Use your real name

[PeterEmpowerEd]

"One of the most serious crimes in cyberspace: sockpuppeting"

Wikipedia sentinel quits after 'sock-puppeting' scandal NZ Herald Monday Jun 08, 2009
A Wikipedia adminstrator has been busted sock-puppeting - creating multiple identities for his own means.

A "guardian of the truth" on Wikipedia, the global internet encyclopedia, has been caught up in an embarrassing scandal after it was revealed that he created bogus online identities to change entries on the system.

David Boothroyd – a London councillor by day, a cyber policeman by night – has been forced to resign from Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee after his alias editing gave rise to a major conflict of interest.

The Labour councillor's fall from grace comes two years after he fought off stiff international competition to win a coveted seat on the 15-strong committee, which is responsible for settling hundreds of editorial disputes every day.

His membership of "ArbCom" was no longer tenable after it emerged that he had committed one of the most serious crimes in cyberspace: sockpuppeting – the use of multiple online identities to create the illusion of support for a point of view, person or organisation. ...

Paul Williams, volunteers director at Wikimedia UK, the British arm of the American company, said: "Sock-puppeting is a very serious offence for anybody. But for someone on the Arbitration Committee it is even more so. It can result in a lifetime ban. The problem with Wikipedia is that you can hide behind user names, but there is an expectation that you don't write for self-interest. In this case there is a conflict of interest." ...

Read the full story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10577178

Comments, thoughts, anyone?

For myself, I still defend the right of whistleblowers (e.g some of the Blue Chip thread posters) and others, like poormastery, who took on thugs and pedants with such panache, to post anonymously. (Am I biased? Yes, of course.)

But I think there are certain anonymous posters on PropertyTalk -- some of whom I've referred to as 'glove-puppets' or 'cardboard cutouts' -- who could be guilty of this cyberspace 'crime'.

Perhaps we could start a hall of fame? Who would be in it?

[k1w1]

Not me, Ed. I'm still trying to get use of my one and only handle back in action - right now the stubborn mods refuse to let me post without checking the content first.

I steadfastly refuse to add another handle - I just want mine back, free to post at will - but the mods are ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING ME to add another handle to get around the problem.

Take it up with them.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

I'm still trying to get use of my one and only handle back in action - right now the stubborn mods refuse to let me post without checking the content first.
I steadfastly refuse to add another handle - I just want mine back, free to post at will - but the mods are ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING ME to add another handle to get around the problem.

I just spotted your reply. That's an interesting new wrinkle. I'm surprised to hear about what you understand as 'encouragement' to create a(nother) pseudonym... personally, I think like wikipedia we should only have ONE identity here -- whether in our real name or anonymous. Regards, P

PS How long does your probation last -- before you can post without your posts being checked for toxins?

[Monid]

I just spotted your reply. That's an interesting new wrinkle. I'm surprised to hear about what you understand as 'encouragement' to create a(nother) pseudonym... personally, I think like wikipedia we should only have ONE identity here -- whether in our real name or anonymous. Regards, P

PS How long does your probation last -- before you can post without your posts being checked for toxins?

Just to note, no one (at least on the moderators front) is actively encouraging K1w1 to create a new identity, he is simply taking being on the watch list as encouragement to do so. I should also note that this has been tried unsuccessfully in the past by people on the watchlist - their new "identity" was fairly obvious and once we confirmed it, they got watchlisted as well...

In terms of the length of probation, there is no set length it is more a how often the person posts comments that don't need moderation. Otherwise people could just remain silent for x period of time and then resume their behavior once they were off the watchlist. The whole point of watchlisting isn't a punitive measure, it is instead giving someone a chance to show us that they can participate on PT while keeping within the fairly generous framework of the rules.

Cheers
David

[Kerry Christian]

Great thread

I have read with interest the replys

And I agree and also disagree with some comments

I think we as a forum of PI's need to understand thet we are all at different levels of each of our business - Being property

All I am trying to do here is open up the people who advise honestly vrs those who are there for other reasons

I accept some members may need to remain "Secret" but a quick byline as to why would help?

Thankyou to all those who have chosen to change from a moniker name to their own.

I want to post more often and if you know my name, I would expect you guys and girls to correct any mistakes or assumptions I make based on your experince and knowledge

My motive is to open up and improve this advisory service

As to the IRD - ask them to join and get them to answer questions we raise.
I would welcome their discussion on issues and of course we would get them to do this on a "without Predidice" basis


Lets face it if we trade properties - they expect payment

If we hold - they do not

Off to Wgtn 2morrow - hope the weather is good

[PeterEmpowerEd]

A new twist on anonymous comments on the interwebs...

Where would this leave some of the cardboard cut-outs and glove puppets on PropertyTalk?

Model forces Google to unveil 'skank' blogger
By ASHER MOSES - SMH

WINNER: Liskula Cohen has forced Google to release the name of a blogger who allegedly defamed her.

A former Vogue cover girl has won a landmark court battle to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who called her a "skank" and an "old hag".

Model Liskula Cohen sued Google in January in the hope of forcing the company to reveal the person responsible for allegedly defamatory comments on a blog called Skanks in NYC, which was hosted by Google's Blogger service.

"I would have to say the first-place award for 'Skankiest in NYC' would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen," the anonymous blogger wrote.

"How old is this skank? 40 something? She's a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank."

Cohen, who is actually 37, believed the posts were defamatory but was forced to take action against Google in order to unmask the blogger's identity before she could take further action.

On Monday in the US, Judge Joan Madden ruled that Cohen was entitled to sue the blogger for defamation and, in an unprecedented move, forced Google to provide the blogger's name.

The name will presumably be revealed in court. It is unclear when the matter will return to court.

The tall, blonde Canadian, who is based in New York, has modelled for Giorgio Armani and Versace and appeared on the cover of the Australian edition of Vogue.

But Cohen's modelling career ground to a halt in January 2007 when a man stabbed her in the face with a broken glass, requiring her to get 46 stitches, the New York Post reported.

The man, who was sent to jail, became angry after she objected to him stealing a bottle of vodka from her table.

Judge Madden rejected the claims by the blogger's lawyer that the comments were mere opinion or "trash talk", and that only factual assertions could be considered libellous. ...

Full story...

I personally don't do anonymous, although as noted above, I support anonymous whistleblowers -- but NOT anonymous defamation or sledging... or this sort of spiteful rubbish. << UPDATE: Link doesn't work. Anonymous Slapper's gossip was removed.

[fatfishandchipman]

What if a celebrity, politician, or a person who holds a well-respected position in society were to post here under their real name? Most assuredly anything they post could be used against them at some future time by the media.

Without creative license to post under a pseudonym what fun could there be? And Just my opinion, but web-forums should be fun!

Though, knowing that the Serious Fraud Office and the IRD are trolling this board for real-estate scamsters does suck most of the fun out of ProprtyTalk.com. But at least with their presence the three or four honest people on this board now don’t have to work so hard to beat the scamsters into submission!

And yes, I do agree, whistle blowing should always be encouraged.


In fact, whistle blowing should have its own thread. What about it Fox?


Fox says…?

[k1w1]

So Peter, there's 'use your real name' or there's anonymous defamation? What about the 99.99% of posters in between who choose to remain anonymous?

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Hey I’m all for FUN! And also for well-written, well-expressed comments and news and discussion, even debate and ego-pricking -- and all of that can be done anonymously. We agree about whistle-blowers.

Most assuredly anything they post could be used against them at some future time by the media.”

Anything? Really? Why? I’m not sure about that.

I’m NOT trying to suck the fun out of anything. I just think that using the ‘mask’ of a psuedonymn -- judging by results -- by SOME posters leads to the 'attack the person not the argument' approach.

It's also clearly been abused by the cardboard cut-outs etc I refer to who pop up on PT to anonymously denigrate their "enemies" without declaring their allegiances (or building a case other than name-calling).

-- which is sort of what the wikipedia article spoke about... a kind of 'corruption', or at least phony 'community reaction'. The US media talk about "astroturf" = fake grass roots reaction. You might call me cynical but I've experienced it here. (Yes, yes. Boo hoo, right?)

Kiwi: re "there's 'use your real name' or there's anonymous defamation?"

No, that's not a polarity I'm suggesting. Of course 99.9% of posts are unobjectionable, just as you say.

I'm not driving an agenda here, just discussing why I actually disagree (respectfully) with Kerry's original discussion point that perhaps we should ALL be posting in our real names ... but that I also see the problem for the discussion forum's ecology when people lash out nastily ... anonymously.

Just chewing the fat, as usual.

But let me say I wholeheartedly agree with the court decision (reported yesterday) to make Google identify the blogger who [allegedly] defamed that NY model.
My view: People need to be accountable for their public statements. Anonymous log-ins tend -- in some -- to breed a recklessness and nasty DAMAGING discourtesy. And they shouldn't get away with it.

[fatfishandchipman]

Good point! But, are you the real Peter Aranyi?

Is OllyN the real Olly Newland or is OllyN really just my neighbor Olly Nosnibor?

Could the truth really be that there are only four or five people, but with, multiple identities actually posting on PropertyTalk.com? Who really knows? It is possible.

In truth, I can tell you this; if someone really wants too, and has a Court Order in their hand they can and will find out your real name.

[k1w1]

Hey!! You know Olly Nosnibor too? Wow, small world.

[Keys]

In truth, I can tell you this; if someone really wants too, and has a Court Order in their hand they can and will find out your real name.

With prepaid internet access and no confirmation of name and address from nearly every website I've visited .................. If I wanted to keep my name to myself it wouldn't be too hard.

Cash is still legal tender.

[Shalodge]

Amazed at those who think the internet is annonymous.. It isnt.. As far as adsl goes your Ip address leads back to the wires coming up your drive.. no matter how much cash you pay for the access..

With wireless (CDMA/T3G/XT) or 802.11 based protocols you will not be allowed annon Internet access as is the case with prepaid voice access.. Sure you can use a false identity to sign up but that is stepping over the line IMHO..

Only way I can think of is to piggyback via an unsecured wireless AP.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Thanks for your comments.

Am I the real Peter Aranyi? Well, I know I'm not the only one -- there are more, on the interwebs. (Reminds me of the weet bix ad: "Well, I know I can do six.")

Technical issues aside, the part of this question which interests me much more than whether or not people can or can't 'hide' their identity with efficacy is this:

How should a community like PT handle 'sockpuppeting – the use of multiple online identities to create the illusion of support for a point of view, person or organisation' ... especially when that anonymous sockpuppeting becomes abusive towards posters (c'est moi!) who question claims of 'expertise' or 'leadership' or 'integrity' of the chosen 'hero'?

If you agree the NY model defamed anonymously was entitled to 'face her accuser' ... to know WHO was saying that NASTY stuff about her (which I strongly do) then HOW does that work here on PT? ... short of getting a Court Order etc?

Jut to re-iterate: I agree with Kiwi's point that 99.9% of material posted is innocuous. It's when things get personal and abusive...

Any thoughts? - P

PS fatfishandchipman: Yo. I'm still interested (if you care to share) in your reasoning for your earlier statement that ANYTHING we say here could be used against us in future by the media. Curious... (If I've misunderstood, forgive me.)

[k1w1]

I think he meant, for example, if say, Bernard Hickey were posting on here (anonymously as Hernard Bickey) raving on about his investment properties and how wonderful they all are, and if the Govt thinks they can introduce some tax on them then they can suck my balls and go to hell etc...

If the media discovered this somewhat counter pov from his public persona, then they may have a field day with it.