Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/IwRnHaA

User:IwRnHaA

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

Bad hand account designed solely for POV-pushing a pro-cold fusion perspective at Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion. See contributions for more info.
 * Evidence

I admit that this is an alternate account. I created it to segregate my work on the Cold fusion topic to protect me from smears such as this, just as it says on my user page. WP:SOCK states:
 * Comments


 * "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area....
 * "Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty....
 * "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area."

I value my privacy, and I object to ScienceApologist's attempt to "out" people with whom he disagrees as an editing tactic. ScienceApologist has offered no evidence that I have been editing Cold fusion in bad faith, because I haven't been. IwRnHaA (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see more evidence from SA that this is a "bad hand" account than his request to delve through IwRnHaA's contributions. Diffs please? Ronnotel (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe IwRnHaA is a "bad hand" but I also don't think "remain unsullied by potential wikidrama" is a valid reason to split ones editing. Its hard to tell if IwRnHaA has enough science background to edit such a confusing subject.  The issue with "cold fusion" always has been thats its a really reasonable idea that should work if you know the science.  Does this editor know just enough to get them in trouble or can the filter/weight the bad peer-reviewed literature.  I don't think this account falls under Segregation and security 3 or 4.  Those are the closest claims it can make.  For these reasons I think this account should be deleted but no actions taken against IwRnHaA core account since he appears to be very honest.--OMCV (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure I agree. Cold fusion is a controversial subject and intimidation through ridicule is one of the weapons employed by those who might like it to disappear. It seems perfectly reasonable that someone might prefer not to subject their main account or their personal reputation to this sort of attack. The policy cited above states quite clearly that merely controversy within one's family or social circle is enough to resort to a sock. That seems like a pretty low bar. Ronnotel (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To "remain unsullied by potential wikidrama" is not a good reason, but to "remain unsullied by potential real-world drama" is a good reason. SunDragon34 (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no sign that this account is used "deceiptively", as WP:SOCK defines it. IwRnHaA is openly saying that this is an alternate account.  Furthermore, ScienceApologist should not be allowed to accuse someone for his presumed intent without any correlated evidence of a wrong behavior: there isn't any, so I agree with IwRnHaA when he says that this is smearing.  Furthermore, I find IwRnHaA's contribution on cold fusion indicative of the level of scientific knowledge that can be expected from any wikipedia editors.  Pcarbonn (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No apparent violations of WP:SOCK, based on contribs. Editor seems to be editing in good faith and is transparent and legitimate in their use of an alternate account. Anyone disagree, or can we close this discussion? SunDragon34 (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions


 * Agree, no violation has occurred per above consensus. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, this report is being discussed at WP:ANI. --Elonka 07:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)