Catherine Sanderson is not a sockpuppet of me!, Another episode of sockpuppet paranoia by Sciencewatcher and JFW Options

[Angela Kennedy]

Someone called Catherine Sanderson has been accused and kangaroo judged to be a sockpuppet of me (or meatpuppet). This is at least the second time accusations like this have been flung at me and other people by 'Sciencemaster'.

But the paranoia is buzzing there now on the Simon Wessely talkpage and on this user's page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Catherine_Sanderson

If anyone is able to show I'm not her I'd be grateful.

I try and keep away from Wikipedia except to see how certain editors and admins are misrepresenting certain things.

Having this level of paranoia and accusation flung at you when you're not even part of Wikipedia is actually creepier the longer I'm away from it.

In other news - Guy Chapman was recently slagging me off AGAIN with a couple of anons on the Bad Science forum for the work I'm doing (nothing to do with Wikipedia). I just can't get that dude out of my life!

But- it should be noted - this also does come at a time when I am officially and publicly expressing concern about an article in the Lancet in terms of patient safety, and calling for a retraction of that paper.

It feels like I've travelled back in time to 2008!

[Abd]

Following the discussion at User talk:Catherine Sanderson

The account was established 17:24, 11 May 2011. It appears that Catherine lost her password, because assistance is requested in edits from Special:Contributions/86.154.117.80. We may reasonably, from this, assume that the IP is that of Catherine Sanderson. In this edit, the IP appears to admit to being a banned editor. JamesBWatson points out that there are other possible interpretations, but given the simple one, I'd say that the account of Catherine Sanderson is toast, given either (1) it's Angela Kennedy or (2) it's a friend or close acquaintance, acting to pursue the same agenda or (3) it's terminally stupid.

And, Angela, why are you causing us to waste time looking at this here? You may well have been wronged, originally, I have utterly no opinion about that other than to confirm that It Happens, but ... this is not the way to fix it.

My sock EnergyNeutral was just checkusered, with no apparent request, by an arbitrator, and I'm not making a fuss about whatever might be improper about that, I'm just documenting the response, which reveals certain things, as will be shown in later analysis. No big surprises, to be sure.

This case is boring, sock was identified because sock had self-connected with the IP through obvious behavior and sock had, as IP, admitted being banned. The case reveals nothing but the practice of blocking accounts which are admitted socks of blocked or banned users. Q.E.D.

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor. I don't see any seriously negative comment about Angela Kennedy in the discussion on Catherine Sanderson's talk page. "Angela Kennedy" is really a red herring here, there is no specific evidence that this is Angela Kennedy, to my knowledge. The only way that this would be relevant to Angela Kennedy is if the latter tries to return to Wikipedia and is accused of socking as Catherine Sanderson. (That might also relate to other possible socks mentioned.)

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 5th June 2011, 10:01pm

[Somey]

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor.

You mean someone else is pretending to be Angela Kennedy using the name "Catherine Sanderson," as in the classic double-bind sock-proxy maneuver? Isn't it vastly more likely that there's a real, separate person named Catherine Sanderson who just happens to also not be so fond of this Simon Wessely dude? And is living in England in a similar way?

For the record, the closest thing we have here on WR, poster-wise, to 86.154.117.80 is Giano. Second-closest is an account named "lolwut," whom we had to suspend for making highly inappropriate comments about... well, let's not go into that right now. Ms. Kennedy's IPs aren't totally far-off, but I suspect that's because she's in the UK and it's a common range there.

I'm not saying it's impossible or even all that unlikely, but having the first of the four numbers match occasionally is far from conclusive evidence of multiple-account abuse.

So it looks like a "bad block" to me, but that's true of most of their blocks, I suppose.

[Abd]

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor.

You mean someone else is pretending to be Angela Kennedy using the name "Catherine Sanderson," as in the classic double-bind sock-proxy maneuver?

Given the edits of the IP, most likely, it would be "someone else" who is also a banned editor. Catherine Sanderson did not pretend to be Angela Kennedy, explicitly.

My real point here is that Angela Kennedy wasn't libeled in this sequence. So what if Catherine Sanderson is not Kennedy? What the record showed was sufficient for blocking, under common Wikipedia standards.

Yeah, those are abusive,but so is a whole lot else. This setup was "normal abuse," and it's "abuse" because Wikipedia does ban based on POV, which demolishes neutrality.

[Angela Kennedy]

I should be explicit about one possibility. Catherine Sanderson is not Angela Kennedy -- i.e., Angela is telling the truth above, but is someone else pretending to be her -- or is another banned editor.

You mean someone else is pretending to be Angela Kennedy using the name "Catherine Sanderson," as in the classic double-bind sock-proxy maneuver?

Given the edits of the IP, most likely, it would be "someone else" who is also a banned editor. Catherine Sanderson did not pretend to be Angela Kennedy, explicitly.

My real point here is that Angela Kennedy wasn't libeled in this sequence. So what if Catherine Sanderson is not Kennedy? What the record showed was sufficient for blocking, under common Wikipedia standards.

Yeah, those are abusive,but so is a whole lot else. This setup was "normal abuse," and it's "abuse" because Wikipedia does ban based on POV, which demolishes neutrality.

I am being libelled, because I'm being accused of sockpuppetting and desperately trying to get back into that cesspool, when I am actually NOT some wikipedia obsessor trying to get back in. I'm actually an academic working on something important- who made the mistake initially of believing wikipedia was an arena where correctin of misinformation could be done. I didn't realise it was the cesspool it is at the time. But now- as someone who is critical of wikipedia as an academic, as someone who is critical of other issues as both an advocate for her daughter AND academically, getting accused of socking like this is in danger of discrediting my good name!

Jeez abd, we don't all LOVE wikipedia and want to get back into their bed! I have actually have real world consequences upon me as a result of this shit.

Maybe you should read my history there as well.

[Abd]

I am being libelled, because I'm being accused of sockpuppetting and desperately trying to get back into that cesspool, when I am actually NOT some wikipedia obsessor trying to get back in.

But that's how they think, they believe they are the center of the universe and that everyone else wants to be there. Actually, they are a low place in a muddy area and polluted area.

I'm actually an academic working on something important- who made the mistake initially of believing wikipedia was an arena where correctin of misinformation could be done.

The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even experts. Oops! Not anyone. Anyone with a point of view is to be excluded, only experts with no point of view are welcome. Which is an oxymoron. Experts always have a point of view, though there are some who are also capable of objectivity; still, to non-experts, even these can seem to have a point of view to "push." Like, what they know!

I didn't realise it was the cesspool it is at the time. But now- as someone who is critical of wikipedia as an academic, as someone who is critical of other issues as both an advocate for her daughter AND academically, getting accused of socking like this is in danger of discrediting my good name!

Nah.

Look, Angela, this incident didn't result in charges against you of socking. Catherine Sanderson was blocked for her own behavior. There is some suspicion expressed, that's true, but the conclusion was that it didn't matter if CS was AK or not. No SSP report was filed, and CS has not been tagged as a suspected sock puppet of AK, at least not yet.

This is what CS wrote (as her IP) that caused strong suspicion that she was you:

I was banned from editing any pages of Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales, in October 2007, following a kangaroo court on the Admin Discussion pages (I keep Mr Wales' email framed in the downstairs cloakroom). My crimes were "Wiki lawyering" and using my own discussion page for alleged "Soapboxing". Even the suitability of my User name was discussed by some Admins, as it matched a website of the same name.

We are led inexorably to a conclusion: CS is you, or CS is impersonating you, other possible explanations are weak and unlikely. In either case, they will think, blocking CS is appropriate.

If CS is not you, Angela, then you can be glad they blocked her!

Jeez abd, we don't all LOVE wikipedia and want to get back into their bed! I have actually have real world consequences upon me as a result of this shit.

Maybe you should read my history there as well.

Why? Angela, the story is boring, it's so common.

You, and hundreds or thousands of cases like you, demonstrate Wikipedia's lack of commitment to true consensus, which would require careful deliberative process, and which is essential to neutrality. "POV-pushing" is an essential part of that process. But because WP did not develop methods of engaging in the conversations that would produce true consensus, and because it is actually averse to such -- they can be long! -- POV-pushing is considered Bad, resulting in what I called, in an essay about to be deleted, "MPOV-pushing," majority point of view pushing, where minority opinions -- or what are thought to be by a majority of the core cabal to be minority opinions -- are rejected and excluded.

It's a result of the election method used for administrators and arbitrators, in fact, it will lead to this kind of situation, like clockwork. The power structure does not represent minorities, at all.

By the way, you were, on the face of it, blocked for making legal threats. Technically, this block should have been lifted if you retracted the threats. Did you ever do that? (Making legal threats on Wikipedia, which includes statements like "I'll forward the information to my solicitor, can be expected to result in immediate block. My question would be: why did you do this? By all means, forward mails to your solicitor, and let your solicitor contact someone, or file a suit, but don't say a whisper of it on WP!) And then refuse to discuss it if asked.

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 6th June 2011, 3:05pm