Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arpowers/Archive

Report date May 31 2009, 21:23 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Approach the Bench

Background:

There is been a long-standing Discussion about two different techniques (“epi-on” and “epi-off”) for a medical procedure called corneal crosslinking in the Wikipedia article Keratoconus, section Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavin.

Arpowers, Delicious carbuncle and RH have together taken the same opinion that “epi on crosslinking” has no proof and no credibility. They collectively removed all “epi on” references in Keratoconus article section discussing collagen crosslinking, including peer-reviewed published literature on this procedure.

Arpowers, Delicious carbuncle, and RH have together discredited and defamed Brian Boxer Wachler, MD, a nationally prominent ophthalmologist in Los Angeles and pioneer of “epi-on” crosslinking, as well as his research methods. Accusations against Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler have now crossed over into Libel (see below).

Evidence:

'''1. Two published studies have been misrepresented to mislead the Wiki discussants about validity of these studies. Denial of these two studies then was used to block inclusion of any mention "epi on" corneal collagen crosslinking procedure in Keratoconus article:'''

Study Reference 1: Chan CCK, Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. The effect of inferior segment Intacs with and without corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin (C3-R) on keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:75-80.

Study Reference 2: Pinelli R.  Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin (C3-R) treatment opens new frontiers for keratoconus and corneal ectasia. http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=3797

(both studies cite Brian Boxer Wachler, MD)

Delicous carbuncle mispresented both Pinelli and Boxer Wachler articles:


 * One is by Pinelli et al on Pinelli's experimental treatment of 10 patients (5 of which were a control group) and his experiments on rabbit eyes. Similarly the Boxer Wachler et al paper deals with a 21 patient experiment. I'm sure this discussion will be continued, but please take it to WP:3O or elsewhere. I'm hoping that we can finally be done with the constant bickering here over this small section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A subsequent editor post then corrected the above misrepresentations of the data in the two studies: 1)  Pinelli study was performed in humans, not rabbit eyes, 2) The number of correct larger number of eyes used in Pinelli study, 3) Boxer Wachler study contained a similar number of patients of other publications current used and not disputed in Keratoconus Wiki article..

Despite these corrections, these two references were still refused entry into crosslinking description of article because they then asserted as “rheroic”:


 * it is rhetoric, it is just marketing rhetoric and its a standard excuse and easy brush off in all you say….RH 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * can you stop the rhetoric, what patients want is proof and there are none valid, just rhetoric…RH (not dated)

RH later responded to reference of the two above studies with this comment:


 * this quote is deceitful…(some real good great bull there!) RH

Arpowers discredited above two published studies for unsubstantiated subversive financial accusations against the “epi on” procedure:


 * It is my assumption that the "C3R" procedure was created to get around certain FDA marketing regulations for unapproved device indications (i.e. recommended uses)... Andrew Powers (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2. When the above attempt failed, then Wiki policies were misrepresented to in attempt to again not include the above two published studies about “epi on” crosslinking:


 * Delicious carbuncle cited WP:FRINGE: as evidence to have “epi on” studies removed. 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This Wiki policy misrepresentation was recognized and subsequently corrected:


 * The word 'theory' is not relevant here: the same Wikipedia policy applies to any practice, undertaking, or school of thought. —BillC talk 07:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

3. After that attempt failed, above studies 1 and 2 were then simply denied and ignored by the "consensus" which was comprised of Delicious carbuncle, Arpowers, and RH:


 * You have been asked and were unable to provide any kind of references showing that epi-on is anything other than an experimental practice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The editors discussion covered that epi-on corneal crosslinking is being performed in clinical practice (not experimentally) worldwide and in the U.S. by Brian Boxer Wachler for the past 5 1/2 years, but this was ignored.

4. Even a third article was dismissed for no reason except perhaps that it was written by Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler and the proposing editor Lasikladythai was intimidated into silence by Delicious carbuncle and same “consensus” was evoked again:


 * http://www.keratoconusinserts.com/images/pdf/C3-RforKC.pdfI have respectfully added this review article reference. Lasikladythai (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be reverting further changes against consensus as vandalism and removing any new discussion here as disruptive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

'''5. Evidence of MeatPuppetry between Andrew Powers and RH unsigned. Below is an example:'''


 * Also I think that anyone wanting to credibly participate in this discussion should reveal their real name and background or not participate at all Andrew Powers (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work AP, to me there has been great desperation from the "epi on" camp all along Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.255 (talk • contribs)

Note: Delicious carbuncle has dialogued with RH and Arpowers to make it appear as if they are three distinct people in conversation, but this would seem to be a preemptive ploy to mask sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle has edited multiple non-related articles in attempt which can be construed as preemptive attempt to mask Sock Puppetry/Meat Puppetry. There are additional communications between these three editors that are consistent with Straw Man Sock Puppetry.

6. There were Personal Attacks on other Brian Boxer Wachler MD and Wiki editors even after being warned against such attacks:


 * Why didn't DR BW attened the CXL congress ? he didn't the years before either, what is is scared off ? Dr's laughing at him ? RH (undated post)


 * Please keep the conversations on this page civil. —BillC talk 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another serious personal attack was made which necessitated expulsion of comment:


 * [Personal attack removed]. Please respect the talk page guidelines —BillC talk 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Arpowers made Libelous comments that is defamatory against Brian Boxer Wachler, MD on Wikipedia with below comments:


 * “I have a Master Degree in Biomedical Engineering….Studies have shown that the on epithelial treatment(C3-R) is not effective…they [Boxer Wachler Vision Institute] are charging around $2000/eye for it, it is quite the cash cow.” (comment not dated, but made between Jan 22 and Jan 24, 2009 based other signed comments before and after this comment)

This comment says that the Brian Boxer Wachler, MD and the Boxer Wachler Vision Institute are fraudulently conducting business by accepting fees from patients and performing ineffective treatments. The above 2 studies by Drs. Pinelli and Boxer Wachler provide clinical proof of C3-R effectiveness in actual patients. No proof has ever been produced to show C3-R is ineffective in actual patients. The above comment is Libelous and defamatory.

Arpowers made another Libelous comment against Brian Boxer Wachler, MD:


 * ‘BBW is significant is because of internet marketing (e.g. this is why he comes up in Google searches).’

The below link contains evidence of the above quote by Arpowers:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Boxer_Wachler&diff=292813575&oldid=292813198

Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler’s CV indicates the multitude of accomplishments over his career which explains why he has attained status of being a “significant” physician in the field:


 * http://www.boxerwachler.com/BBW%20CV.pdf


 * Repeated Libel and Defamation of Character are themselves independent reasons to indefinitely block Arpowers, regardless of Sock Puppetry/Meat Puppetry Investigation.

'''8. Editor RH has purposely evaded properly signing posts despite being advised of the need to properly sign. This strategy attempts to mask Sock Puppetry/Meat Puppetry.'''


 * Can participants here please sign their talkpage posts: type four tildes at the end of your post and it will be automatically converted to a signature and timestamp. There is also a button above the edit box that will do the same thing. Thank you. —BillC talk 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RH was asked again to sign in:


 * Indeed, Wikipedia allows anonymous editing of talk and article pages by default. However, it is still required to sign talk page posts (by typing four tildes: at the end of the post). Things will get very confusing on here very rapidly if people do not do that. Thank you for your consideration. —BillC talk 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From RH: Obviouly it has not confused you Bill, why do you take it that it will confuse others ? Lets not play "Silly buggers" I was not told that their is requirement - look I'm typing away with out a requirement. Besides a "ID" does come up, if you look at the end of a message. Thats enough for me to write here otherwise I would not be able to.
 * Your ID did not come up at the end of a message. It is there because I went back into the history, found out who said what, and added the —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) template afterwards. I will not have time to do that every time. The guideline on signing posts can be read here: WP:SIGN. Please consider signing your posts, I'd appreciate it, thanks. —BillC talk 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

9. Check User is Requested the three editors:

Arpowers, Delicious carbuncle, all above IPs used by RH


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Approach the Bench (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

— Jake   Wartenberg  00:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date June 1 2009, 19:44 (UTC)
RH who has used the below IPs:
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Approach the Bench

Background:

There is been a long-standing Discussion about two different techniques (“epi-on” and “epi-off”) for a medical procedure called corneal crosslinking in the Wikipedia article Keratoconus, section Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavin.

Arpowers, Delicious carbuncle and RH have together taken the same opinion that “epi on crosslinking” has no proof and no credibility. They collectively removed all “epi on” references in Keratoconus article section discussing collagen crosslinking, including peer-reviewed published literature on this procedure.

Arpowers, Delicious carbuncle, and RH have together discredited and defamed Brian Boxer Wachler, MD, a nationally prominent ophthalmologist in Los Angeles and pioneer of “epi-on” crosslinking as well as his research methods. Accusations against Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler have now crossed over into Libel (see below).

Evidence:

'''1. Two published studies have been misrepresented to mislead the Wiki discussants about validity of these studies. Denial of these two studies then was used to block inclusion of any mention "epi on" corneal collagen crosslinking procedure in Keratoconus article:'''

Study Reference 1: Chan CCK, Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. The effect of inferior segment Intacs with and without corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin (C3-R) on keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:75-80.

Study Reference 2: Pinelli R.  Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin (C3-R) treatment opens new frontiers for keratoconus and corneal ectasia. http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=3797

(both studies cite Brian Boxer Wachler, MD)

Delicous carbuncle mispresented both Pinelli and Boxer Wachler articles:


 * One is by Pinelli et al on Pinelli's experimental treatment of 10 patients (5 of which were a control group) and his experiments on rabbit eyes. Similarly the Boxer Wachler et al paper deals with a 21 patient experiment. I'm sure this discussion will be continued, but please take it to WP:3O or elsewhere. I'm hoping that we can finally be done with the constant bickering here over this small section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A subsequent editor post then corrected the above misrepresentations of the data in the two studies: 1)  Pinelli study was performed in humans, not rabbit eyes, 2) The number of correct larger number of eyes used in Pinelli study, 3) Boxer Wachler study contained a similar number of patients of other publications current used and not disputed in Keratoconus Wiki article.

Despite these corrections, these two references were still refused entry into crosslinking description of article because they then asserted as “rheroic”:


 * it is rhetoric, it is just marketing rhetoric and its a standard excuse and easy brush off in all you say….RH 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * can you stop the rhetoric, what patients want is proof and there are none valid, just rhetoric…RH (not dated)

RH later responded to reference of the two above studies with this comment:


 * this quote is deceitful…(some real good great bull there!) RH

Arpowers discredited above two published studies for unsubstantiated subversive financial accusations against the “epi on” procedure:


 * It is my assumption that the "C3R" procedure was created to get around certain FDA marketing regulations for unapproved device indications (i.e. recommended uses)... Andrew Powers (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2. When the above attempt failed, then Wiki policies were misrepresented to in attempt to again not include the above two published studies about “epi on” crosslinking:


 * Delicious carbuncle cited WP:FRINGE: as evidence to have “epi on” studies removed. 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This Wiki policy misrepresentation was recognized and subsequently corrected:


 * The word 'theory' is not relevant here: the same Wikipedia policy applies to any practice, undertaking, or school of thought. —BillC talk 07:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

3. After that attempt failed, above studies 1 and 2 were then simply denied and ignored by the "consensus" which was comprised of Delicious carbuncle, Arpowers, and RH:


 * You have been asked and were unable to provide any kind of references showing that epi-on is anything other than an experimental practice. The repeated attempts here to insinuate it back into the article aren't productive and are becoming disruptive. I've asked you several times now to take the issue elsewhere if you are unsatisfied with the consensus here. Please stop this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The editors discussion covered that epi-on corneal crosslinking is being performed in clinical practice (not experimentally) worldwide and in the U.S. by Brian Boxer Wachler for the past 5 1/2 years, but this was ignored.

4. Evidence of Meat Puppetry between Andrew Powers and RH unsigned is below:


 * Also I think that anyone wanting to credibly participate in this discussion should reveal their real name and background or not participate at all Andrew Powers (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work AP, to me there has been great desperation from the "epi on" camp all along Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.255 (talk • contribs)

Note: Delicious carbuncle has dialogued with RH and Arpowers to make it appear as if they are three distinct people in conversation, but this would seem to be a preemptive ploy to mask sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle has edited multiple non-related articles in attempt which can be construed as preemptive attempt to mask Sock Puppetry/Meat Puppetry. These communications are consistent with Straw Man Sock Puppetry.

'''5. Editor RH has purposely evaded properly signing posts despite being advised of the need to properly sign. This strategy attempts to mask Sock Puppetry/Meat Puppetry.'''


 * Can participants here please sign their talkpage posts: type four tildes at the end of your post and it will be automatically converted to a signature and timestamp. There is also a button above the edit box that will do the same thing. Thank you. —BillC talk 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RH was asked again to sign in:


 * Indeed, Wikipedia allows anonymous editing of talk and article pages by default. However, it is still required to sign talk page posts (by typing four tildes: at the end of the post). Things will get very confusing on here very rapidly if people do not do that. Thank you for your consideration. —BillC talk 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From RH: Obviouly it has not confused you Bill, why do you take it that it will confuse others ? Lets not play "Silly buggers" I was not told that their is requirement - look I'm typing away with out a requirement. Besides a "ID" does come up, if you look at the end of a message. Thats enough for me to write here otherwise I would not be able to.
 * Your ID did not come up at the end of a message. It is there because I went back into the history, found out who said what, and added the —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) template afterwards. I will not have time to do that every time. The guideline on signing posts can be read here: WP:SIGN. Please consider signing your posts, I'd appreciate it, thanks. —BillC talk 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Check User is Requested the three editors:

Arpowers, Delicious carbuncle, all above IPs used by RH


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Approach the Bench (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) The diffs show no evidence of sockpuppetry. There is nothing to link the IP range (all one person) to any of the accounts. Nothing more to do here. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Reason for CheckUser request: User Arpowers and user RH (RH while not logged in and using revealed IP 75.25.174.48) have edited same articles Entrepreneurial Management Center and Keratoconus. This provides technical evidence that Arpowers and RH are same person in addition to above behavioral evidence of Sock Puppetry.

Previous case has been archived. Also, Approach the Bench, please focus on evidence that would suspect sockpuppetry. WP:DIFFS that show that the IPs edited as the same user would be helpful. Icestorm815 •  Talk  19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Previous case was archived because I forgot to list a code and reason. I have done so now.  Please see explanation above.  Thanks.  Approach the Bench (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have provided no evidence that any of the accounts are the same person. I see tons of evidence that there have been violations of eitquite and policy, but none that show violation of WP:SOCK, the only policy we care about here. Please condense your evidence to only that which is relevant to socking. ——  nix eagle email me 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will shortly provide evidence with WP:DIFFS.Approach the Bench (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this is obviously not your main account. What is your main account please. There is no reason to create SPI cases with socks. ——  nix eagle email me 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is my main account. This is the WP:DIFFS evidence requested:
 * Here is the Diff of user RH (using IP 75.25.174.48):
 * 19:28, 1 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎
 * 09:16, 24 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Keratoconus ‎ (→Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavin)


 * Here are the Diffs of user Arpowers:
 * 00:09, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs)
 * 00:08, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs)
 * 00:07, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs) [
 * 00:05, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs)
 * 00:05, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs)
 * 00:03, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs)
 * 00:03, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs)
 * 00:01, 25 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Entrepreneurial Management Center ‎ (→Entrepreneur Curriculum and Programs)
 * 10:25, 26 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Keratoconus ‎
 * 10:24, 26 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Keratoconus ‎
 * 10:22, 26 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Keratoconus ‎


 * CheckUser can confirm if Arpowers is using same IP as 75.25.174.48 (which was IP revealed as user RH in Keratoconus article because RH did not log in). This can provide technical evidence to support this case based on above behavioral evidence (which was been condensed). Thanks. Approach the Bench (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

In agreement with others on this case, there is no evidence of abuse presented. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * filing user blocked as a sock of Scubadiver99. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)