. Don't make the mistake of thinking that something I wrote early in stage 1 of the reveal reflects my final opinion when all was said and done.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

You mean you thought that misdirecting Brandt was "terrific". No doubt by any means necessary, right?

But the probability that Essjay "pretended for years" to be a theology professor just to bamboozle Brandt is zero.

Not only that, but the real irony is that of all the people in the world, Brandt was the only one who cared enough to check into the offered credentials. The rest of you jokers were taken in, hook, line and 30 pounds of lead.

As they say, ignorance is bliss! Mainlined, right to the brain stem. Or something like that.

So your celebration of the "misdirection" makes me question your post hoc rationalizations here.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

What is the word or saying in Italian for this ... it is not "one hand washes the other" it is something else.

I mean, where we all do something slightly dodgy, and we all allow everyone else to do something dodgy, because knowing that everyone else is doing something dodgy means that they cannot accuse us of being dodgy.

Elsewhere, we all witness the good and great defend David Shankbone's sockpuppetry saying it was acceptable, or not against the rules; whereas many of us here will have had some twat contrive an bogus accusation and some admin (or above) "punish" us yet again, like a méchant child, for not even socking (i.e. using multiple accounts at the same time) but just having started a new account.

It is like an ambiguity that is left open in order to used and exploited at a later point in time.

It is like any other cult setting the bar of "acceptable" behavior so high that everyone is a sinner and hence, exploitable by the leadership.


So what if FT2 has or has not and why should we care? It is a game!

Really we should just be giving points over how well and how stylishly it is played ... nor pretending to be linesmen or referees and expecting people to play by rules writ in sifting sands.

Do we have some dissonance in different people's understand and expectations of "the law" here, e.g. the difference between a prescriptive legal system (where you can only do what is specifically prescribed, like the German system) and other systems where you are perfectly entitled to do whatever you can get away with beyond what is specifically forbidden?

Posted by: privatemusings

very briefly, 'cos this is 'mists of time' irrelevant in many ways - you (thatch) kind of seemed to me to feel that it was ok for essjay to lie to the newyorker about his credentials because you didn't feel he was actually using them ["to bolster Wikipedia's credibility"] - just lying about them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=107903387#Ethics_etc.... (can't seem to make that link work - it has a . at the end of it, and it keeps disappearing - you get the idea though :-)

I really must strongly emphasise that in my view you're an important part of wikipedia accountability (actually a ridiculously important part - which may be part of the problem!) - and sincere appreciation for that from this direction :-) - however I do feel that you have a mild inertia in matters which relate to the type of vested contributor who does a lot of work, prolly both good and bad (views on where FT fits into that spectrum likely differ) - I think a high standard of ethical behaviour across the board is really important for keeping a rather rickety ship afloat over at wikipedia, and resolution (ideally speedy!) of stuff like this would also be goodness :-)

Posted by: Wikicrusher2

In relation to the TBP thing, I have a question. Has FT2 ever explained why User:TBP took credit for his work, even though he is not a sockpuppet? Has he even attempted to explain what relationship he has to TBP at all?

It is my opinion that FT2 should be de-sysopped for his behavior in relation to other editors, the NLP and Zoophilia articles, and for his refusal to offer a clear, full explanation (minus the semantics) of what he has to do with User:TBP. He also should not have the permissions of a "functionary", which apparently still remain after one is no longer an ArbComm member.

Posted by: No one of consequence

It's not 2007.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Thatcher, could you help me with the logic you are using here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thatcher&oldid=320698827#Tip .

1. You seem to accept the sockpuppeting took place, but argue that it was trivial and too long ago to have mattered. This ignores the fact that FT2 was using the TBP account to disguise a potential conflict of interest (TBP admits to having trained in NLP with the 'masters', and to practising it).

2. You argue that because this took place before FT2 was elected to a position requiring great trust, this is OK. Can you run me through that one again? How would this apply in the case of someone being elected as, say, Church treasurer?

3. You argue that FT2 was 'trapped' into lying about the abusive account. Can you run me through that one also? Is it that, because the original offence was not serious, then lying about it is not serious? But then ask yourself why FT2 was lying about it. Presumably because others would take a different view from you, and would regard it as serious? Why should your view count?

Posted by: Random832

Also - your "perjury trap" argument seems to presuppose that it is in fact not an offense.

And is it not possible that the people who "shrugged and forgot about" did so because they didn't believe it to be true because FT2 refused to admit it, rather than because they considered it not to have been a big deal if it was true?

Posted by: No one of consequence

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.

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.

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? 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? Particularly on wikipedia where some people hold grudges for a really long time and where an editor's ability to recover from embarrassment depends more on which friends and enemies they've made rather than the nature of the offense. So, yes, I'm willing to forgive someone for a lack of candor about an embarrassing episode in their past, so long as they aren't continuing to engage in conduct that would be embarrassing if revealed. Others may differ, that's what RFC is for.

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.

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. There are editors who shout "admin abuse" on AN/I every other day, even if they are right one time out of ten, they don't have the credibility to make anything useful happen. In this particular case I don't believe the facts, as far as I know them today, support a call to action, nor is such a call likely to be heeded. I could be wrong--the proposition has never been tested, outside of Peter Damian's rather childish use of sockpuppets to place sockpuppet tags on TBP's and FT2's user pages. You also have no idea what other issues, if any, I may be currently involved in, that make 3-1/2 year old sockpuppetry even less worth my limited time than it already is.

Finally, if I am a "ridiculously important" part of Wikipedia accountability, this is a role I never asked for or consciously sought, and I have no standards to live up to and no conscience to follow other than my own.

Posted by: Random832

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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?




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




(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.



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?



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

Posted by: No one of consequence

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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

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

Methinks a little too carefully. What about that http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26962 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?

Posted by: No one of consequence

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?)

Posted by: 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=User_talk:Thatcher&oldid=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.

Posted by: Random832

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

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."


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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.




http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Peter+Damian&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

Posted by: Random832

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Lar

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.

Posted by: Happy drinker

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.



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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Wikipaedophilia#Block_of_Phdarts_and_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



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