The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Catherine Sanderson is not a sockpuppet of me!, Another episode of sockpuppet paranoia by Sciencewatcher and JFW
Angela Kennedy
post Sun 10th July 2011, 8:07am
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 10th July 2011, 8:21am) *

QUOTE(Suzy Chapman @ Sat 9th July 2011, 4:43pm) *
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... rolleyes.gif

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. smile.gif


Hi Somey,

I think Suzy's been here for while now smile.gif

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.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Suzy Chapman
post Sun 10th July 2011, 9:06am
Post #22


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat 2nd Aug 2008, 5:28pm
From: UK
Member No.: 7,362

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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_found

hey 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?



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

"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.

But no.

"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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Suzy Chapman
post Sun 10th July 2011, 9:09am
Post #23


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat 2nd Aug 2008, 5:28pm
From: UK
Member No.: 7,362

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 10th July 2011, 8:21am) *


Anyway, welcome to WR, Ms. Chapman. smile.gif


Well, thank you, Somey, but I've been here, before.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Sun 10th July 2011, 9:46am
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu 19th Feb 2009, 7:31pm
Member No.: 10,371



Somehow, when it comes to ME/CFS, evidence is no longer relevant on Wikipedia. Users get banned for sockpuppetry without a CU just as easily as falsified citations from medical literature are protected by the same administrators.

Even the very fact that there exists a disease named Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (in the WHO classification of diseases since 1969) is denied by mr. De Wolff and friends.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Sun 10th July 2011, 10:43am
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sun 10th July 2011, 10:46am) *

Somehow, when it comes to ME/CFS, evidence is no longer relevant on Wikipedia. Users get banned for sockpuppetry without a CU just as easily as falsified citations from medical literature are protected by the same administrators.

Even the very fact that there exists a disease named Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (in the WHO classification of diseases since 1969) is denied by mr. De Wolff and friends.


Yes- that article was deleted wasn't it? Driven by JFW? Bearing in mind the history of the disease entity Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, it's odd, yes.

do you have the diffs on that deletion process at all Guido?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Sun 10th July 2011, 10:46am
Post #26


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Actually - also it needs to be re-iterated, I joined Wikipedia, like Suzy, NOT to edit (because we acknowledged we had what might a 'conflict of interest') but to actually prevent some highly unsafe claims being made about the ME/CFS community being put on there by people such as JFW and sciencewatcher.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mr.Treason II
post Tue 19th July 2011, 7:19am
Post #27


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu 30th Jun 2011, 8:00am
Member No.: 58,445

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sun 5th June 2011, 8:27pm) *

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! laugh.gif

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! dry.gif yak.gif


Worse, she's BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Tue 19th July 2011, 10:22am
Post #28


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mr.Treason II @ Tue 19th July 2011, 8:19am) *

QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Sun 5th June 2011, 8:27pm) *

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! laugh.gif

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! dry.gif yak.gif


Worse, she's BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA!


Ok- what point are you trying to make?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th 8 14, 4:18pm