Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor

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:Majoreditor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Majoreditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

72.220.146.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Peter cohen 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

(Please note At the time I started this report, I had miscounted the number of reverts by a second editor User:Anietor. I have now noticed this editor too had reached three reverts. Therefore please regard this user as a candidate for puppeteer. I shall leave the material building the case against Majoreditor unchaged before moving on to Anietor.)

The sockpuppet has only edited one page but by using reverts shows the behaviour of an experienced user.[1]

The sockpuppet appeared after the alleged puppeteer had already made three reverts to the article [2], [3], [4].

There is a shared pattern of misleadingly named edits. [5]includes a revert which is not implied in the title. [6] is not explained in the talk as claimed. [7] refers to a non-existent consensus as evidenced both by the talk page and the edit-warring in the article itself.

The puppet's three reverts [8] [9] [10] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [11]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [12] [13] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [14] [15]. (They also discuss other articles together.)

User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [16] [17] [18]

Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [19], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [20], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [21] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.

Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [22])

Comments

No, I don't use sockpuppets. A simple ARIN lookup shows that 72.220.146.66 is a Cox IP; I edit from Comcast and AT&T. User Peter cohen has been engaged in edit wars and has become unnerved. Thanks, Majoreditor 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I should also mention that I don't use meatpuppets either. I have no idea who made the edits in question. Majoreditor 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made it clear that there are two candidate puppeteers. As for the attack on my mental state, kindly keep your views to yourself.

On the subject of my alleged edit warring, whilst I'm not a saint in every article I edit (dare I say "(East) Jerusalem"?), this is the full list of my edits to Mother Teresa: a speeling correction, An insertion to make the lead less POV without all out attacking her, Making an internal link and italisising a magazine name, Improving a rudimentary section by indicating where criticisms are coming from, (note I am pro-Hitchens on this but indicated that he was coming from a POV,) citations and improving English, naming a ref for reciting source, Using that name to start addressing a cite tag, inserting the final citation needed and removing the tag, [Adding another source for criticisms and correcting English], a copy edit, another copy edit, explaining who a multiply cited critic is, reinstating the previous eight edits after Majoreditor had indiscriminately removed them en masse, (my one revert,) Inserting a reference to criticism of medical care in, arguably, the two most prestigious medical journals in the world, Correcting the suthor of a citation and, finally, removing a citation that doesn't actually support the sentence to which it is attached, whilst leaving the ref name functional. Majoreditor's only edits to the article in the mean time were his three reverts cited in the evidence section above at the end of second beginning "the sockpuppet appeared". I think makes it clear who is the edit warrior and who is the person who followed links from WP:GAR and tried to make constructive improvements to the article.--Peter cohen 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter, try calming down and stick to presenting evidence.

You are very quick to hurl accusations: WP:OWN, religious bias, etc. That's uncivil.

I'd also suggest that, in the future, you join discussion on the talk page rather than launching into wholesale edit changes. Try to build consensus and discussing changes on the talk page prior to making disruptive, controversial edits. WP:Be Bold is most effective when tempered with consensu building.

In the meanwhile, let's get this false accusation resolved.Majoreditor 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)