An FT2 Sockpuppet?, It quacks like a duck Options

[wikiwhistle]

I take allegations against a sitting arbitrator very seriously, so out of fairness to him, I will not say more.

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

[D. Impersonator]

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.

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?

[tarantino]

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 think that's just TBP telling the IP to sign his comments, but he forgot to no wiki the 4 tildes.

[[User:58.178.135.242|58.178.135.242]] (please sign your comments by adding [[User:TBP|TBP]] 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC) at the end)

FT2 has also edited from the UK IP 81.86.166.33.

This post has been edited by tarantino: Thu 8th May 2008, 11:13pm

[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 think that's just TBP telling the IP to sign his comments, but he forgot to no wiki the 4 tildes.

[[User:58.178.135.242|58.178.135.242]] (please sign your comments by adding [[User:TBP|TBP]] 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC) at the end)

FT2 has also edited from the UK IP 81.86.166.33.

I see now. You are correct.

I take allegations against a sitting arbitrator very seriously, so out of fairness to him, I will not say more.

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

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).

[Giggy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210302485

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

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

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?

[wikiwhistle]

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?.

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.

[Shalom]

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?.

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.

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.

[Docknell]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Docknell: Fri 9th May 2008, 4:47am

[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.

[Docknell]

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.

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

[Moulton]

Perhaps you will find the elusive line illustrated here.

[Proabivouac]

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.

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.

[Proabivouac]

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.

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.

[Docknell]

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.

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=...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=...oldid=211084656

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

[wikiwhistle]

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.

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

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

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Fri 9th May 2008, 12:39pm

[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.

[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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 9th May 2008, 1:49pm

[Proabivouac]

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

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?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 9th May 2008, 7:06pm

[tarantino]

There is apparently more that's been scrubbed from FT2's history than the 2 oversighted edits that Peter brought to our attention. Wikidashboard (Providing social transparency to Wikipedia), provides a link to 212 edits 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 -

2006/06/04 02:55:25 /* Cartoon and other representations */
2006/06/04 02:50:25 /* Animal pornography not including humans $stub$ */
2006/06/04 02:47:00 /* Animal pornography and culture */

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 here modifying the links to point directly to WP, instead of going through wikidashboard.

[Docknell]

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.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...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:Req...g_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=...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.