Full Version: An FT2 Sockpuppet?
Perhaps you will find the elusive line illustrated here.
QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 9th May 2008, 4:47am) 
Would you cut it out? There's a line when it comes to accusing Wikipedians of malfeasance, and you've crossed it in my opinion.
Docknell seems spot-on to me. People do commit malfeasance, Shalom. No one disputes that; people are blocked or banned all the time for it. Are they not "Wikipedians?" Indeed, Peter Damian was a "Wikipedian" as well, of several years' standing: he was blocked indefinitely due to a claim of malfeasance, specifically that he maligned FT2 by alleging that he supported bestiality.
Have you ever been indefinitely blocked, Shalom? I was, just the other day, in a set-up arranged by…FT2. For reporting administrative sockpuppetry, in a case where the administrator used the, erm, "close friends using the same computer" defense. Now it turns out that FT2 1) is a sockpuppeteer 2) who has "close friends using the same computer."
It's a little late, then, for you to fret about Wikipedians being accused of malfeasance.
QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 8th May 2008, 7:24pm)
I've taken close to an hour to review the contribution logs for editing overlaps and similar interests and habits. It's difficult to come to a conclusion. Having recently challenged FT2 on the Poetlister case, I am in no position to make a neutral statement on an allegation that FT2 may have used a sockpuppet. I would consider forwarding my data to someone else (maybe Proabivouac?) and letting other people handle this.
I appreciate your confidences, however I might not be widely accepted as neutral, given that FT2 blocked me for a week, and then set me up for an indef (both quickly overturned, but still.) That said, I'm fairly confident that TBP = FT2; the only reason I wouldn't say I'm completely certain is that I haven't spent enough time with the evidence, perhaps there are times they'll stop sounding so much like one another, and what I have looked at, the discussion on Talk:NLP, is an aberration. Doubt it, though.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 9th May 2008, 5:11am)
Have you ever been indefinitely blocked, Shalom? I was, just the other day, in a set-up arranged by…FT2. For reporting administrative sockpuppetry, in a case where the administrator used the, erm, "close friends using the same computer" defense. Now it turns out that FT2 1) is a sockpuppeteer 2) who has "close friends using the same computer."
It's a little late, then, for you to fret about Wikipedians being accused of malfeasance.
Of course FT2 is working really hard to distract from this and dispel all the negadividy that would prevent a properly neurolinguistically programmed individual from accepting those of all “creative†sexual orientations. It’s a matter of trust and credibility. “No your honour, the dog made advances to my leg first and I consentedâ€.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=211185060
And in the process, FT2 is still working hard to keep at bay the nasty negative editors who point an accusing finger at those who promote the perfectly “broadminded†idea of “loving†children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=211084656
What sterling work, how about some sort of promotion? That would really be the icing on the cake.
QUOTE(Docknell @ Fri 9th May 2008, 5:49am)
QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 9th May 2008, 4:47am)
Would you cut it out? There's a line when it comes to accusing Wikipedians of malfeasance, and you've crossed it in my opinion.
Please be specific, or are you just trying to shut me up in general?
Wasn't it just an excuse for using the "malfeasance" meme for amusement value, from Shalom?
That's how I interpreted it.
The problem is, using the term 'malfeasance' in a jocular, jesting, or joshing manner could be perceived as an instance of malfeasance, if one is doing so to evade a genuine duty of responsibility.
That’s interesting. This
http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381.pdf?ck=nck
suggests that the edit war between Dr Mercer and Dr Becker-Weidmann has a parallel in the academic world (forgive me if I am not up to scratch on the actual details).
The difference is that in the academic world the dispute is normally settled by reference to content, and rarely (given the sort of types who frequent the academic world) by reference to behaviour. In the Wiki world, it is the other way round. It is not about truth, verifiability, accuracy, evidence or whatever. It is simply who plays, or games, the rules of WP:CIVIL best. Truly bizarre.
http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381.pdf?ck=nck
suggests that the edit war between Dr Mercer and Dr Becker-Weidmann has a parallel in the academic world (forgive me if I am not up to scratch on the actual details).
The difference is that in the academic world the dispute is normally settled by reference to content, and rarely (given the sort of types who frequent the academic world) by reference to behaviour. In the Wiki world, it is the other way round. It is not about truth, verifiability, accuracy, evidence or whatever. It is simply who plays, or games, the rules of WP:CIVIL best. Truly bizarre.
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Fri 9th May 2008, 12:37pm)
Wasn't it just an excuse for using the "malfeasance" meme for amusement value, from Shalom?
That's how I interpreted it.Seemed earnest enough to me. We want to maintain collegiality. Okay, that's a worthy goal. What I tried to point out is that whatever collegiality may or may not have once been present was gone the moment the blocks started going around (and it seems Damian wasn't the first.)
I think it should be in some kind of arbitration, actually - say, a fair and impartial WikiJury? Instead of a set-up backed by blocks to silence whistleblowers, false charges of "smear campaigns," and misuse of oversight aimed at covering up the truth. What do average Wikipedia contributors in good standing think about all this? That's exactly the question that our oversighter didn't want answered, at a time when it would have been very relevant, the ArbCom elections.
If someone mentions this TBP sockpuppet on WP, will they be banned? Some people think so, and with good reason. We're all supposed to move along and pretend we don't know that a sitting arbitrator has abusively socked to promote, what is it they call it now, "loving both?", and to aggressively defend a very dubious therapeutic practice in which he has - so it appears - a direct commercial interest?
There is apparently more that's been scrubbed from FT2's history than the 2 oversighted edits that Peter brought to our attention. Wikidashboard (Providing social transparency to Wikipedia), provides a link to 212 edits that are no longer available to mere editors. The links don't provide the page title, only the edit number, so I'm unable to tell if they were from XFDs, admin deletions or oversights. There's plenty of provocative edit summaries though. Here's a small sample -
Are there any admins here who can confirm the method of deletion for these edits? PM me if you don't feel like attaching an answer to your WR account name.
I've archived a copy of the list here modifying the links to point directly to WP, instead of going through wikidashboard.
QUOTE
2006/06/04 02:55:25 /* Cartoon and other representations */
2006/06/04 02:50:25 /* Animal pornography not including humans $stub$ */
2006/06/04 02:47:00 /* Animal pornography and culture */
2006/06/04 02:50:25 /* Animal pornography not including humans $stub$ */
2006/06/04 02:47:00 /* Animal pornography and culture */
Are there any admins here who can confirm the method of deletion for these edits? PM me if you don't feel like attaching an answer to your WR account name.
I've archived a copy of the list here modifying the links to point directly to WP, instead of going through wikidashboard.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 9th May 2008, 1:48pm)
That’s interesting. This
http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381.pdf?ck=nck
suggests that the edit war between Dr Mercer and Dr Becker-Weidmann has a parallel in the academic world (forgive me if I am not up to scratch on the actual details).
The difference is that in the academic world the dispute is normally settled by reference to content, and rarely (given the sort of types who frequent the academic world) by reference to behaviour. In the Wiki world, it is the other way round. It is not about truth, verifiability, accuracy, evidence or whatever. It is simply who plays, or games, the rules of WP:CIVIL best. Truly bizarre.
It looks pretty clear that DPeterson(and possible friends) has got into trouble by outing FT2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...abuse_of_status
Here is further evidence of FT2’s probable reasons for being active on the Attachment Therapy article. Peterson (Weidman?) was quite anti-pseudoscience and anti-NLP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...g_admin_priv.3F
It also seems that Fainites started of in the Attachment Therapy article simply to make sure NLP was not associated with the pseudoscientific elements of the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=114379868
Of course this is just more evidence of the sort of pattern that appears around a lot of fringe pushers and abusive admins.
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 10th May 2008, 12:32am)
There is apparently more that's been scrubbed from FT2's history than the 2 oversighted edits that Peter brought to our attention. Wikidashboard (Providing social transparency to Wikipedia), provides a link to 212 edits that are no longer available to mere editors. The links don't provide the page title, only the edit number, so I'm unable to tell if they were from XFDs, admin deletions or oversights. There's plenty of provocative edit summaries though. Here's a small sample -
QUOTE
2006/06/04 02:55:25 /* Cartoon and other representations */
2006/06/04 02:50:25 /* Animal pornography not including humans $stub$ */
2006/06/04 02:47:00 /* Animal pornography and culture */
2006/06/04 02:50:25 /* Animal pornography not including humans $stub$ */
2006/06/04 02:47:00 /* Animal pornography and culture */
Are there any admins here who can confirm the method of deletion for these edits? PM me if you don't feel like attaching an answer to your WR account name.
I've archived a copy of the list here modifying the links to point directly to WP, instead of going through wikidashboard.
What? None of these are on my list of FT2's edits at all. Can you confirm whether the date that appears is the date of the oversight, or the date of the edit itself? I assume the latter.
[edit] OK mystery solved. These are not oversighted edits. They are from a subpage in FT2's user space, which he has deleted. Thus the record of the edit summaries remains, but because Wikipedia remembers versions of a page (rather than diffs, which it constructs from the 'diff' between versions), and because the whole page has disappeared, there is no record in the database.
The page must have been from his own user space, because it was deleted before he had oversight or admin privileges (it seems to have been deleted in Jan 2007, when he first ran for admin, yes?).
The edits are all to do with animal pornography, which he seems to have a comprehensive knowledge of, and which was no doubt acquired for research purposes.
Down to brass tacks:
Why is Wikipedia being run by a COI-afflicted disciple of Neurolinguistic programming - a professional crank - who's used WP to promote bestiality?
Why was this individual promoted to the top of the heirarchy?
Why was evidence which might have - and should have - nipped his ArbCom candidacy in the bud suppressed?
Why was the whistleblower blocked indefinitely?
I want answers, but all I've heard is silence.
Why is Wikipedia being run by a COI-afflicted disciple of Neurolinguistic programming - a professional crank - who's used WP to promote bestiality?
Why was this individual promoted to the top of the heirarchy?
Why was evidence which might have - and should have - nipped his ArbCom candidacy in the bud suppressed?
Why was the whistleblower blocked indefinitely?
I want answers, but all I've heard is silence.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 10th May 2008, 6:32am)
The edits are all to do with animal pornography, which he seems to have a comprehensive knowledge of, and which was no doubt acquired for research purposes.
Just to make it completely clear, my position is that no respectable publication would be associated with this kind of thing.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 10th May 2008, 5:05am)
I want answers, but all I've heard is silence.
I can empathize with your frustration.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:05am)
Why was this individual promoted to the top of the heirarchy?
Because Daniel Brandt thought that his own interests would be better served by having FT2 heading ArbCom rather than Newyorkbrad.
QUOTE(guy @ Sat 10th May 2008, 8:45am)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:05am)
Why was this individual promoted to the top of the heirarchy?
Because Daniel Brandt thought that his own interests would be better served by having FT2 heading ArbCom rather than Newyorkbrad.Damn, it's hard to sort out unintended consequences from intended ones. I keep dropping the ball when it comes to accurately adducing the mindset of various characters in these long-running soap operas.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 10th May 2008, 6:32am)
What? None of these are on my list of FT2's edits at all. Can you confirm whether the date that appears is the date of the oversight, or the date of the edit itself? I assume the latter.
[edit] OK mystery solved. These are not oversighted edits. They are from a subpage in FT2's user space, which he has deleted. Thus the record of the edit summaries remains, but because Wikipedia remembers versions of a page (rather than diffs, which it constructs from the 'diff' between versions), and because the whole page has disappeared, there is no record in the database.
The page must have been from his own user space, because it was deleted before he had oversight or admin privileges (it seems to have been deleted in Jan 2007, when he first ran for admin, yes?).
They are not necessarily from a user subpage. The dates are when the edits were made. When you look through his history you can see the holes. Examining them a little more closely, the text inside /* */ is the title of the page section edited, and the text after is a manually added summary which he rarely did at the time. Wikiscanner results are similarly constructed. I'll have to search for the section titles to see if any remain.
The numbers after oldid and prev in WP urls are page versions, and every single edit on WP can be referenced by just using the oldid field. The page title in the url is not even needed and seems to be ignored. With a manually constructed url, you can compare any two diffs in the database and insert any title you want. The comedy potential in doing this is large, and perhaps should be the subject of a WR contest. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=211451045 .
FT2 first ran for admin in June 2006.
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 10th May 2008, 3:41pm)
They are not necessarily from a user subpage. The dates are when the edits were made. When you look through his history you can see the holes. Examining them a little more closely, the text inside /* */ is the title of the page section edited, and the text after is a manually added summary which he rarely did at the time. Wikiscanner results are similarly constructed. I'll have to search for the section titles to see if any remain.
Are you sure?
http://wikidashboard.parc.com/dashboard/de...0101&l=20080516
This URL has a page number (5205068), just as do all the other pages he edited shown here
http://wikidashboard.parc.com/w/index.php?title=User:FT2#
So my logic is as follows:
1. The missing edits are all from one page
2. For all the versions to be missing, the page must have been deleted.
3. Only pages in user space can be deleted if you aren't admin (which he wasn't until 2007)
------------------------------------------
[edit] Interesting that the contents of /* */ are section headings. Sorting these alphabetically, it looks like an article (in preparation, if I am correct) with the following sections:
Abuse
Abusive films
Add "activism" section
Animal pornography and culture
Animal pornography not including humans
Animal sexuality
Background on sexual aspects
Cartoon and other representations
Erotic stories
Faked activity
Features of animal pornography
History of animal pornography
Human-animal sexual activity
Images
Legal issues
Legality of sale, transportation and ownership
List of relevant laws
Major producers of animal pornography
Modern times
Notable aspects in animal pornography
OLD ZOO POSTS
Pre-modern times
Production and distribution
References
See also
Textual representations
I'm guessing 'See also' and 'references' came at the end. Wonder what the order would be.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 10th May 2008, 3:13pm)
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 10th May 2008, 3:41pm)
They are not necessarily from a user subpage. The dates are when the edits were made. When you look through his history you can see the holes. Examining them a little more closely, the text inside /* */ is the title of the page section edited, and the text after is a manually added summary which he rarely did at the time. Wikiscanner results are similarly constructed. I'll have to search for the section titles to see if any remain.
Are you sure?
http://wikidashboard.parc.com/dashboard/de...0101&l=20080516
This URL has a page number (5205068), just as do all the other pages he edited shown here
http://wikidashboard.parc.com/w/index.php?title=User:FT2#
So my logic is as follows:
1. The missing edits are all from one page
2. For all the versions to be missing, the page must have been deleted.
3. Only pages in user space can be deleted if you aren't admin (which he wasn't until 2007)
Yes, that makes sense. In another list of FT2 results that wikidashboard labels unknown, all the versions seem to be from the Zoophilia article.
The page was probably deleted though sometime after the date of the database dump which wikidashboard is using. I think it's from August 2007, the same one that wikiscanner uses.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 10th May 2008, 4:13pm)
3. Only pages in user space can be deleted if you aren't admin (which he wasn't until 2007)
Yes but one of his admin mates could always have done it, to help him out.
While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons, I can confirm that the article in question was entirely in a userspace sandbox and the sandbox itself was (legitimately) deleted as it only had one editor. Having read the (deleted and never posted to mainspace) article in question, while it's on a fairly unpleasant subject, it's undoubtedly a legitimate, referenced academic article. That said, I can see why he didn't post it into mainspace, and (while I dislike him for other reasons), I think he's to be commended for not posting it after putting so much effort into it.
Not that any of you are going to take any notice of me...
Not that any of you are going to take any notice of me...
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 9:23pm)
I think he's to be commended for not posting it after putting so much effort into it.
The struggle between the dictates of one obsession and another?
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 10th May 2008, 9:26pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 9:23pm)
I think he's to be commended for not posting it after putting so much effort into it.
The struggle between the dictates of one obsession and another?
I prefer to think "realised after he'd written it that it wasn't appropriate". I know I sound like a broken record on this one but just because someone writes an article on something doesn't have to mean they personally support it...
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 8:23pm)
While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons…
What obvious reasons?
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 9:23pm)
While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons, I can confirm that the article in question was entirely in a userspace sandbox and the sandbox itself was (legitimately) deleted as it only had one editor. Having read the (deleted and never posted to mainspace) article in question, while it's on a fairly unpleasant subject, it's undoubtedly a legitimate, referenced academic article. That said, I can see why he didn't post it into mainspace, and (while I dislike him for other reasons), I think he's to be commended for not posting it after putting so much effort into it.
Not that any of you are going to take any notice of me...
I'm not tempted to take much notice. Why is it a 'legitimate' article? What makes it legitimate, i.e. legal? What makes it referenced? Not much of anything else FT2 has been written is referenced (except to pornographic websites - this is not what we call referencing).
Why is he to be commended? Normally if you put a great deal of work into something, you publish it. Why didn't he publish it?
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 9:58pm)
I prefer to think "realised after he'd written it that it wasn't appropriate". I know I sound like a broken record on this one but just because someone writes an article on something doesn't have to mean they personally support it...
No of course it doesn't. Unless they say or imply they support it.
And as PB says, what are the obvious reasons for not disclosing the content? That makes no sense.
Why all this concern to ensure FT2 looks perfect, to the extent of others oversighting his posts? If there isn't something to hide, why hide it?
I mean we all make mistakes or sometimes do things that later don't appear politically correct. And yes other members of the cabal's posts are oversighted sometimes, aren't they?
But it seems particuarly so in this case. But then we are perhaps viewing the actions or requests of an intensely introspective/secretive personality.
And as PB says, what are the obvious reasons for not disclosing the content? That makes no sense.
Because he wanted it gone- because it reflects badly on him or could be construed as doing so. Ok I will tell you one that was in my userspace, after I delete it lol
Ok it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merkinsm...gainst_Muhammad but as you can see if it hasn't gone yet, the tone was quite constructive and NPOV. But I might not want something with that title if I was on/running for ArbCom.
I mean we all make mistakes or sometimes do things that later don't appear politically correct. And yes other members of the cabal's posts are oversighted sometimes, aren't they?
But it seems particuarly so in this case. But then we are perhaps viewing the actions or requests of an intensely introspective/secretive personality.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:35pm)
And as PB says, what are the obvious reasons for not disclosing the content? That makes no sense.
Because he wanted it gone- because it reflects badly on him or could be construed as doing so. Ok I will tell you one that was in my userspace, after I delete it lol
Ok it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merkinsm...gainst_Muhammad but as you can see if it hasn't gone yet, the tone was quite constructive and NPOV. But I might not want something with that title if I was on/running for ArbCom.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:02pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 8:23pm)
While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons?Ǫ
What obvious reasons?
Admins can get desysopped for even hinting that they might reveal the content of deleted material to WR.
QUOTE(guy @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:23pm)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:02pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 8:23pm)
While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons…
What obvious reasons?
Admins can get desysopped for even hinting that they might reveal the content of deleted material to WR.
The typical rationale behind this - and a fairly good one - is that the deleted material contained some kind of libelous charge or personal information. If this was a just well-referenced article with a neutral and clinical tone, that wouldn't apply. It was released under GFDL, and like any other article could conceivably be undeleted at any time. The only basis for complaint that I can see is, well, it was in FT2's userspace. But so what? All of this begs the question, if it doesn't reflect poorly upon FT2, then why was it deleted, and what would be the problem with anyone looking at it? Correspondingly, the only way that revealing the content could be construed as a way of damaging FT2 is if there is something not quite right about it.
Nevertheless, Eva Destruction, thank you for providing the background on this.
Regardless of what one thinks of FT2, he has some good ideas. He's the one who came up with idea and provided sample code for those show/hide text boxes that are widely in use, and he wrote the Newcomers guide to installing [Mediawiki] on Windows over Christmas in 2004.
My favorite though that I've seen so far is, you find some out of the way project, say the Cornish Wiktionary, and you can use it as a scratchpad while running for arbcom, away from the prying eyes of your home wiki. His user subpages there are the most highly edited pages of the whole wiki, with nearly a 1000 edits among them.
My favorite though that I've seen so far is, you find some out of the way project, say the Cornish Wiktionary, and you can use it as a scratchpad while running for arbcom, away from the prying eyes of your home wiki. His user subpages there are the most highly edited pages of the whole wiki, with nearly a 1000 edits among them.
QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 13th May 2008, 12:15am)
away from the prying eyes of your home wiki. His user subpages there are the most highly edited pages of the whole wiki, with nearly a 1000 edits among them.
oh, anything about horses, golden retrievers etc?
QUOTE(Giggy @ Fri 9th May 2008, 12:31am)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 8th May 2008, 7:26pm)
QUOTE(Miltopia @ Thu 8th May 2008, 7:33am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210302485
Using the wrong account to comment on a sockpuppetry case... how classic.
Looking back on his recent deletion of my Orderinchaos sockpuppet report, it's now clear that FT2 had an undlisclosed conflict of interest.
Yeah, I was going to say this reminded me a fair bit of the OIC accusation you made.
Do we wait for FT2 to blame MSN?
The account FT2 accidently used to post to ANI, Lovingboth, is easily traceable to a fairly prominent member of London's LGBT community. He's livejournal buddies with Wikimedia UK's Alison Wheeler.
FT2 and Lovingboth have both edited on the following pages
1. Prostitution
2. Swinging
3. Talk:Acronis_True_Image
4. Talk:Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Regarding TBP, the preponderence of evidence indicates that it is FT2 and he used it to game an edit war on NLP. Though the TBP account has only 185 edits, it's intersected with FT2 on these 22 pages
1. Animal_cognition
2. Animal_loss
3. Animal_love
4. Death
5. Edgeplay
6. Emotion_in_animals
7. Enumclaw,_Washington
8. Ethology
9. Great_ape_personhood
10. Hani_Miletski
11. Kenneth_Pinyan
12. List_of_unusual_deaths
13. Loss
14. Mr_Hands
15. Neuro-linguistic_programming
16. Rainbow_Bridge_(pets)
17. Zoophilia
18. Zoosadism
19. Zoosexuality
20. Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming
21. Talk:Zoophilia
22. Category:Zoosexuality
FT2 tacitly admits it's his sock on his user page. He brags
QUOTE
Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ]Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ]
. Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account.
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 28th June 2008, 1:37am)
The account FT2 accidently used to post to ANI, Lovingboth, is easily traceable to a fairly prominent member of London's LGBT community. He's livejournal buddies with Wikimedia UK's Alison Wheeler.
FT2 and Lovingboth have both edited on the following pages
1. Prostitution
2. Swinging
3. Talk:Acronis_True_Image
4. Talk:Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Regarding TBP, the preponderence of evidence indicates that it is FT2 and he used it to game an edit war on NLP. Though the TBP account has only 185 edits, it's intersected with FT2 on these 22 pages
1. Animal_cognition
2. Animal_loss
3. Animal_love
4. Death
5. Edgeplay
6. Emotion_in_animals
7. Enumclaw,_Washington
8. Ethology
9. Great_ape_personhood
10. Hani_Miletski
11. Kenneth_Pinyan
12. List_of_unusual_deaths
13. Loss
14. Mr_Hands
15. Neuro-linguistic_programming
16. Rainbow_Bridge_(pets)
17. Zoophilia
18. Zoosadism
19. Zoosexuality
20. Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming
21. Talk:Zoophilia
22. Category:Zoosexuality
FT2 tacitly admits it's his sock on his user page. He brags
QUOTE
Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ]Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ]
. Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account.Wow, I just noticed this. Terrific work, Tarantino, as always.
Seconded, Tarantino.
So is this a "Who is FT2" thread now? 
QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 30th June 2008, 2:21pm)
So is this a "Who is FT2" thread now?
Er, you are suggesting there is something ethically wrong with this? You are bringing right and wrong into the discussion?
QUOTE(guy @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:23pm)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 10th May 2008, 10:02pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 10th May 2008, 8:23pm)
While I'm *not* going to disclose the content for obvious reasons…
What obvious reasons?
Admins can get desysopped for even hinting that they might reveal the content of deleted material to WR.
Of course, by now the Everyking Rule is firmly ensconced in the mindset of the average Wikipedian, even though it was intended as a one-off "get rid of the annoying prat" action and was never expected to become a binding regulation.
QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 30th June 2008, 2:21pm)
So is this a "Who is FT2" thread now?
It's more a, "Which accounts are FT2's" thread, now.
That's an amazing find tarantino. An arbitrator who sockpuppets? Hah. And he's just the one who got caught...
From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.
In the light of what we have learned over the past 3 days, I would 'Just say yes'.
In the light of what we have learned over the past 3 days, I would 'Just say yes'.
QUOTE
Nov. 18th, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Just say no
I regularly have the question "How can we trust wikipedia when anyone can edit it? Shouldn't we bam it from our school / college / office / newsroom?" asked of me.
And my answer, every time, is a question: why do you trust *any* source of information? If you read a book, a newspaper article, a story on a website, hear something said to you by a friend or on a radio report, what makes it 'valid' to you, how do you choose to judge whether what you are reading or hearing is true, likely to be true, probably false, or even a definite lie.
We all make judgements about 'knowledge' every day. Sometimes we'll decide that "It is a nationally-known broadsheet newspaper" means we should implicitly just what is written there (though maybe not on April 1st; I still recall the island of Sans Seriffe!) or we'll recognise the particular author as someone who we've trusted in the past to get it right and we'll presume that they've got it right this time. Your friend may have 'been there and saw it themself' but you don't need me to remind you that from a different viewpoint the situation may have eben completely at odds with what your friend believed.
In every case - and that includes the content of Wikipedia - it is a matter of judgement and deciding for ourselves whether the sources quoted are resonable. Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia or reference work, is a secondary source; it takes information from a multitude of authors to present to you a summary, an overview of a topic for the interested person. It isn't the primary source of that data, indeed polict prevents original research being added to Wikipedia articles.
But the reverse is also true; Wikipedia is the ultimate in the 'Peer review' that we all seek in official journals; scientific, medical, social, geographical. The 'peers' of Wikipedia may be you and me, but will almost certainly include researchers, lecturers, students, and many others closely interested or connected with the subject.
And isn't that really more important? Each of us have our individual interests that have grown with us, whether it be transport or technology, socrates or sociology, we should take comfort in being 'amateurs'. People who have an interest in the subject for its own sake, something that we research because we want to know more. Then we add some of these newly-learnt facts to Wikipedia so that others may benefit.
And benefit is what it is all about.
So yes, 'anyone' may edit Wikipedia. But that 'anyone' is more likely to be someone who knows and cares for the quality of that information rather than someone seeking to mislead you. With over two million articles in the English language, and over eight million over more than 250 languages, there are remarkably few serious errors or examples of long-lasting vandalism.
Wikipedia; you learn, you edit, you extend the gift of knowledge.
Just say no
I regularly have the question "How can we trust wikipedia when anyone can edit it? Shouldn't we bam it from our school / college / office / newsroom?" asked of me.
And my answer, every time, is a question: why do you trust *any* source of information? If you read a book, a newspaper article, a story on a website, hear something said to you by a friend or on a radio report, what makes it 'valid' to you, how do you choose to judge whether what you are reading or hearing is true, likely to be true, probably false, or even a definite lie.
We all make judgements about 'knowledge' every day. Sometimes we'll decide that "It is a nationally-known broadsheet newspaper" means we should implicitly just what is written there (though maybe not on April 1st; I still recall the island of Sans Seriffe!) or we'll recognise the particular author as someone who we've trusted in the past to get it right and we'll presume that they've got it right this time. Your friend may have 'been there and saw it themself' but you don't need me to remind you that from a different viewpoint the situation may have eben completely at odds with what your friend believed.
In every case - and that includes the content of Wikipedia - it is a matter of judgement and deciding for ourselves whether the sources quoted are resonable. Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia or reference work, is a secondary source; it takes information from a multitude of authors to present to you a summary, an overview of a topic for the interested person. It isn't the primary source of that data, indeed polict prevents original research being added to Wikipedia articles.
But the reverse is also true; Wikipedia is the ultimate in the 'Peer review' that we all seek in official journals; scientific, medical, social, geographical. The 'peers' of Wikipedia may be you and me, but will almost certainly include researchers, lecturers, students, and many others closely interested or connected with the subject.
And isn't that really more important? Each of us have our individual interests that have grown with us, whether it be transport or technology, socrates or sociology, we should take comfort in being 'amateurs'. People who have an interest in the subject for its own sake, something that we research because we want to know more. Then we add some of these newly-learnt facts to Wikipedia so that others may benefit.
And benefit is what it is all about.
So yes, 'anyone' may edit Wikipedia. But that 'anyone' is more likely to be someone who knows and cares for the quality of that information rather than someone seeking to mislead you. With over two million articles in the English language, and over eight million over more than 250 languages, there are remarkably few serious errors or examples of long-lasting vandalism.
Wikipedia; you learn, you edit, you extend the gift of knowledge.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 30th June 2008, 4:37pm)
From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.
Ah, an expert on sockpuppetry who ran two admin accounts (using one of them to edit her bio and defend it against deletion) and when caught was allowed to let one of her accounts continue as an admin.
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 30th June 2008, 12:26pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 30th June 2008, 4:37pm)
From Alison Wheeler's Live Journal Nov last year.
Ah, an expert on sockpuppetry who ran two admin accounts (using one of them to edit her bio and defend it against deletion) and when caught was allowed to let one of her accounts continue as an admin.
Ah, yes... Alison Wheeler. I started a thread on this message board about her, and Kato followed up with the sockpuppetry allegation. It became a very popular thread (96 replies, 5,195 views). One of the very, very rare times where I bring any value to this forum, without it being a self-serving pitch for Wikipedia Review.com. Must have been a mistake on my part.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 30th June 2008, 6:29pm)
One of the very, very rare times where I bring any value to this forum, without it being a self-serving pitch for ****.com. Must have been a mistake on my part.
Not a mistake you're likely to repeat.
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 8th May 2008, 4:02am)
TBP quits editing 31 days before FT2's failed self-nomination for adminship. For his second, successful candidacy, he was nominated by jossi.
Nominated by Jossi, eh? No doubt on the basis of mutual admiration for their work in NLP-related issues.
Are you getting this, Proambivouac?
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 30th June 2008, 11:23pm)
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 8th May 2008, 4:02am)
TBP quits editing 31 days before FT2's failed self-nomination for adminship. For his second, successful candidacy, he was nominated by jossi.
Nominated by Jossi, eh? No doubt on the basis of mutual admiration for their work in NLP-related issues.
Are you getting this, Proambivouac?Well I'm getting it. Thank you for that.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 19th August 2008, 12:30pm)
IP geolocated to Australia... FT2 is Australian now?
QUOTE(Alex @ Tue 19th August 2008, 12:51pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 19th August 2008, 12:30pm)
IP geolocated to Australia... FT2 is Australian now?
Well it could be a Headley sock deleting his own contributions, but very strange all the same. But then they were edits to FT2's own special Headley memorial page - why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them by now?
[edit] Let me explain. Ft2 has a special page here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
which he still uses to log Headley 'abuse'. The edits entered by the anon IP are still there. So why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them? V puzzling.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 19th August 2008, 12:12pm)
QUOTE(Alex @ Tue 19th August 2008, 12:51pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 19th August 2008, 12:30pm)
IP geolocated to Australia... FT2 is Australian now?
Well it could be a Headley sock deleting his own contributions, but very strange all the same. But then they were edits to FT2's own special Headley memorial page - why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them by now?
[edit] Let me explain. Ft2 has a special page here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
which he still uses to log Headley 'abuse'. The edits entered by the anon IP are still there. So why hadn't the real FT2 deleted them? V puzzling.
Its more likely just another proNLP meatpuppet
There seems to have been a lot of them working from Australia
http://www.nlptrb.org/nlp/trainers/directory/
eg this character seems to be working from the same area
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=97119138
The Headleydown page that FT2 wrote infers that the virulently evil bogeyman HD is naturally omnipresent, possibly in several hemispheres and dimensions at once.
Basically its just more information giving a strong indication that FT2 is supporting and working with proNLP meatpuppets.
Two comments that belong in the 'TBP; thread. Both relate to the fact that FT2 claims to have written an article (on Hani Miletski, sexologist) that was in fact written almost entirely by an account called TBP.
Originally posted here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125322
Quick comments -
…
FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253
Yes, answers needed. Let's spell this out. Here is the contribution history for Hani_Miletski
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
from which you can see TBP began the article, and left it in pretty much a finished state.
(cur) (last) 20:03, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:02, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:58, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:56, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:43, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:41, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:39, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) m (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:30, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs)
FT2 claims to have 'substantially rewritten' the article but when you look at his overall contributions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52713521
they are just referencing, adding tags and a vandalism revert. What is going on?
Originally posted here
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125360
Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2
First edit to self-nom
06:13, 17 June 2006 FT2 (Talk | contribs)
TBP's last edit
01:19, 16 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Animal cognition ‎ (→Emotion: fix section head)
How long was checkuser data retained at the time?
No, it cannot be definitively proven at this time that the accounts were run by the same person. I've seen users with less mojo templated on weaker evidence, but frankly, it is one of your lesser transgressions. I'm a little busy on another matter that the wikiverse will soon feel the effects of to review your alleged socking, but if you wish to clue us in on this matter, feel free.
Originally posted here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125322
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 1st September 2008, 10:37am)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 1st September 2008, 9:57am)
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 7:40am)
Quick comments -
…
FT2, will you answer this, please? If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253
Yes, answers needed. Let's spell this out. Here is the contribution history for Hani_Miletski
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
from which you can see TBP began the article, and left it in pretty much a finished state.
QUOTE
(cur) (last) 20:03, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:02, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:58, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:56, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:43, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:41, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:39, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs) m (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:30, 11 May 2006 TBP (Talk | contribs)
FT2 claims to have 'substantially rewritten' the article but when you look at his overall contributions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52713521
they are just referencing, adding tags and a vandalism revert. What is going on?
Originally posted here
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125360
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 1st September 2008, 2:59pm)
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 1st September 2008, 2:32am)
Tarantino - you have a good reputation as a digger, or whatever they call it here. But on this one you slipped. Assumption I think, easily done. TBP wasn't me, but I'll give you 2 days or so to review it. If you're as good as rumor says, you'll work it out. If you can't then I'll walk you through it for ease.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FT2
First edit to self-nom
06:13, 17 June 2006 FT2 (Talk | contribs)
TBP's last edit
01:19, 16 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Animal cognition ‎ (→Emotion: fix section head)
How long was checkuser data retained at the time?
No, it cannot be definitively proven at this time that the accounts were run by the same person. I've seen users with less mojo templated on weaker evidence, but frankly, it is one of your lesser transgressions. I'm a little busy on another matter that the wikiverse will soon feel the effects of to review your alleged socking, but if you wish to clue us in on this matter, feel free.
Lets really really spell this one out. On his user page dated 11 December 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=93572655
FT2 claims in the 'major edits' section to have 'Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch' a number of articles, including one on Kenneth Pinyan (a man killed by an unusual encounter with a stallion). But the edit history to the article shows it was begun by and exclusively edited by User:TBP up to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43114609
when it was substantially in its present form. The only subsequent edits by FT" were the following EIGHT by (in reverse date order) . All were minor, consisting of reverts or minor alterations to sentences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62100396 revert (changes 'animal abuse' link to 'moral panic').
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=60854811 revert (details of animal pornography videos)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=60185130 (citation needed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=56979354 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=56963824 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53650262 adds moral panic link (see above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53328053 adds source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50841115 adds source
Shortly afterwards the authorship claim was moved to a subpage here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=93717337
and is still there under his 'article contributions'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Article_contributions
where he lists it in bold type, to indicate where he was the sole author 'or effectively the main part was rewritten'. Interestingly the Hani Miletski is now listed as co-authored. Presumably with User:TBP? But then why did he claim earlier that he completely wrote it? And why is he still claiming to be the sole author of the Pinyan article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=93572655
FT2 claims in the 'major edits' section to have 'Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch' a number of articles, including one on Kenneth Pinyan (a man killed by an unusual encounter with a stallion). But the edit history to the article shows it was begun by and exclusively edited by User:TBP up to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43114609
when it was substantially in its present form. The only subsequent edits by FT" were the following EIGHT by (in reverse date order) . All were minor, consisting of reverts or minor alterations to sentences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62100396 revert (changes 'animal abuse' link to 'moral panic').
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=60854811 revert (details of animal pornography videos)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=60185130 (citation needed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=56979354 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=56963824 minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53650262 adds moral panic link (see above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53328053 adds source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50841115 adds source
Shortly afterwards the authorship claim was moved to a subpage here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=93717337
and is still there under his 'article contributions'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Article_contributions
where he lists it in bold type, to indicate where he was the sole author 'or effectively the main part was rewritten'. Interestingly the Hani Miletski is now listed as co-authored. Presumably with User:TBP? But then why did he claim earlier that he completely wrote it? And why is he still claiming to be the sole author of the Pinyan article?
Whoever he is, I have put this obvious plagiarist of FT2's work on the wanted list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
And left a friendly message on FT2's talk page to warn him about this virulent sockpuppeting plagiarist.
But Thatcher disagrees
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=236183153
commenting on FT2's talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=236183689 FT2
Thatcher the point is to be on our guard and ever vigilant. These 'sleeper' accounts can spring to life at any time, and what good to the project then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
And left a friendly message on FT2's talk page to warn him about this virulent sockpuppeting plagiarist.
But Thatcher disagrees
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=236183153
commenting on FT2's talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=236183689 FT2
QUOTE
That account hasn't contributed in 2-1/2 years. Please find another row to hoe. Thatcher 07:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher the point is to be on our guard and ever vigilant. These 'sleeper' accounts can spring to life at any time, and what good to the project then?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.