Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CheesyAppleFlake/Archive

07 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Have not requested CU because each of the sockmaster and the related account is stale. Really not sure who should be listed as the Sockmaster here.


 * Named sockmaster CheesyAppleFlake was indeffed at ANI here due to disruptive behavior at electronic cigarette articles. Was active here May - Nov 2014. Per their contribs, they made a few edits to military topics then leapt into the e-cig fray and were SPA after that.  Their edits were all downplaying the risks of e-cigs.  (Mostly arguing with )   He wrote things like:
 * this "...There's also no consensus for the ordering of sections, the scare-bloated lede or the ridiculous prominence given to the Grana paper.-"
 * and this: "Yes. It was discussed before because Grana, a very controversial paper that's attracted a lot of criticism (including from the people whose work it is based on) is cited a ridiculous number of times in this article. We need to seriously look at why this outlier is given such an undue amount of weight."


 * Historical note: another user, User:InfiniteBratwurst was blocked for being a sock of User:FergusM1970 who is community banned from WP, has a block log longer than your arm, and has been the subject of many SPIs. {For some reason the InfiniteBratwurst sock is not listed under the FergusM1970 SPI cases - someone may want to log that).
 * Besides the silly-food username similarity, InfiniteBratwurst's contribs are like the two other users - a few military topics, mostly SPA on e-cig topics. Was active Dec 2014 - March 2015 when they were blocked.
 * posted a note on InfiniteBratwurst's Userpage suggesting SOCK relationship to CheesyAppleFlake; this was never pursued. I see why QG suggested that - InfiniteBratwurst started up just after CheesyAppleFlake was blocked.
 * As you can see from this slice of the history of the Safety of electronic cigarettes article from March 2-15, InfiniteBratwurst was fighting about this same content discussed below with QG. In that run, InfiniteBratwurst removed the sentence:  "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized".


 * OutOfCheeseError is the current sock. Note the username similarity. OutofCheeseError started here June 21, made a few edits to military articles, and has been mostly SPA on e-cig topics, downplaying risks.

OutofCheese made 3 minor edits to military articles, then into the fray
 * Drilling down into more specific edits of OutofCheseError
 * 5th edit removes "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized" (a risk of e-cigs) - cited to the Grana source that the other socks hated per diffs above. Same sentence deleted by InfiniteBratwurst above.
 * 6th edit goes right to Talk and contests discussion there, writing (with perfect indenting, signing, etc) "...I've read the review and it doesn't mention propylene oxide being found in the vapour." This is a very clear application of WP:VERIFY, looking for direct support.  On the 6th edit.
 * 7th edit also moderates the risk by changing verb tense, with edit note "More accurate. Previous wording implies that silicates are always found. Obviously they can only be found when the device has a silica wick, which is not common any more."  This is pretty sophisticated editing for someone's 7th edit ever in WP.
 * 8th edit changes " nichrome wire that touches the e-liquid " to "heating element" with edit note: " Previous wording suggested that all atomisers use nichrome wire. This is wrong; most use kanthal." Again, sophisticated, expert editing.
 * 9th edit back on Talk, carrying on argument about what Grana source says about Propylene glycol (10th edit just moved that comment to correct place)
 * 11th edit continues the argument. Editor then went and made minor edits to 2 other articles. Next day...
 * 14th edit continues VERIFY argument... you get the point. This is all to a section called "Why is this back?"

I hope it is clear what the evidence is pointing to. (Probably FergusM1970 >>) CheesyAppleFlake >> InfiniteBratwurst >> OutOfCheeseError Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Fighting with QuackGuru doesn't seem to be evidence of very much. Everyone is fighting with QuackGuru, because he's infuriating.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a distraction. The key things are the stances you are taking, the usernames, the focus of each account's editing, the sequence of timing among the accounts. All that adds up to WP:DUCK Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My stance on e-cigs is the majority one: They're much safer than smoking, as per all the actual evidence, and there's no evidence of any serious health risk. I don't know what's so significant about the user name. I edit what I'm interested in, and the other accounts you're talking about all stopped editing months ago.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, here we go:


 * 5th edit - Find someone who's not ideologically opposed to e-cigs who doesn't hate the Grana review. People who hate the Grana review include Action on Smoking and Health, Cancer Research UK and the Royal College of Physicians. That's because it's a hack job. I never edited the article InfiniteBratwurst edited.
 * 6th edit - If you look at the previous comments it's not really hard to work out how to indent. Especially if you spend ten hours a day working on a Mediawiki-based corporate information system. Signing is easy too; it even says at the top of the box "remember to sign your posts" and tells you how to do it. Pretty neat.
 * 7th edit - What's sophisticated about it? It's simple reading comprehension (see also: Lack of, QuackGuru)
 * 8th edit - See above. Basic reading comprehension.
 * 9th edit etc. - QuackGuru is pushing his own point of view. It's pretty blatant. I discussed it. It's a talk page. It's for discussions.
 * 11th edit - There is no argument over what Grana says about propylene glycol; she says it can convert to propylene oxide. The problem is that one editor is misrepresenting the source, either deliberately or because he can't read very well, to claim that propylene oxide is found in e-cig vapour. Grana simply doesn't say that at all, so I'm not sure why pointing that out to the offending editor seems to be such a dog whistle for you.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * SPI is not a place to litigate content disputes - the purpose of the diffs was to demonstrate that like many SOCKS, you are drawn to the same content disputes, and disputes with specific editors, every time you come back.
 * You are editing the exact same topics that InfiniteBratwurst edited; bringing the exact same POV that e-cigs are safe and downplaying risks, and a great deal of industry knowledge. The specific article you are working on now was created as a split after InfiniteBratwurst was banned - InfiniteBratwurst argued over the same content in related articles, in much the same way and CheesyAppleFlake did too.  Your comments above about QG are almost the same as things that CheesyAppleFlake wrote:
 * like: here where CheesyAppleFlake wrote to QuackGuru "But he did verify it, with a quote from the source. And in fact it's the wording you insist on that's misleading, because it implies health concerns when the source itself says there aren't any.-"
 * like: this: "There's no doubt vaping is safer than smoking. The current debate is over where, in the region 95-100% safer, it lies. So the article isn't representing the current literature very well.:
 * many other passages where both of you personally attack QG for his inability to read and comprehend. The DUCK is really clear. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that mean everyone else who attacks QuackGuru for his inability to read and comprehend is also a sock puppet? There are quite a lot of people in that category, because his inability to read and comprehend is about as obvious as it can get. He's not competent to edit.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't mean that. But other accounts here do not have all the things discussed above. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked as sock. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to do. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)