An FT2 Sockpuppet?, It quacks like a duck Options

[tarantino]

Between 17 October 2005 and 16 May 2006 the sockpuppet TBP made 185 edits, 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 Kenneth Pinyan, AKA Mr Hands, a man notable for dying in an unusual way.

Started the article on Hani Miletski, a pioneer in the study of beastiality.

Started the article on Emotion in animals.

Edited the article Edgeplay. Later, FT2 consulted current persona non grata Taxwoman on the subject.

Edit warred on Neuro-linguistic programming and sparred with HeadleyDown on Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming.

HeadleyDown. I trained in NLP under John Seymour and Joseph O'Connor, the first two major UK trainers, in NLP, in 1990. I worked on NLP training courses 1991 - 1997. I trained for what is called the "Master Practitioner" under Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier in 1998, in Stanta Cruz, where NLP all began. And I had to look up what an engram was, because despite nearly 10 years training under several world-class NLP trainers, I had never heard the term or seen that viewpoint. Core NLP is not concerned with the biological mechanism of memory, but how it subjectively, functionally, works and can be worked with. This conflicts disturbingly with the above comment as to what is "core NLP". TBP 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This eventually lead to FT2 filing Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming. FT2 actually brings up and dismisses the sock's involvement.

One editor, User:TBP, was explicitly self-identified as a sock puppet on his talk page before becoming involved in this article Oct 17 DIFF. He played no part in the vote or its discussion, and only a minor role in the talk page debate, mostly between Oct 27-29.

TBP quits editing 31 days before FT2's failed self-nomination for adminship. For his second, successful candidacy, he was nominated by jossi.

[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...

[Proabivouac]

While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons…

What obvious reasons?

[guy]

While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons?Ǫ

What obvious reasons?

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

[Proabivouac]

While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons…

What obvious reasons?

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

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.