I think one key question is whether you have already edited this article in such a way that this sockpuppetry might verge into abusive sockpuppetry - i.e. two accounts that appear to support each others arguments/edits being secretly controlled by the same person. If not, or if your only edits to the article so far are along the lines of fixing typos then this could be OK.
NPOV is a slightly trickier matter, as you sound somewhat riled up against them. I'd suggest at the very least sleeping on it, rereading what you want to edit and perhaps even starting with a talkpage comment "If I add this sentence sourced from this newspaper does that sound neutral? Also I'd suggest rereading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock and notifying Arbcom of your alt account, and remember if you ever run for RFA there is a general expectation that you at least say words to the effect of "I also have an Arbcom declared alt account" (if you can also say things like "It has been inactive for more than x months since I scrambled the password, has made less than a hundred edits and received no blocks or warnings" then it is unlikely to upset an RFA ). WSC On 24 August 2011 23:20, Bod Notbod <bodnot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > There's a company operating in the UK that has a large number of > controversies attached to it. > > Because this mail will be publicly viewable/searchable (and for other > reasons that may become clearer as you read on) I shan't name them. > > The article for the company already has a substantive > controversy/criticism section. It needs much better referencing. I am > able to do this; I have a good source (The Guardian) and I'm sure > there are others. I'm good at identifying acceptable and unacceptable > sources. > > The trouble is that this company could have a profound impact on my > life and they have shown themselves willing to play hardball with > internet critics. One site - which supports a vulnerable section of > society - was closed down just today, and it's that which has got me > fired up. But frankly, the company scares me. I'm finding it hard to > even hint at how they could effect me without giving too much away, so > I apologise for being vague. > > So, my questions are: > > 1. Is it ever acceptable to purposely edit an article when logged out > (ie, as an IP) if one has an account of long standing? > > 2. If I did this IP editing, would I have [ complete / little / no ] > protection from being traced as the source of the (perfectly sourced) > information I place in the article? > > 3. Provided my edits are all perfectly sourced, will the WMF defend my > anonymity? (I do know that the WMF has a good track record here). > > 4. If you would advise against me pursuing this as you feel I cannot > adequately mitigate risks to myself, perhaps you could put yourself in > an imagined similar situation: imagine you have a powerful sense that > a company is acting unjustly but that company has a hold on you. You > know that Wikipedia could reflect some of the injustice (all sourced > from WP:RELIABLE) but that you are placing yourself under threat. What > would you do to get this information into an article? > > A couple more points: I guess some of you may be thinking "well, hang > on, you have a Conflict of Interest here, so you should go nowhere > near it." It's difficult to argue against that without revealing > details that begin to bring my edifice of protection tumbling down. > > I would liken my situation to someone living on the coast of the Gulf > of Mexico who chooses to write about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. > [1] I may be personally effected by mistakes/negligence on the part of > this company. But I'm not employed by them. My relationship with them > is akin to your relationship with the company that provides your > water. My relationship with the company is that they provide an > infrastructure that I rely on and that they are proving themselves to > be increasingly unreliable and opposed to free speech (according to > reliable sources). If writing about the oil spill as a Gulf resident > would be COI, then mea culpa: I'll take note and back off. > > I'm interested to hear your views, > > With high regard for my fellow Wikipedians, > > Bodnotbod > ----- > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
