FT2 and Paul Sinclair, FT2 is not the man in the photos Options

[Proabivouac]

Last night, I spoke by telephone at some length to Paul Sinclair of Sinclair Associates, the man pictured in this thread…
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20192&st=0

…and on Hivemind:
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#338

FT2 was certainly the "Paul Sinclair" of the failed Wikimedia UK, but this man is not FT2. Accordingly, I suggest tarpitting threads in which this innocent man is exposed and criticized in FT2's stead.

[wikiwhistle]

What about the WilkoBilko connection? :/ (confused face)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Wed 26th November 2008, 2:45am

[Proabivouac]

What about the WilkoBilko connection? :/ (confused face)

User:WilkoBilko is Paul Sinclair of Sinclair Associates. According to Mr. Sinclair, this was his only edit to Wikipedia.

[Milton Roe]

What about the WilkoBilko connection? :/ (confused face)

User:WilkoBilko is Paul Sinclair of Sinclair Associates. According to Mr. Sinclair, this was his only edit to Wikipedia.

A first and only edit, which was a PERFECTLY formatted insertion of a Sinclair paper reference into a WP text. Without a mistake. Do you believe that?

[Peter Damian]

What about the WilkoBilko connection? :/ (confused face)

User:WilkoBilko is Paul Sinclair of Sinclair Associates. According to Mr. Sinclair, this was his only edit to Wikipedia.

A first and only edit, which was a PERFECTLY formatted insertion of a Sinclair paper reference into a WP text. Without a mistake. Do you believe that?

Hmm. There is also the odd NLP connection, and then there is this very strange conversation.

I saw that you were interested in shedding some light on some of the ugliness around the wiki at the moment - I'm a bit sick of some of the secrecy, and general nastiness, and maybe you are too by now, and if so, feel free to remove this message or whatever, and I'll shuffle along. I've chatted privately with FT about this previously, and personally don't consider if big huge deal, rather it's just a small and possibly relevant question; Would it matter if this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=158506490 made some weeks previous to last years arbcom election, were in fact made by FT? - I've come to believe that it was, and that it represents a 'CoI' edit demonstrating poor judgment. I'd rather talk things through with you than contribute to any of the disastrous noticeboard and talk page threads around the place, if you're so inclined, then get in touch, otherwise I'll let it lie. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it is not a Joe job? It's too late for checkuser. Best not to bring it up at all if it can't be proven. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about the proof - but I feel fairly sure that it is the case - I don't think FT would deny it really, to be honest, and I'd always assumed that the arbcom, or some other admin.s were well aware of some sensible reasons for FT to use an alternate account for that edit, however I do think it's not really on. It's just one part of a bigger picture no doubt, mind. Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)available in IRC if you fancy...

Why don't you just ask him, via email? Jehochman Talk 01:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh we've talked about it privately at some length - FT's always been very willing to chat, which is great. FT has stated clearly to me that he feels he has never abused the wiki in any way - I'm just not sure that I can totally agree, in the context. Personally, I think this sort of thing makes a bit of a difference, and wondered what you thought..... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If that were him, the edit probably would not be against policy. COI editing is discouraged, not forbidden. Disruption is forbidden, and persistent violations of WP:NPOV are forbidden. If he's not being disruptive, and not violating neutrality, the edit is acceptable, though it might not be the highest standard of conduct. We need to tolerate that our fellows will make an occasional mistake. Jehochman Talk 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me, J'hoch.... I'll leave that one, and the election 07 stuff, there.... thanks for letting me steal some of your time - can I offer some wiki-gnoming as a thank you? Name an article if you like.... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also, why an account creation (which conceals IP address) rather than edit from an IP (which makes IP visible)? I can't figure that one out. There was only one edit. It's almost as though the person wanted to conceal their identity? But why do that?

[edit] And if PM really did talk to FT2, why phrase it in that way? He says FT2 "feels he has never abused the wiki in any way". That suggests FT2 agreed he made the edit, but 'feels' it was not inappropriate. If he hadn't made the edit, he would strenuously have denied the whole thing.

Or perhaps our friend Privatemusings is taking us for a ride or two?

[edit] On the other hand, if Milton had bothered to check the edit right through, he would have seen it wasn't perfectly formatted. It was changed a day later

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160677102

So is PM taking us for a ride?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 26th November 2008, 8:38pm

[dogbiscuit]

[edit] On the other hand, if Milton had bothered to check the edit right through, he would have seen it wasn't perfectly formatted. It was changed a day later

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160677102

So is PM taking us for a ride?

I'd say that the edit was feasible for a newcomer as it did not rely on any formatting, but simply inserted paragraphs of text with what would have been a full article edit. The formatting error was a single space in front of the newly broken paragraph.

So that could be a good first stab or an attempt to make an edit look innocent - (ah! where's Durova when you need her?)

Of course, we can now identify the edit as a WP:COI

[Milton Roe]

[edit] On the other hand, if Milton had bothered to check the edit right through, he would have seen it wasn't perfectly formatted. It was changed a day later

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160677102

So is PM taking us for a ride?

I'd say that the edit was feasible for a newcomer as it did not rely on any formatting, but simply inserted paragraphs of text with what would have been a full article edit. The formatting error was a single space in front of the newly broken paragraph.

So that could be a good first stab or an attempt to make an edit look innocent - (ah! where's Durova when you need her?)

Of course, we can now identify the edit as a WP:COI

I'm sorry, but THESE changes are the first and only edit of the WilkoBilko account. If it was lacking a space somewhere, it's still far too close to a perfect addition of a paragraph and reference for a newbie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160677102

Now, what are we being asked to believe here? There is a psychologist in Bath named "Paul" who is into BDSM, fetishes, and all the stuff FT2 writes about, who uses the WikoBilko address on his Sinclair Associates consult page. But FT2 of UK-WMF, who Kato assures us is Paul Sinclair of WMF, and who admits to making a single WilkoBilko edit to add a Paul Sinclair reference paper to a Wiki on Personality Traits, denies being the Paul Sinclair/bondage guy psychologist in Bath who uses WilkoBilko as an email address ALSO.

This is all one giant coincidence, one supposes. Oh yes, the Paul Sinclair psychologist in Bath who is into paraphilias is also a buisiness coach and advisor. And uses NLP. According to his webpage. And our FT2/WMF-Paul Sinclair (if they are the same) is famous for his NLP and paraphilia writing on WP, and has studied psychology, despite his claim not to be the Paul Sinclair of Bath who really practices his paraphilias as a lifestyle, as we know from his web personals advertising. Ummm hmmm. But our FT2 on WP has also advertised himself as a mediator, which is the "above ground" occupation of the Paul Sinclair of Sinclair Associates.

Oh yeah-- these two guys, both named Paul Sinclair, live within driving distance of each other (100 miles). That's probably why they both use the same email handle of WilkoBilko-- it's so handy.

Now, there's a lie here, or break in the assumptions here, somewhere. I'm willing to believe there are two Paul Sinclairs, one of whom is the fetish/FT2 guy, and the other of which is the WMF stolid older banker guy. But the WMF guy would then NOT be FT2-- rather, he'd simply have the same real life name, and none of the paraphilia interests. The WilkoBilko edit would then have been a deliberate copy by the WMF guy of email used by another psychologist of the SAME NAME who is a psychologist in Bath who is into paraphilias

The Bath Paul Sinclair bondage-psychologist is simply too much like the paraphilia FT2 editor we all know, not to be him. Whether he's UK-WMF's Paul Sinclair is only something I have on word of mouth. I don't believe it. WIth the WilkoBilko edit which is the only one the WMF Paul Sinclair admits to, I really don't believe it. What-- the guy wants to be on the WMF board of the UK, but has edited Wikipedia exactly ONCE? Say what? Using the handle of somebody who has FT2's interests and has the same name as he does?

You know what we really need? An checkuser of that WilkoBilko edit above. Odds that we'll get it?

[Peter Damian]

Hang on - and this is important - FT2 also uses the handle WilkoBilko? I thought that was the Corsham guy?

What-- the guy wants to be on the WMF board of the UK, but has edited Wikipedia exactly ONCE? Say what? Using the handle of somebody who has FT2's interests and has the same name as he does?

Now here you are confused. The guy who wants to be on the WMF board of the UK = the guy who calls himself 'Paul Sinclair', but we don't know whether that is the Corsham Paul.

So that could be a good first stab or an attempt to make an edit look innocent [...]

Now that is possible.

[privatemusings]

For what it's worth - here's my little write up of where we're at;

Firstly I should note that I may well have taken some for a ride - albeit clumsily and inadvertently - my post on Jehochman's page clearly could imply that FT had in some way confirmed to me that the wilkobilko edit was his - he did no such thing. I chatted (I think in gmail text chat - but maybe Skype text?) with FT for about 45mins / an hour on this one, and my recollection of his response to the direct question 'was that edit yours?' was along the lines of 'I have never abused the wiki' - this in the context of not being willing to discuss any aspects of identity - take that for whatever it's worth.....

I take Pro's post to mean that he's had a conversation with the PS who made the wilkobilko edit, and that he denied being 'FT2' - which may or may not speak to the fundamental truth of the matter - I'd rather keep my own counsel, and leave it there, to be honest......