Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anothersliceofhistory

User:Anothersliceofhistory

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

&#8756; Therefore | talk 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anothersliceofhistory edited the David Vitter article with statements that are POV and unsourced. After I reverted, User Araphel then made the identical change. Then, after reverting a second time, Anothersliceofhistory blanked out the entire section. After reverting that, User Araphel blanked out the section a second time.
 * Evidence

Kind of annoying that this is going on. Because two people feel the same way about an article doesn't automatically make them sockpuppets. I don't believe that Therefore assumed good faith. The story we edited lacked a neutral point of view and we were working to improve it. It would appear more that Therefore simply placed this tag because he disagreed with the edits we made on a philosophical level. It doesn't seem very welcoming to new members of Wikipedia to have another editor throw that at you right away. Louisiana politics is not a very big area so I assume Araphel is another individual who desires to have the complete story told about LFF and David Vitter. Please let me know what other evidence is needed. Anothersliceofhistory 01:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * I lost some of the assumption when statements were made, such as, "[The Times-Picayune] is extremely biased and is part of a larger agenda against Louisiana conservative causes" and after the entire section was deleted not once but twice with the edit summary of "Nonsense". The assumption doesn't include vandalism which section deleting is. Even good faith vandalism is vandalism. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The RFCU concluded with "Possible on a technical level". Given that Anothersliceofhistory states that he doesn't know Araphel, the chances of them having IP so close in range are small. These "two" have also tag teamed on Louisiana Family Forum. &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the reason we have similar IP's is that we live in the same state - probably the same city. This is an article about a Louisiana politician after all!  Should we assume that every person that lives in the same state as Therefore is the user Therefore?  That would be simply silly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersliceofhistory (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

After I reverted the article to a neutral stance, Therefore reversed my edit. I then deleted the section because of Therefore's complete disregard for neutrality and penchant for "nonsense." Perhaps Anothersliceofhistory and I have come to the independent conclusion that Therefore is a jackass. Is this all Therefore does all day? Screw around with conservative group's articles? Maybe Therefore should look for gainful non-government employment.Araphel 02:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved Admin I have to state that after examining the edit logs for both, the prima facie evidence looks pretty strong that one is a sock for the other; the "possible" RFCU finding doesn't discredit this interpretation of the facts. In addition, if these two users are two different people, they would improve their credibility by finding other articles to edit. And Araphel, your comment directed at Therefore -- insinuating that he is a government employee -- can be understood as a personal attack. -- llywrch 05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added to the SSP list. Dureo 06:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I also mentioned on discussion page that I did found out Araphel's real life identity and I'm proud to report to you that we are indeed different people (SHOCKER!) who just happen to both live in Baton Rouge and have the same internet provided. I guess the rush to judgment by Therefore (a violation of both assumption of good faith and Don't Bite the newbies) resulted in another new guy being completely put off by this place and desiring for the wasted days spent here to be returned. Anothersliceofhistory 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on Vitter's discussion page, I am bowing out of assisting on Wikipedia. The attacks and time consuming, unproductive attempts at neutral edits have shown me that it is better for me to concentrate on my real-life activities and not fight for a neutral point of view on a site that has a clear liberal bent and values verifiability over truth.  Wouldn't that be a silly disclaimer to put in the front of a hardbound encyclopedia?  "In writing this book, the editors made the decision to pursue verifiability over truth.  When the two clearly conflicted, we decided that the reader would rather read an article that was incorrect but linked to a verifiable third source.  Therefore, please read all articles knowing they may be inaccurate but backed up by as many as one additional source."

I have come to the conclusion that these two users are in fact not the same people and respectively request that you withdraw this case. &#8756; Therefore | talk 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I remain at the conclusion that Therefore made vindictive attacks on newbies and should have the appropriate disgust and disdain directed at him by other members of the Wikipedia who disapprove of this type of behavior. Anothersliceofhistory 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Request withdrawn by nominator Therefore. If not already done, &#8756; Therefore should review Assume good faith and apologize to those he accused. -- Jreferee    t / c  23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)