Blog - Latest News

A milestone for Nicole Prause? 50+ apparent sockpuppets edit Wikipedia with her biases, lies and defamation.

February 19, 2021/0 Comments/in Uncategorized /by psadmin

Wikipedia prohibits sockpuppet accounts, but it polices them poorly. Not only that, even when it discovers evidence of sockpuppet accounts and bans them, it doesn’t always reverse the edits of the cheater. So, there’s a strong incentive for biased Wikipedia contributors to create new accounts to lay their poisoned eggs in the Wikipedia nest. “Crime” pays in this instance.

Not only that, Wikipedia’s editors zealously promote the sex/porn industry, quite often reversing any edits that would bring a more balanced and accurate perspective to related pages. Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales co-founded a company that focused on X-rated media. Yes, you read that correctly.

Research unfavorable to the industry is swiftly edited out. At the same time, cherry-picked research that gives a false impression of the expert consensus in the field is promoted, even if weak or flawed. The result is highly unreliable pages on harms related to porn and sex work, among others.

Similar distortions have been reported by others, including journalist Sharyl Atkisson. Don’t miss her piece “The Dark Side of Wikipedia.” Also, consider Ann Bartow’s Michigan Law Review article “Portrait of the Internet as a Young Man” (link goes to PDF). Bartow reports that rabid pornography proponent Peter G. Werner (who sometimes uses the pseudonym Iamcuriousblue) heavily edited Wikipedia entries to disparage Melissa Farley, Catharine MacKinnon and Sheila Jeffries, and marginalize their defenders.

Pro-porn sexologist Nicole Prause has taken full advantage of this corrupt environment. A list of 50+ Wikipedia accounts that appear to be hers can be found at the bottom of this page. They are identifiable by her extreme bias, and by the fact that she often tweeted the same content she edited into Wikipedia at around the same time she made the edits. They attack the same people and organizations she attacks on Twitter, namely, anyone who dares to point to harms associated with the sex/porn industry.

Agenda-driven Wikipedia editor Tgeorgescu then protects her edits from deletion while reverting edits from anyone who tries to insert more accurate information. A few examples from Prause’s and Tgeorgescu’s current obsession, the Nofap Wikipedia page, whose error-filled content was largely created by apparent Prause sockpuppets. In this example, Tgeorgescu shamelessly protects malicious edits by Prause’s sockpuppets (highlighted):

In this example, Tgeorgescu reverts edits containing more accurate information about NoFap or the research (highlighted):

Quite a tag team!

After this current article was published, Tgeorgescu and a new apparent Prause sockpuppet (Jammoth) collaborated to protect the ‘Nicole Prause’ Wikipedia page (March 2, 2021). Notice how within an hour of sockpuppet Jammoth editing the Prause talk page Tgeorgescu responds to her, stating he has taken care of her…um, Jammoth’s…request even before the regular monitor (ScottishFinnishRadish) could tend to it!

In the only other section on the Nicole Prause “talk page” Tgeorgescu replies to a second apparent Prause sockpuppet (MERABDen) with false claims that there are police and FBI investigations, and the assertion that libel victories are meaningless. We must assume that Tgeorgescu is referring to Prause’s 8-year old fairy tale that both the LAPD and the FBI are investigating Gary Wilson, Alex Rhodes and others for her fabrications of wrongdoing. Spoiler alert: No investigations are proceeding. Anyone can file a fraudulent police report. Prause certainly has and she was exposed in a court of law for doing so. In addition, Tgeorgescu seems to be referring to my 2nd legal victory, when he states “So stalking her could put someone in jail even if he wins the libel trial.” Problem is, my first legal victory proved Prause was the perpetrator not I, and that Prause misused the legal system with a frivolous legal proceeding to try to silence me. My 2nd legal victory confirmed once again that Prause was lying about her fabricated victimhood.

Question: Why is Tgeorgescu, who claims his expertise is religion, policing the ‘Nicole Prause’ Wikipedia page so assiduously?

Wikipedia briefly curtails the escapades of “NeuroSex” and its aliases

At one point, Wikipedia itself banned 9 of Prause’s accounts that it was able to tie to her “Neurosex” account. That was some time ago. Yet she hasn’t curbed her creation of new sockpuppet accounts since then. Indeed, Wikipedia has since listed another 8 suspected NeuroSex aliases in addition to the original 9!

Here are the 8 confirmed sockpuppets of NeuroSex that Wikipedia originally banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NeuroSex

Here are the 8 additional suspected NeuroSex sockpuppets that Wikipedia lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NeuroSex:

Yet, it appears from the list below that all of the illicit accounts Wikipedia found are just the tip of the Prause Sockpuppet Iceberg.

Evidence suggesting that “NeuroSex” is Nicole Prause

There is no doubt that “NeuroSex” is Prause. First, NeuroSex’s only edit before May 24, 2018 was an unsuccessful attempt to insert a YouTube video about her unpublished “Orgasmic Meditation” study onto the ‘Nicole Prause’ Wikipedia page.

Even more definitive proof arrived when NeuroSex offered to Wikipedia private emails between Prause and officials at MDPI – on the very day the emails were sent. I know this because I (Gary Wilson) was copied on all these same emails between Prause and MDPI officials. She also clearly knew about the upcoming Retraction Watch article, which she successfully orchestrated. By the way, in it, she lied to Retraction Watch about nearly everything.

As with many of Prause’s Wikipedia sockpuppets, NeuroSex’s edits revolved around one of Prause’s long-term, ultimately unsuccessful, obsessions: discrediting and seeking retraction of the paper co-authored by Gary Wilson and US Navy doctors: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016). The batch of emails between MDPI and Nicole Prause started on May 22, 2018 with MDPI notifying all involved that one minor technical correction and an editorial addressing her unprofessional conduct would be forthcoming. This enraged Prause who responded with a string of demands and threats, followed first by false accusations and personal attacks, and then by editing the MDPI Wikipedia page to misrepresent the situation.

If you want more on the extraordinary story of how Prause used every conceivable tactic in her failed effort to suppress the publication of a peer-reviewed paper, Park et al, see Prause’s unethical efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review (Park et al., 2016) retracted. As of early 2021, Park et al. has been cited by over 85 other peer-reviewed papers, and is the most viewed paper in the history of the journal Behavioral Sciences.

In June of 2019, the parent company of the Behavioral Sciences journal, MDPI, published an editorial about Prause’s unethical behavior surrounding her unsuccessful attempts to have Park et al., 2016 retracted: June, 2019: MDPI publishes an editorial about Nicole Prause’s unethical behavior.

MDPI also published an official response to the MDPI Wikipedia page, which had been hijacked by entities trying to tarnish MDPI with false claims. These unethical entities have attempted to prevent MDPI studies about porn from being cited on Wikipedia: June, 2019: MDPI’s official response to the MDPI Wikipedia page fiasco (it had been edited by several Nicole Prause sockpuppets).

Multiple aliases and the number is still growing

The 50+ suspected Prause sockpuppet aliases are listed below (but there’s no reason to think this list is complete).

Documenting all the falsehoods and propaganda edited into Wikipedia by Prause’s numerous sockpuppets would be a full-time job, and rival the length of War & Peace. That said, YBOP has created a few sections detailing some of Prause’s suspected Wikipedia subterfuge:

If you like irony you’ll enjoy this

Years ago, when my wife and I both tried to use Wikipedia to correct the chronic misinformation Tgeorgescu and his team were spewing about us (that we were “religious” and so forth), Tgeorgescu reversed our edits, informing us wrongly that we were “sockpuppets” of each other! So we see no point in attempting to engage in dialogue on Wikipedia to correct nefarious activity. Yet Tgeorgescu backs all of the comments by Prause’s 50+ sockpuppets! Wikipedia is corrupt, and it shows.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.