Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.59.31.70/Archive

28 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After months of discussion on the clothianidin talk page between a relatively small number of editors (one or two environmental advocates on one side arguing for continued focus on their controversies and WikiProject Chemistry members, including me, on the other), there has been a veritable swarm of activity recently by users known only by their IP addresses. These IP address users attack virtually every edit I suggest and also cross the line into inappropriate behavior sometimes. One of them, User 70.59.31.70, was blocked for three months after posting what I felt was inappropriate content on the clothianidin talk page on February 24, 2012. User 70.59.31.70 had no edits other than the ones that got the IP blocked. Statements made by User 70.59.31.70 regarding lawsuits against USEPA, asserting a conflict of interest, are very similar to comments I am seeing now for user 222.165.255.198.

In addition to curious similarities in their POV and points of debate, User 222.165.255.198 shows extraordinary proficiency for a newbie with no edits other than those done today. After a few posts to the clothianidin talk page, User 222.165.255.198 tagged the clothianidin page for POV and COI, something I don't even know how to do and I've been here studying up on policies and procedures for almost a year!

The conflict of interest tag is particularly interesting in that it echoes a similar, concurrent complaint about my user name that arose mysteriously out of nowhere that has since been resolved. It also is consistent with environmental advocate/editor Gandydancer's opening comment in response to my proposal to modify the WP:CHEMMOS.

User 49.50.8.85 similarly showed up out of the blue, arguing for the continued inclusion of content reflecting advocates' favorite controversies that is supported only by primary research.

I can't say for sure that what is going on is sock puppetry or meat puppetry, but some form of puppetry appears to be afoot. I apologize for troubling you if I am mistaken. Also, in the interest of disclosure, there are so many complaints being filed against me and new IP users showing up and causing trouble that I have several discussions going on these various topics right now. This is not a case of me forum shopping. I am simply responding to the various issues as they arise; I believe they are all inter-related yet distinct issues. USEPA James (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC) USEPA James (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I have nothing to hide, but I strongly recommend looking at and  both have been attempting to remove reliably sourced mentions of bee toxicity from two different but closely related neonicotinoid insecticides over the same time frame. It would be prudent to confirm whether USEPA James is in fact editing from an EPA address, as he has been doing so during US business hours and has claimed official approval for his edits since the creation of his account a few months after the creation of Tcprosser's. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * USEPA James has referred to "gandydancer et al" on the talk page but I'm not sure if he is suggesting that I am involved in this. Please let me know and I will reply. Gandydancer (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello - This is tcprosser - My understanding is that wikipedia is a place for neutral and unbiased information. There is a strong agenda by 222.165.255.198 to put biased and partial truths about this issue of bees. My information was cited (removed by someone) and then my insertions were taken down. Whoever is using wikipedia to spread disinformation should be looked at closely "grandydancer" etc and not allowed to edit. I am interested in the truth and not an extremist viewpoint. I want to bring integrity to this and make sure it is balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcprosser (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to new user 222.165.255.198's allegations, I have no idea what or who Tcprosser is or any information about edits or reverts that user may have done.


 * Also relative to User 222.165.255.198, I stopped in here on my way to file an edit warring report on the clothianidin page. User 222.165.255.198 reverted deletions of mine that I explained fully on the clothianidin talk page, including citing specific policy violations and describing how advocate editors have mischaracterized the conclusions of a perfectly reasonable secondary source. Ignoring my explanation, offering no sensible rebut, and apparently not bothering to read the actual secondary source conclusions, first ArtifexMayhem reverted my deletions and demanded discussion but without addressing any of the salient points I had already made. I posted an even more detailed explanation--sentence by sentence--of how the text I have been attempting to delete violates policy, after which I deleted it once again. And once again, without any reasonable explanation, User 222.165.255.198 reverted the text back to the violative, biased, poorly cited AND mischaracterized version. User 222.165.255.198's latest submission to the clothianidin talk page indicates a severely limited understanding about the function of Conclusion sections in techical journals.


 * I have come to believe that it is simply not possible to have intelligent discussions on extremely complicated and technical topics with non-technical editors whose beliefs and preconceived notions take precedence over everything. Should I file an edit warring report and risk once again being accused of forum shopping? BUT WHAT'S THIS??? User 222.165.255.198 has now chimed in on the COI notice board to challenge my affiliation with USEPA and accuse me of sockpuppetry!?!


 * Update on Tcprosser--I just hit the preview button for this post and got a notification box announcing new messages. Whoever this individual is, he or she apparently posted something to my talk page (I haven't viewed the page yet). AH! And when I tried to Save the page, I see that Tcprosser edited the page before me. This is actually becoming worse than American reality television! lol USEPA James (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was making fixes to my creative spelling talentTcprosser (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant push by a group in New England that own companies with products that compete with Imidacloprid. They have a lot to gain in the Turf and Tree care market in that Imidacloprid and other neonics are far less expensive, very effective, and easier to apply than their products. They are using other means with lobbyists and public relations people and also in my opinion Wikipedia. They have written numerous articles and documents that are full of disinformation designed to scare people about these products. I am seeing similar verbage here on these sites. Because Wikipedia is often the first source to appear in a google search, I believe they are using this site as a good way to trash these materials. This certainly is not the intention of Wikipedia, but none the less a real problem.Tcprosser (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These pesticide articles have been suffering a long-term conflict, but choosing what (if any) admin action to take is not obvious. It is easy to imagine that USEPA James might be thinking that properly-disclosed expert editors who work for a US government agency are not welcome here.


 * User:Tiptoety has applied a three-month checkuser block to Special:Contributions/70.59.31.70. Until I noticed this, I was trying to decide if there was enough abuse by IPs to justify semiprotection of the two pesticide articles. It's a close call at the moment. Since Tiptoety must know something about the IP I hope he will comment on what should be done. Various IPs continue to make COI allegations about User:USEPA James, who in my opinion has behaved correctly. In his response to Orange Mike at User talk:USEPA James, USEPA James has indicated that a stalker has tried to determine the location of his employment and his contact information. This is a big concern, and would justify an indef block of the editor responsible.


 * has already been blocked once for edit warring on Imidacloprid but his views appear different from those of the IPs. Tcprosser's edit summaries have used strong words such as 'lying.' On Tcprosser's talk page, two editors have suggested that he is making unsourced changes. Gandydancer and Tcprosser have reverted each other. It may be worthwhile to hold an article WP:Request for comment. The IPs seem to be pushing the use of primary sources, which could become sanctionable if they won't listen to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I will not publicly identify who, I will say that 70.59.31.70 is an ArbCom banned user. Tiptoety  talk 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know who they are, but the two sock IPs clearly are not new to the game. As such I've blocked each for two weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)