| Revision as of 23:37, 2 December 2008 editShrampes (talk | contribs)111 edits →User:Highfructosecornsyrup: let's move on← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:38, 2 December 2008 edit undoGoodDamon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers6,271 edits →User:Highfructosecornsyrup: Striking commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ;Comments | ;Comments | ||
| *'''Note:''' Shrampes , Highfructosecornsyrup already . ''']''' (]) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | *'''Note:''' Shrampes , Highfructosecornsyrup already . ''']''' (]) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::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>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) | ||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 23:38, 2 December 2008
User:Highfructosecornsyrup
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Shrampes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
See also accounts from the checkuser case cited below:
- Wikipediatrix (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Terryeo (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and others.
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup
- Highfructosecornsyrup was active on Scientology-related articles: Special:Contributions/Highfructosecornsyrup, as is Shrampes:
- Shrampes edits articles related to username of Highfructosecornsyrup:
- After being inactive for over a year , Shrampes appears makes a flurry of edits, and proceeds to comment in a Topic Ban Proposal discussion related to User:Shutterbug on Scientology-related articles and the ArbCom case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Note: Shrampes notified, Highfructosecornsyrup already blocked indef. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Conclusions