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!

[Guido den Broeder]

I see that JWF is applying his usual tricks again. Everone that disagrees about the current, ridiculously biased article on Wessely, gets accused of being a sockpuppet of Angela, me, or one or two others, and then promptly banned.

Abd, be aware that the users reacting to this article are not always seasoned editors that know the rules and hazards of Wikipedia. Oftentimes they are victicms of Wessely or the Wessely school (if they live to tell the tale), found the article because it showed up at the top of their google search, and grew very angry when they saw this monster portrayed as a hero.

[Suzy Chapman]

I see that JWF is applying his usual tricks again. Everone that disagrees about the current, ridiculously biased article on Wessely, gets accused of being a sockpuppet of Angela, me, or one or two others, and then promptly banned...

I find it ironic, Guido, that on his User page, the pseudonymous JamesBWatson writes:

"Me in real life

My name is not James, nor Watson, nor do I have the middle initial "B". Why JamesBWatson then? No special reason. When I first registered on Wikipedia I intended to use my real name, or a version of it if someone else had already taken it. However, I found myself reading a message warning me that using your real name on Wikipedia might not be a good idea, and, doubtful about it, I picked the first fictitious name I thought of. In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories..."


Well, he's quite right. Using ones own name on Wikipedia is fraught with problems. If one does elect to edit transparently (and as a site owner, I'm not comfortable editing or posting on forums under a pseudonym) it means that should one find oneself banned, there is often no means of correcting misinformation on Wikipedia about oneself or of easily challenging unsubstantiated allegations or countering inferences of sockpuppetry.

It means that named members of the public are not being afforded the same rights by Wikipedia as "living persons" who have article pages about them and they are not protected from pseudonymous and cocksure admins who cannot and do not provide evidence for the claims they are making.

Would "Watson" have been quite so confident in his/her dodgy "deductions" were he/she editing under his/her own name and providing a contact email address?

By the way, neither Wolff nor Chapman has confirmed to me that my concerns have been forwarded to "Watson" nor have I received an apology - all that has happened is that "Catherine's" User and talk pages have now been wiped, by JzG, following my having contacted them.

An apology would be nice.

-------------

ETA:

I say he/she because I don't know and because some WP editors appear to have a somewhat tenuous grasp on what gender they are. I don't know whether you noticed, Guido, that in June 2008, the editor known as "Keepcalmandcarryon" had written:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Re:_Henry_Bauer


Also, man, be more careful. Here you remove the Time magazine source that I had just added because of incorrect quoting, but 15 minutes you have forgotten about it, and you prod the article here saying that it has only two sources from Bauer's website and a college newsleter.
--Enric Naval (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enric. You might want to "spend more time looking for stuff" before you "chastise" other editors for inconsistency. You would then realize that I didn't remove the NAS membership, I simply moved it out of the lead and into a relevant section, explaining my actions. And as for two versus three sources mentioned in my prod, I referred only to the ones present at the time, not all sources that had ever been used for the article. Would you have preferred that I bring up your blatant plagiarism of the Time article? I suspect not, and I didn't, because I assumed in good faith that you didn't know it's not appropriate to cut and paste into Wikipedia.

By the way, the "man" appellation doesn't work for me. Try not to make gender assumptions with people you don't know. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'm given to understand that a few months ago, Keepcalmandcarryon was claiming to be male.

This post has been edited by Suzy Chapman: Sat 9th July 2011, 9:09pm

[Suzy Chapman]

The final edits on "CS's" now wiped User talk page read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=431079405

[...]

This user has been disrupting the CFS pages for quite a while with various sockpuppets including User:Barny Toll and User:Byanose, as well as a whole bunch of disruptive edits using her ip address. Also I wouldn't be surprised if User:Mileswaves2000 is another sockpuppet - at the very least this incredibly nasty, ignorant (and frankly laughable) user seems to be a friend of "catherine sanderson". --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The repeated "leave catherine alone" comments are a bit of a give-away, are they not?! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Latest revision as of 22:44, 8 July 2011 (edit) (undo)
JzG (talk | contribs)

(Sockpuppet or meatpuppet, nobody really cares. Agenda account with agenda orthogonal to Wikipedia's mission.)

Line 1:

#redirect User:Catherine Sanderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_Sanderson)

------------------

Well, JzG, they do care. I care.

Angela cares.

No-one should be expected to tolerate unfounded insinuations of sockpuppetry whether it's from WP admins who operate under their own names, like NHS doctor, Jacob de Wolff, and are therefore accountable for their actions, or those who admin from behind a pseudonym, like "Watson".

[Somey]

No-one should be expected to tolerate unfounded insinuations of sockpuppetry whether it's from WP admins who operate under their own names, like NHS doctor, Jacob de Wolff, and are therefore accountable for their actions, or those who admin from behind a pseudonym, like "Watson".

Agreed, but after a few years, you get used to it...

There have probably been dozens of threads here in which this has been stated in dozens of ways, but the sad fact is that even after 11 years, they've never been able to get past the size-of-world problem. It's not just that six billion people is just too many for any one person to comprehend; six million is too many, six thousand is too many. For some people, six hundred is too many. So they compartmentalize, shrink the world so that they can properly conceptualize it - and they end up thinking, surely there can't be more than one person in the world who has both an internet connection and a strong dislike for Simon Wessely! It's just not credible! ... and so on.

And over time, this has become the de facto rule, codified into a ridiculous, unjust, and stupid policy formally stating that it doesn't matter if everything else proves otherwise, if an account shows up that behaves like another account that's banned, the new account must be the same person, and therefore gets banned too.

Anyway, welcome to WR, Ms. Chapman.

[Angela Kennedy]

No-one should be expected to tolerate unfounded insinuations of sockpuppetry whether it's from WP admins who operate under their own names, like NHS doctor, Jacob de Wolff, and are therefore accountable for their actions, or those who admin from behind a pseudonym, like "Watson".

Agreed, but after a few years, you get used to it...

There have probably been dozens of threads here in which this has been stated in dozens of ways, but the sad fact is that even after 11 years, they've never been able to get past the size-of-world problem. It's not just that six billion people is just too many for any one person to comprehend; six million is too many, six thousand is too many. For some people, six hundred is too many. So they compartmentalize, shrink the world so that they can properly conceptualize it - and they end up thinking, surely there can't be more than one person in the world who has both an internet connection and a strong dislike for Simon Wessely! It's just not credible! ... and so on.

And over time, this has become the de facto rule, codified into a ridiculous, unjust, and stupid policy formally stating that it doesn't matter if everything else proves otherwise, if an account shows up that behaves like another account that's banned, the new account must be the same person, and therefore gets banned too.

Anyway, welcome to WR, Ms. Chapman.

Hi Somey,

I think Suzy's been here for while now

Yes - very apt observation - the inability to conceptualise the world's population size is apparently a real problem for the wikipedia 'community'. I never realised that before I don't think. This is the 'living in a similar way' phenomenon?

Re "strong dislike for Simon Wessely": I have no personal feelings as such for the man. I learned a long time ago that personal animosity and emotional responses towards these people (proponents of psychogenic explanations that harm people like my daughter) was not useful - because it's the actual practice and belief system (that is institutionalised) that is the problem. I am however in an academic and political adversarial position to Simon Wessely (and many, many others!) This is perfectly normal - many people are in adversarial positions to others in public life. The likes of J D Wolff and Guy Chapman have been just derailing my own perfectly reasonable position by misrepresenting it, in classic ad hominem style, as personal emotion: a cynical way of privatising and trivialising my position, for reasons of their own.