English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Suspected sock puppets/Anietor

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Anietor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Anietor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

72.220.146.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Peter cohen 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I have named Anietor as an alternative candidate for puppeteer at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor.

The following text is copied form there:

The puppet's three reverts [8] [9] [10] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [11]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [12] [13] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [14] [15]. (They also discuss other articles together.)

User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [16] [17] [18]

Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [19], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [20], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [1] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.

Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [21])

I suggest that it is best to discuss the two alleged puppeteers together under the older case.

Comments

Yeah, don't really know what more to say beyond what Majoreditor said here. It's hard to prove a negative. I am among several editors who have been dealing with some borderline vandalisms in the Mother Teresa page. A small but aggressive group is trying to delist it as a GA (failing twice recently). I think they are just frustrated that editors like Majoreditor and me, and several others, have been keeping them in check and dealing with edits that violate various WP policies. I'll let my edit history speak for itself. Thanks! --Anietor 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These comments don't actually address the issue of the sockpuppet. I have now noticed that Anietor shares with the sockpuppet the habit of using misleading edit titles. [2] actually removes a sentence reporting that the two major medical journals the Lancet and the British Medical Journal have both published articles criticising care in Mother Teresa's homes; the edit title only mentions Penn and Teller. The sockpuppet's post [3] shares this misleading edit name trait in referring to a "consensus" that does not exist.

Similarly the sockpuppet's tone of dismissal of contributions by people with rival perspectives as "improper edits" shows the same WP:OWN and WP:POV and non-WP:AGF faults that the above post by Anietor mentioning "borderline vanndalisms", by an "aggrressive group" of "frustrated" editors "violat[ing] WP policies". Just as the supposed "borderline vandalisms" in the cited edit by Anietor involves references to the contents of the two medical journals, the "improper edits" in the cited sockpuppet's edit include an expansion on the content of the commentary in those journals. There is a clear common way of thinking about other editors shared by the sockpuppet and Anietor whereby disliked edits by other editors are disparaged in highly misleading terms however valid those edits may be.--Peter cohen 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

---