Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeverWorker/Archive

Report date July 14 2009, 09:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * }


 * Evidence submitted by The JPS

User:NeverWorker's first edit to Wikipedia was an attack on the legitimacy of scholarly interpretation. Two months earlier Annie.barber had written very similarly worded thoughts. The former has posted a note on AB's talk page pledging alliance. From my 4.5 years experience editing Wikipedia, I suspect that there is sock puppetry going on to disrupt Wikipedia (please note this is not a content dispute as the content has been peer reviewed by experienced editors). The JPS talk to me  09:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Really now, this is too rich. I agree with another wikipedia user on Talk:Bohemian_Rhapsody challenging the inclusion of a certain interpretation of a song, and I'm accused of being a sock puppet by the very person whose inclusion I challenged? Let us examine this "evidence" piece by piece. First, I never challenged the general validity of scholarly interpretation (not that this has anything to do with sock-puppetry). I challenged the legitimacy of a specific scholarly interpretation that I feel is at best tendentious and moreover given an implied status in the article as a sort of definitive interpretation, which it most certainly is not. Moreover, I explicitly wrote that it would be good to include a different, more widely accepted interpretation should one be found--hardly a comment from one who challenges the very validity of such an enterprise. As far as my comments and those of Annie.barber being similarly worded is concerned, the claim is laughable. While we express broadly similar views, our wordings and writing styles are hardly the same. This claim is on its very face ludicrous. First, while I expressed general agreement with her stance, our claims are in their details in no way identical. In particular, I make no claim of bias (bias against whom?) and invite the inclusion of other interpretations. And second, we quite clearly use very different vocabularies and figures of speech. That one would suspect us of being one person is, simply put, silly. It is true that I did post a note on Annie.barber's talk page encouraging her to make the proposed edit and offering my support. I did this for two reasons. First, as I stated in said note, I was accessing wikipedia from my cellular phone. Due to a confluence of events, I have been without reliable internet access for a while, and will remain so until the end of this week. A quick check of the IPs used in posting my edits will show that all my access has been from a $6/hr internet kiosk in a laundromat, the Brooklyn Public Library, and my cell phone. As none of these options are particularly conducive to careful editing (especially editing something which may require a significant amount of time), I felt it better that somebody else who had previously stated the same opinion should make said edit. Second, I felt it appropriate to commit myself to "go to bat" for her should she need it as I was the one encouraging her in this action. This is especially true in light of the fact that she admits to being a student, whereas TheJPS chided her in that thread in his asserted position as "a lecturer in higher education," thus establishing (even if unintentionally) a certain dynamic of authority. This dynamic is of course exacerbated (rightly or wrongly) by his status as an administrator. If such a note is out of line by the normal standards of Wikipedia, please let me know, and I will be happy apologize and refrain from making similar comments in the future. As far as this being done to disrupt wikipedia is concerned, such a claim implies bad faith. I think it clear that the most cursory glance will show clearly no such bad faith. All of this discussion took place on the article's and user's respective talk pages; no edits were made to Wikipedia content. The proposed edits were over a claim that a certain source is given undue prominence and nothing more. Whether or not one agrees with the edit at issue, he must admit this hardly sounds like a malicous attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Similarly, I would request clarification on the claim that this is not a content dispute. I think Annie.barber and I both dispute content quite explicitly. If there is indeed some regulation stipulating that after peer review content becomes sacrosanct and thenceforth protected from dispute, I plead ignorance, ask that I be directed to this regulation for my personal edification, and withdraw my comments on the article. The topic of wikipedia regulations being at hand, I feel I must protest an admittedly minor violation with regards to this investigation. The sock-puppet investigation guidelines (Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance) clearly state that one accused should be informed by means of the appropriate template. Presumably this is to give him a chance to defend himself against spurious accusations. No such notice was given in this case. In fact, I only stumbled upon this investigation by chance when I searched for my username on a whim. I don't mean to imply any malice, but certainly notification is an important step in the opening of an investigation and its oversight surely indicates something. Of course, this all ignores the true punchline. Namely, TheJPS accused me (in what one might percieve as a personal attack) of displaying "the AOL 'me too' menatility [sic.]" Such a claim obviously cannot be applied to a sock-puttet (who is he copying?). This forces me to question TheJPS's own conviction in the certitute of his accusations.--NeverWorker (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I switched the casename to Neverworker since the account was created in 2006 and Annie.barber was created in 2009. Icestorm815  •  Talk  15:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lack of evidence has led this case to languish; closing this case without prejudice against the opening of a new one if further evidence should present. Nathan  T 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions