Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeadleyDown/Archive

06 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Hi. Concerning you response to the SPI on Lam Kin Keung / HeadleyDown / Dave Snowden Article: NLP The main suspected sockpuppets in this case are User:Lam Kin Keung, as a new incarnation of banned sockpuppet User:HeadleyDown. However, there is also close collaboration as a possible meatpuppet/sockmaster of User:Snowded/possible reincarnation of HeadleyDown. Here is the HeadleyDown information. Note well, the block on behaviour recommendations, the MO, and the recruitment of meats. Behavior: Lam Kin Keung edits the NLP article using misinformation (dishonesty) and referenecs that do not appear to support the statements made e.g. They clearly have an agenda to disparage the subject rather than present it in an impartial way and push extreme skeptical POV:  User Snowded (who arrived just a month after HeadleyDown was banned, possibly as a sleeper account) also continually defends  Lam Kin Keung in POV pushing. Lam Kin Keung edits from the San Francisco area, where Snowded regularly visits on business: Blatant recent admission from Snowded on their most recent collaboration: Making scurrilous attempts at driving other bona fide editors away by outing: Their POV pushing is disruptive enough to drive away bona fide editors by exhausting their patience on talkpage: It may be just a matter of time before other meatpuppets emerge as they could be running this as a network of meats trying to disparage or debunk the subject. There is already evidence of this from subject experts: The sooner these meatpuppets are banned properly, the sooner the article can settle down to some constructive balance. ANJPL (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note - The filer of this report is clearly a sock, possibly of a blocked or banned user. This should be looked at. Jus' sayin'. Doc   talk  03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Clearly not filed under good faith. As such, I'm going to mark for closure. Note, we have a case going on at Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

17 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Hello, I am enemesis. I was involved with the editting war about 6 -7 years ago where Headlydown was involved in a sock puppet scandal on the Neuro Linguistic Programming page. My name at the time I am pretty sure was JustinA. upon proceeding into discussion I was not hesitant to say that Headly is here and editting the article again. I was probably abrupt and I am sorry for any mislaid rudeness, I felt I had to speak about what was obvious from reading the article in comparison to how it was editted by Headly 6-7 years ago. I have been coming up to date with current goings on. Istb351 does seem to be defending snowded quite heavily also.

I would point out that at that time 6-7 years ago all points that have been made toward an anti NLP article are again prevelant in this new article. There is also a page that I came across on istb351's wall that noted headleys crimes of sockpuppetry and that he can be identified by behaviour. Upon reading the article on Neuro Linguistic Programming I can say that I most definitely believe that Headlydown is editting the NLP article again.

The section on empirical study was also a point of contention with the editors back then and seemed to be headly's point of focus. the research that he did was to get documentation by professionals that were unrelated to NLP and who also gave unfavourable opinions on NLP. in this new article he talks of efficacy of NLP the word was used back then as well to the same general effect. I remember this as I did not know or had heard the word before and it stood out to me both then and now.

Headly in talk would not show regard to any reasonable points and was headstrong in his intent for the article, this made it hard for anyone to reach him on rational matters voiced about the article. Snowded uses this same tact when in talk as well.

In one of the discussions we had Headley admitted that he had done NLP and "knew all the trainers" in a particular branch. Encyclotadd I believe did some investigative work and identified David Snowden as snowded. David Snowden appears on youtube giving lectures on foundations that were built on NLP such as metaphor. This was an idea created by Grinder and Bandler after Modelling Milton Erricsson and is infact included as part of what is called the Milton Model. This would lead me to believe that the information given by headly back then was correct and that he is experienced in NLP. David Snowdens videos on youtube also reflects his knowledge on Neuro Linguistic programming although presented in his own format and possibly rebranded. (This could be a rebranding of the work in NLP that he has done. The effort to discredit the article since learning NLP could be because he has moved on into other modes of thought and strategies, believing that his way is better.)

Another point he made back then and which is prevalent now in this article is that NLP has been an outdated psychology since the 1980's. This detail also sticks out to me to be an identifying factor. It seems a point that if an editor were going to make it, it would be a personal choice to use the information as it is not common thought about NLP. It was used both then and now. This stood out to me back then because while he was saying that NLP is not effective he was actually also saying that it was during the 1970's and 1980's.

The article itself continually ran down NLP with out any let up back then, This format has not changed as well and the article reads very similar. I also note that Encyclotadd has made an appeal that snowded is a sock for headly or maybe a profile that headly uses these days to edit articles. considerring the fun he had with causeing mischief last timeand his self confidence I do not believe that Headlydown would have been discouraged from editing Wikipedia under aliases since the headlydown icidents. Snowded may have over time felt he had garnerred enough credibility within the wikipedia society and decided to have another go at editing the NLP article to his liking as he had have preferred it back then.

If we can spot him from behaviour and congruencies in information from the past to now then I am totally convinced that Headlydown is editing the NLP article again. It was a deeply harrowing time back then and I am not sure Headly realises the source of frustration he was to the other editors. This case is very near to identical to the previous and I will not change my mind that Headlydown is editting this article again under the name of snowded, even if you decided against it this would not change my mind. there are too many similarities from last time to this time for me to concede.

regards.

I should like to ask does wikipedia keep pages of sockpuppet offenders edits so that work can be easily identified by content and themes in the work as well?

Also Woohookity if he is still on wikipedia as an editor may be able to verify these details as well. Thank you.

There may be more that I can recall from back then if it is so needed :).

Enemesis (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Yet another recently created SPA, making the same conspiracy theory accusations (and not bothering to notify). One of his predecessors raised this before. Here we have the rather novel idea that anyone who talks about metaphor must be basing their thoughts on NLP, so I suppose there is some originality in the extension of the accusations this time even if they display a profound ignorance of the field. There are a couple of previous SPIs from SPAs which have also been dismissed. The accusations are on external NLP sites that appear to be driving a series of meat puppets (report on that in preparation for ANI but there is a lot of evidence to assemble.

As to the above, my offer to disclose any personal information to any admin who wants to take this seriously remains, but the accusations above are OTT and disruptive. Snowded TALK 07:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To add to this response. I have put up with this nonsensical accusation from a succession of SPAs all repeating material with minor modifications from an external web site. I've also had off wiki emails which had been pretty unpleasant (happy to share if needed). The accusations made above about my work would be serious attacks if there was any evidence to support them. It's been going on for a year or more so I would appreciate who ever reviews this taking that into account. I linked the editor who brought this to the previous review - see above- but despite that they chose to bring it here again. The users statement that their IP address is not located near that of other NLP editors is interesting, it implies some knowledge and co-ordination -- Snowded  TALK 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Noted that E made this change after I wrote my comment on IP address  Snowded  TALK 13:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He withdrew those statements Dave so i think your flag of these reverts is irrelevant. I would stick to the case at hand instead of over-hyping reverted edits Johnsy88 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a consistent flow of information against you snowded, My suggestion is to check my ip location. I am I should say sure that it will be nowhere near any other user discussing neuro linguistic programming. You are teaching some form of communication studies and have used formats for presentation similar to NLP. I created the account when I had seen the dissarray of the article as I had last time and decided to do something about it. wikipedia perhaps should keep copies of editted artciles by socks and the talk where the article is in contention for easier identification of re-offenders. This would be very workable in seeing any of the recurring contents and themes and can prove that old accounts related to articles of contention can be validated when called upon as witnesses. Encyclotadd provided documentation and I had already made my mind up before that on viewing the article, that Headly is involved. we have documentation and a witness. I would not make an accusation if I was not certain of which I am 100 percent certain on this matter. I believe the evidence is quite strong. The only way you could disclude it is if there was proven sock puppetry on my behalf of which there is not. And if it does somehow get proven that I am a sock puppet I will laugh as I know the truth. My heart however will go out to the poor editor snowded tries to link me too because of course they will be an innocent party.

The comments are not disruptive.This article has been disrupted before and now it is happening again. It is unacceptable.

regards...

Enemesis (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your wasting your time with Professor David Snowden (snowded -- http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ <<<his personal website --- Dave Snowden <<his own WP biography article a few friends created for him with his help).

He has a bad habit of ignoring facts that go against his opinion, hiding behind his vast knowledge of WP bureaucracy and red tape and his bully boy tactics.

He also has a past history of Biased political editing, ignoring notable citations and bullying/ganging up on other inexperienced WP editors in the past with the help of his friends AndyTheGrump/Slatersteven/The Four Deuces. Normally he is somewhat petulant and patronising to new or established WP editors that attempt to approach him for advice,help or when he is generally confronted on issues of biased editing.

It would not surprise me in the least if this man was involved in SP and i say throw the book at the bounder and stop his one sided biased editing spree before he ruins the values and aspirations of the WP foundation :)

Time to grow up dave?

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Johnsy88 it is actually rather telling. NLP is a large field in the UK. The link to Davids page tacit knowledge demonstrates a direct competiton to NLP modelling which is in itself the ability to take apart what someone does with language and reconstruct it in linguistic terms so it is easily teachable to others. The cognitive edge site demonstrates a communications based business for businesses run by David Snowden. NLP as a psychology is also communication based and is highly applicable to improving communications within a business environment and could be deemed as David Snowdens competition in the real world arena. Apart from me believing he is Headlydown, this seems a highly dubious and manipulative exercise in something that is to be considered an objective arena that we can add to the list of David Snowdens dubious affairs whilst on wikipedia. because of David Snowdens real world affairs in the world there is an extreme conflict of interest where editing this article is concerned. Where these sorts of problems exist I recommend the appropriate action be taken by admins in regards to the intention of wikipedia articles as well as continuing the pending investigation of snowded being identified as a sock puppet of headlydown. Thank you.

Enemesis (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm closing this case due to an entire lack of evidence, and bordering on bad faith. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)