| Revision as of 21:16, 3 December 2008 editLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,604 edits →User:Highfructosecornsyrup: no problem← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:05, 4 December 2008 edit undoShrampes (talk | contribs)111 edits →User:HighfructosecornsyrupNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :::::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 time that someone makes a conclusive observation? Or how do you want to proceed? ] (]) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Conclusions | ;Conclusions | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 02:05, 4 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)
- 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 time that someone makes a conclusive observation? Or how do you want to proceed? Shrampes (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; after all, you may be correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "...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)
- Conclusions