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.

[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'.

Nov. 18th, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Just say no
I regularly have the question "How can we trust wikipedia when anyone can edit it? Shouldn't we bam it from our school / college / office / newsroom?" asked of me.

And my answer, every time, is a question: why do you trust *any* source of information? If you read a book, a newspaper article, a story on a website, hear something said to you by a friend or on a radio report, what makes it 'valid' to you, how do you choose to judge whether what you are reading or hearing is true, likely to be true, probably false, or even a definite lie.

We all make judgements about 'knowledge' every day. Sometimes we'll decide that "It is a nationally-known broadsheet newspaper" means we should implicitly just what is written there (though maybe not on April 1st; I still recall the island of Sans Seriffe!) or we'll recognise the particular author as someone who we've trusted in the past to get it right and we'll presume that they've got it right this time. Your friend may have 'been there and saw it themself' but you don't need me to remind you that from a different viewpoint the situation may have eben completely at odds with what your friend believed.

In every case - and that includes the content of Wikipedia - it is a matter of judgement and deciding for ourselves whether the sources quoted are resonable. Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia or reference work, is a secondary source; it takes information from a multitude of authors to present to you a summary, an overview of a topic for the interested person. It isn't the primary source of that data, indeed polict prevents original research being added to Wikipedia articles.

But the reverse is also true; Wikipedia is the ultimate in the 'Peer review' that we all seek in official journals; scientific, medical, social, geographical. The 'peers' of Wikipedia may be you and me, but will almost certainly include researchers, lecturers, students, and many others closely interested or connected with the subject.

And isn't that really more important? Each of us have our individual interests that have grown with us, whether it be transport or technology, socrates or sociology, we should take comfort in being 'amateurs'. People who have an interest in the subject for its own sake, something that we research because we want to know more. Then we add some of these newly-learnt facts to Wikipedia so that others may benefit.

And benefit is what it is all about.

So yes, 'anyone' may edit Wikipedia. But that 'anyone' is more likely to be someone who knows and cares for the quality of that information rather than someone seeking to mislead you. With over two million articles in the English language, and over eight million over more than 250 languages, there are remarkably few serious errors or examples of long-lasting vandalism.

Wikipedia; you learn, you edit, you extend the gift of knowledge.

[guy]

From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.

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.

[thekohser]

From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.

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.

Ah, yes... Alison Wheeler. I started a thread 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.

[guy]

One of the very, very rare times where I bring any value to this forum, without it being a self-serving pitch for ****.com. Must have been a mistake on my part.

Not a mistake you're likely to repeat.