An FT2 Sockpuppet?, It quacks like a duck Options

[Peter Damian]

I have assembled all the evidence about the TBP account here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_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.

[sbrown]

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

[Moulton]

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

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

[Peter Damian]

Still dragging on

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318228326

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318256195

[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?

[Peter Damian]

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

1) I'd like to hear a cogent explanation of why actions from 3 years ago that ended before he held any positions of trust should be held against him today (and zero points for raising the '''perjury trap, I'd like to hear something better''').
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=320041764#Tip

[EricBarbour]

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

[Lar]

Mmph. If you ask me, Thatcher and Hochman are both twats.

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.

[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........

[CharlotteWebb]

(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)

Including "user"?

[privatemusings]

Including "user"?

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

[No one of consequence]

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........

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.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Sun 18th October 2009, 12:19pm

[taiwopanfob]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: Sun 18th October 2009, 1:02pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

what do you think about the whole FT2 maybe running another account, and fibbing about it, Lar?

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?

[privatemusings]

.....But then it turned out he lied to the reporter, which is not so cool.....

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 (here ;-).... (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 :-)

This post has been edited by privatemusings: Sun 18th October 2009, 7:29pm

[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.

[No one of consequence]

.....But then it turned out he lied to the reporter, which is not so cool.....

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 (here ;-).... (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 :-)

It's not 2007.

[Peter Damian]

It's not 2007.

Thatcher, could you help me with the logic you are using here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=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?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 19th October 2009, 7:38am

[Random832]

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

A perjury trap is when you indict someone for lying to investigators about something that is not itself an offense. cf Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, for example. In this case, nearly everyone who has looked at Peter Damian's allegation that TBP was a sockpuppet of FT2 shrugged and forgot about it.

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?

[No one of consequence]

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

A perjury trap is when you indict someone for lying to investigators about something that is not itself an offense. cf Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, for example. In this case, nearly everyone who has looked at Peter Damian's allegation that TBP was a sockpuppet of FT2 shrugged and forgot about it.

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?

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.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Mon 19th October 2009, 6:53pm