Web Applications Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for power users of web applications. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am professionally related to a topic which is described in an article on Wikipedia. Months ago I respectfully added some content to this article, including a quotation and an link to my website. I tried to care about manners and impartiality.

Last week other professional edited this article, deleted my quotation and a piece of text with my point of view, and added quotations and links to his website with labels and adjectives that I don't consider impartial in any way.

I think that this edit is so clearly illicit that any editor would realize and revert or edit it if she/he red it. How can I request that this be done without getting involved? I would not like to see my user name related to such an article discussion. And of course avoiding sockpuppeting and that kind of tactics.

share|improve this question
Ask another to pursue this (with Wikipedia) for you? – pnuts May 16 '14 at 14:49

According to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, creating a separate account for this purpose might be okay:

Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated […] If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy. Valid reasons include:


  • Privacy: 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 to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.
share|improve this answer
Interesting, but though 'legal' OP did not make such a distinction. I'd also suggest unwise when one of the 'protagonists' as however well-intentioned it would probably be considered suspect if uncovered. And a suitable 'third party' might add some conciliation. – pnuts May 16 '14 at 19:14
Nice! I didn't notice that. I would like, however, that any eventual reversion be made by a non novice user. Is that what you say, @pnuts ? I'm not sure that I understand your comment. – Rober May 22 '14 at 18:32
@Rober That would go against the whole “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” thing. – svick May 22 '14 at 18:35
@Rober I was trying to suggest that a third party might be able to conciliate as well as distance you from the 'argument'. See if there is any common ground and look for justification in the 'opposing' points of view, rather than defend either one perspective. By non novice I take it you mean someone knowledgeable on the topic - ideal, either you win her/him over or get some independent, informed opinion/explanation that there is merit in the changes. – pnuts May 22 '14 at 18:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.