Misplaced Pages

:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:16, 3 December 2008 editLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,604 edits →User:Highfructosecornsyrup: no problem← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:49, 26 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(13 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SSPa}}
===]=== ===]===
;Suspected sock puppeteer ;Suspected sock puppeteer
Line 22: Line 23:
;Comments ;Comments
*'''Note:''' Shrampes , Highfructosecornsyrup already . ''']''' (]) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Note:''' Shrampes , Highfructosecornsyrup already . ''']''' (]) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::<strike>Whoa, hey, Cirt? Highfructosecornsyrup turned out to be a sock of Wikipediatrix, who was duly chastised for it and had the sock indef-blocked. She apparently liked arguing with herself. But I seriously doubt she'd do it again. --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)</strike> Well, after further review of the editing history on all accounts, I'm very chagrined. This really does look like sockpuppetry; the editing styles are very, very similar. I'm striking my previous comments, and now support this running its course. I'm just shocked that the puppeteer, if there is one, would tip his/her hand by editing at the ] article. --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) ::<strike>Whoa, hey, Cirt? Highfructosecornsyrup turned out to be a sock of Wikipediatrix, who was duly chastised for it and had the sock indef-blocked. She apparently liked arguing with herself. But I seriously doubt she'd do it again. --]] 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)</strike> Well, after further review of the editing history on all accounts, I'm very chagrined. This really does look like sockpuppetry; the editing styles are very, very similar. I'm striking my previous comments, and now support this running its course. I'm just shocked that the puppeteer, if there is one, would tip his/her hand by editing at the ] article. --]] 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


I did edit in ] recently. And got attacked for adding a reliable source by an editor who seems to fulfill the ] description (99% scientology edits). A little research and I ended up on the Shutterbug/ArbCom page. Cirt's reaction confirms what I said there. ] (]) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I did edit in ] recently. And got attacked for adding a reliable source by an editor who seems to fulfill the ] description (99% scientology edits). A little research and I ended up on the Shutterbug/ArbCom page. Cirt's reaction confirms what I said there. ] (]) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Line 34: Line 35:
:::::Of course. I must say {{user|LessHeard vanU}}, I thank you for being so respectful in your tone. I suppose we simply respectfully differ on the interpretation of the evidence presented and the connections given. ''']''' (]) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :::::Of course. I must say {{user|LessHeard vanU}}, I thank you for being so respectful in your tone. I suppose we simply respectfully differ on the interpretation of the evidence presented and the connections given. ''']''' (]) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::No problem; after all, you may be correct. ] (]) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::No problem; after all, you may be correct. ] (]) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Isn't it time that someone makes a conclusive observation? Or how do you want to proceed? ] (]) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Sometimes ] takes a while. ''']''' (]) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I know some time has passed since Wikipediatrix has edited, but can't you still ask for a Checkuser? The evidence here is always going to be too circumstantial to be certain about it, in my view. ]] 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh, I thought a Checkuser is being done now? ] (]) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes that may be a good idea. ''']''' (]) 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Per AGF, the only conclusive observation (or determination) is "proven" - unproven does not mean that anyone is or isn't a sock, just that a case has not been made. It can be that there is a result of "definately no", but it is rare that you can prove an absence (and that can be proven wrong anyway). I wouldn't worry about it; Cirt has made a good case, I have noted my reservations, SunDragon34 below has commented, and at some stage an independent reviewer will consider the evidence and opinions presented. ] (]) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at it...and I can't find a connection using my usual tactics, except that both Shrampes and HFCS/Wikipediatrix edited the Dianetics article, and that at about the same time that . Although Shrampes did edit the HFCS article, s/he also edits a lot of other articles on complex molecules, like ], ], and ]. Honestly, I can't say that Shrampes is a sock of Wikipediatrix...if s/he is, then she's been incredibly careful about it. For now, I'd say to let Shrampes off the hook and wait until time tells us more. '''<font face="Segoe Print" size="2">~]''' ]</font></font> 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
:"except that both Shrampes and HFCS/Wikipediatrix edited the Dianetics article, and that at about the same time that " - this, combined with the edits to ] and ], combined with the post to ] which is not an easy page to navigate to find and be familiar with, are too many connections to be coincidence. ''']''' (]) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
'''Note:''' There is now an addendum on the ] case, so let's wait on further developments here in case there is additional technical information provided. ''']''' (]) 17:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
;Conclusions ;Conclusions
Checkuser came back stale/inconclusive. Given the time passed since many of the accounts edited, I don't believe there is anything to be done here. Closed. ] 09:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
---- ----
</div> </div>

Latest revision as of 03:49, 26 February 2022

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.

User:Highfructosecornsyrup

Suspected sock puppeteer

Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

See also accounts from the checkuser case cited below:

Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
Whoa, hey, Cirt? Highfructosecornsyrup turned out to be a sock of Wikipediatrix, who was duly chastised for it and had the sock indef-blocked. She apparently liked arguing with herself. But I seriously doubt she'd do it again. --GoodDamon 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Well, after further review of the editing history on all accounts, I'm very chagrined. This really does look like sockpuppetry; the editing styles are very, very similar. I'm striking my previous comments, and now support this running its course. I'm just shocked that the puppeteer, if there is one, would tip his/her hand by editing at the High-fructose corn syrup article. --GoodDamon 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I did edit in Dianetics recently. And got attacked for adding a reliable source by an editor who seems to fulfill the WP:SPA description (99% scientology edits). A little research and I ended up on the Shutterbug/ArbCom page. Cirt's reaction confirms what I said there. Shrampes (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note the edits to the article "High-fructose corn syrup", combined with the same POV and Scientology-focus as Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You are overdoing it, but I feel that there is nothing I can do to show you how wrong you are. Did the other editors get notified as well? Shrampes (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Terryeo (talk · contribs) is already indef blocked. Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs) has been inactive for a while, but I posted a notification to the user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
"...inactive for a while"? Wikipediatrix last edit was just under a year ago, and had not previously edited for a few weeks. The only activity on her talkpage for the rest of the time, with one or two exceptions, is Cirt notifying her of AfD's and image removal regarding scientology related subjects. The other stale editors also stopped editing years ago. I see Shrampes has edited one cofs related subject (Dianistics) and also another - amongst many related subjects - that has a similarity to one of the suspected sockpuppet usernames... It appears to me that this fishing line is being stretched ever so thin to entangle one account that participated in a cofs related afd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I think it highly implausible that another user that was also inactive and came back to editing after a while would share the same motivation on the Scientology-related articles, and also edit pages of the article "High-fructose corn syrup" (read: username of Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs)), and be able to find the WP:AE page. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you differ, I read your rationale before commenting - but I am noting that the "connections" you are offering require considerable leaps of faith, and I make no suggestion whether they are good or bad. You will note that the page is titled "Suspected sock puppets", and it permissible for arguments to be made against the claim as well as for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course. I must say LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), I thank you for being so respectful in your tone. I suppose we simply respectfully differ on the interpretation of the evidence presented and the connections given. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem; after all, you may be correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it time that someone makes a conclusive observation? Or how do you want to proceed? Shrampes (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes WP:SSP takes a while. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I know some time has passed since Wikipediatrix has edited, but can't you still ask for a Checkuser? The evidence here is always going to be too circumstantial to be certain about it, in my view. Jayen466 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought a Checkuser is being done now? Shrampes (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes that may be a good idea. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Per AGF, the only conclusive observation (or determination) is "proven" - unproven does not mean that anyone is or isn't a sock, just that a case has not been made. It can be that there is a result of "definately no", but it is rare that you can prove an absence (and that can be proven wrong anyway). I wouldn't worry about it; Cirt has made a good case, I have noted my reservations, SunDragon34 below has commented, and at some stage an independent reviewer will consider the evidence and opinions presented. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at it...and I can't find a connection using my usual tactics, except that both Shrampes and HFCS/Wikipediatrix edited the Dianetics article, and that Shrampes started editing at about the same time that Wikipediatrix's editing tapered off. Although Shrampes did edit the HFCS article, s/he also edits a lot of other articles on complex molecules, like polyurethane, tetrachloroethylene, and polyfluorene. Honestly, I can't say that Shrampes is a sock of Wikipediatrix...if s/he is, then she's been incredibly careful about it. For now, I'd say to let Shrampes off the hook and wait until time tells us more. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"except that both Shrampes and HFCS/Wikipediatrix edited the Dianetics article, and that Shrampes started editing at about the same time that Wikipediatrix's editing tapered off" - this, combined with the edits to Dianetics and High-fructose corn syrup, combined with the post to WP:AE which is not an easy page to navigate to find and be familiar with, are too many connections to be coincidence. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: There is now an addendum on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup case, so let's wait on further developments here in case there is additional technical information provided. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Checkuser came back stale/inconclusive. Given the time passed since many of the accounts edited, I don't believe there is anything to be done here. Closed. Black Kite 09:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)