Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daphne-3

User:Daphne-3

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Willking1979 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Daphne-3 mentions her own edits being removed just before mentioning them. Her "own" edits were by an IP address.

-- Daphne-3's Response: The two comments in the discussion - and the edits referenced - were both posted by one and the same user account, Daphne-3; the user simply forgot to sign the second one (which has now been corrected). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphne-3 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still suspicious. Compare the revision histories of Teleology and Talk:Teleology. Willking1979 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

Yes, the revisions made with just the IP address were before I decided to register as a user in order to participate in discussion. There is no attempt to hide anything. What I don't understand is why my editing of the Teleology page was removed. I am a university professor who has taught upper-year seminars on Teleology. What is currently posted in the article is faulty, and my attempts to unmasked complexities were summarily rejected. That is what is wrong with this medium. What were the grounds for removing my later edits?


 * It was removed because 1) your edit at 19:47 UTC may have been a personal opinion according to Wikipedia rules and 2)any disputes about references are best served by template messages. Willking1979 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very poor excuse. Nor have you explained why you removed 19:05, which was the most substantial and verifiable edit. And what expertise do you have in the subject that allows you to determine what should and should not be in this article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphne-3 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a BA in History. Just because it is a verifiable edit does not mean it is good for Wikipedia. No further comments. Willking1979 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the "verifiable" part was in response to your claim that my edits were "personal opinion". I made a statement of fact about the state of the debate (which I mentioned in edit 19:05 and which you took upon yourself to delete); that can be verified and is not a personal opinion. Second, my question about your expertise was specific to your being able to comment on "what is good for Wikipedia" when it comes to an article on this subject. How familiar are you with the theory and scholarly debates surrounding the subject? Have you done work in this area? How many journal articles or books have you published on it. There have to be some standards on who can and cannot judge what content is "good". I question your ability to make that judgement. No further comments. Daphne-3 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Daphne-3. I am doing a non-admin WP:IAR closure of this discussion. There is nothing remotely sock-like here -- a user was editing from an IP, then decided to register. There was never any attempt at deception. I am archiving the above discussion, because it has degenerated into an argument over a content dispute involving the two users in question. This is not the appropriate forum for that. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no evidence of sockpuppetry here. This seems to be a person editing with an ip and then signing up for an account which is perfectly fine. There is no deception here. Suggest this be closed. This is not the place to carry on a content dispute, use the talk page and dispute resolution if necessary. --neon white talk 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really know much about resolving disputes on Wikipedia, but I will say this: A sock puppet is (as I understand it) a duplicate account used to fake additional support for a particular user's position.  Therefor, why would a sock-puppeteer post without an account, then creat an account, and say "those anonymous edits were mine"?  It would completely defeat the point of a sock puppet.  I see no evidence for sock-puppetry, nor any other reason not to assume good faith.Wardog (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions