As I've already set out, "Catherine Sanderson" had republished on the Wessely talk page a commentary she had found on Phoenix Rising Forum - material that had been authored by me in November 2009. What "Catherine Sanderson" failed to do was attribute that material to its author or provide the URL for its source.
She republished my commentary from Phoenix Rising on the Wessely talk page under this heading:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Catherine_foundhey look what Catherine found
It starts like this:
"The Weird World of Wiki"Since at least 2007, the Wikipedia Wessely article page and the CFS article page, and their respective discussion (Talk) pages, have been very closely controlled by UK Wiki Admin, Jacob de Wolff, and former UK Wiki Admin, Guy Chapman (no relation)..."
Well, there's a clue for "Watson".
The original author of that material shares a surname with Guy Chapman and mentions being a site owner. That should not be too difficult to trace to source, should it?
But how does "Watson" respond?
"In this edit someone at the same IP address says "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." So we have an editor editing in the same area as you and editing from the same IP address (and therefore from the same computer or another one on the same local network) stating that they have been banned. The month in which they were banned was the same one in which Angel [sic] Kennedy was banned. Angel [sic] Kennedy ban followed communications in which Jimbo Wales took a part. MEagenda was banned at the same time, and the username was questioned as being related to the name of a relevant website. Both of those two accounts had been involved in similar editing in connection to the same article as has recently been the case with the IP address. Without bothering to go into further details it is perfectly clear that the person who made that post from that IP address had previously used one or both of those two accounts.
"In that same post in which the user states that they have been banned, they use the section heading "hey look what Catherine found". In the context, and considering the other posts from the same IP, it looks very much as though it means "hey look what I, Catherine, found". If that is the correct reading then you have stated that you have been banned, in such a way as to make it clear that you are the former user of one or both of the two banned accounts I have mentioned. If, however, that is not the correct reading, then it is one of those two referring to you by your first name, quoting stuff which you have "found", although you had not posted it on Wikipedia, editing from the same computer as you have used, or one on the same local network. It is therefore 100% clear that you either are that person or are in close personal contact with that person, contrary to your claim to be an unrelated person who stumbled on this at facebook.
I could go on with further evidence, but that is enough."
No it's not enough, "Watson". And it's not "evidence". And I hope "Watson" does not aspire to a career in law.
Did "Watson" really consider that a banned member whose banning is documented on the Wikipedia Admin Notice board would come back to Wikipedia under the name of "Catherine Sanderson", claiming to be 45 and married to a college lecturer, who "used to live in London and worked at the Maudsley" and says she was "originally from Mercer Island" (none of which applies to me, incidently) and that she is a member of a Facebook group where "her friend Andrea" had allegedly had exchanges with the alleged sons of Prof Simon Wessely and where the alleged sons had been banned (which means she can possibly be identified from that information alone) and then post references to a previous banning on Wikipedia (which has been documented on several platforms)?
If "Watson" had taken the time to read the commentary properly and then spent just a couple of seconds on Google, he could have established the source of the material, the name of its author and the author's websites from the sig at the bottom of the post on Phoenix Rising.
"Catherine Sanderson" is unwelcome on the Wessely pages and needs to be got rid of > "Catherine Sanderson" has alluded to a banning in 2007 > therefore "Catherine Sanderson" must be either a sock for, or an associate of former editor Angela Kennedy (but Angela does not share a surname with Guy Chapman) or a sock for, or an associate of former editor ME agenda (Suzy Chapman).*
If you are reading this "Watson", did you not scrutinise the writing style?
Look at this (from "Catherine Sanderson" on the Wessely talk page):
"I ain't going to look back through all that stuff. I think though you are making this page a "coatrack??" for your own odd agenda. We'd be in the shit if you were a doctor lol as even in the states most folk think Wessely is a bit wacko compared to heroes like Leonard Jason. As for my choice of edits I read about this stuff on a facebook page and these edits getting banned by some guy. So I thought someone has to have the chutzpah to post this stuff. Tell it like it is. Good doctors listen to their patients. Do you know how I get my password back if I've lost it? I'll look up the facebook group for you and maybe you can join which would be cool. Are you on facebook? Wessely's sons posted on the facebook page and started abusing my friend Andrea so we had to ban them :-( that made me mad and so I though I'd edit the article in a professional and unbiased way :-))"
The language and sentence structure alone should have suggested to "Watson" that "Catherine Sanderson" was not Angela Kennedy nor Suzy Chapman, leaving aside the issue of IPs and the issue of motivation.ETA:*In late 2007, neither Angela nor I had made edits to the Wessely article page, itself, but had been engaged in discussions on the Wessely talk page with JFW and "Sciencewatcher" arguing the case against the "Gibson Report" being considered a Reliable Source for the purposes of Wikipedia. It should be noted that Jacob de Wolff subsequently accepted that the "Gibson Report" was not a government report and that as an unofficial document, with no authority of either of the Houses of Parliament, this uncommissioned, largely unreferenced, error littered and uncorrected report could not be considered a Reliable Source for the purposes of Wikipedia.This post has been edited by Suzy Chapman: Sun 10th July 2011, 10:36am