Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
[edit] User:Kilz
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Kilz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
67.175.233.209 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
- Report submission by
Widefox 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence
Swiftfox history:
- (cur) (last) 21:23, 21 October 2006 Kilz (Talk | contribs) (on second thought reverted)
final revert to coverup------^
- (cur) (last) 21:20, 21 October 2006 Kilz (Talk | contribs) m (was not loged in during change, this was not intentional)
regret, and attempt to coverup------^
- (cur) (last) 21:14, 21 October 2006 67.175.233.209 (Talk) (Removed advert and reverted to non-free, This was changed on the 18th without concensious despite clear discussion that was ongoing on the 14th)
sockpuppet--------------^
- Comments
- Context is circumvention of discussion at Talk:Swiftfox#NPOV problem - negative bias due to Debian supporter activism.
- Good faith of user-error must be discounted, due to:
- 1. full knowledge that the type of edit being too major in current context of discussion
- 2. recent errors of such type in history of edits (circumstantial, weak, but additional evidence)
- 3. regret, and attempt to coverup
- Additional context of holding this user to the guidelines - see Talk:Swiftfox#Summary of problem
- I have previously lodged a request for a 3rd opinion due to stalled consensus, and waiting for that currently.
- (I've come here from a comment at WP:HD) I really don't think that accidentally making an edit while not logged in, then pointing this out, unprompted, six minutes later really qualifies as using a sockpuppet. It's not just possible to assume good faith, but good faith seems overwhelmingly probable. I'm sure you feel you're in the right in whatever dispute you're currently involved in, but I don't think you have anything of a case here. --Cherry blossom tree 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I would agree with you normally, but I detail on that talk page why I've started with good faith, but it has been not reciprocated. I do agree, after just checking the history of the IP, that he has done editing more frequently that initially I saw, so I could be wrong. Widefox 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I haven't read the talk page, so I can't comment on the wider dispute but even if the user is acting in bad faith there I can't see how that would lead you to assume that he/she is using a sockpuppet here, when there's an obvious innocent explanation that seems to fit better. People accidentally make logged out edits all the time. --Cherry blossom tree 23:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
.
