Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cheryl Hugle/Archive

31 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Cheryl Hugle made a number of edits to Integrated circuit indicating that "Frances [Hugle] was the first to describe how to fabricate an IC"; this is the most recent introduction of the claim by Cheryl Huggle. A discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard concluded the sources were insufficient to support the claim, and the claim was reverted. A user with no other edits, Anglerphish, reintroduced a shorter version of the claim twice (first and second reintroduction). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Not true! The discussion concluded with an administrator expressly ALLOWING the inclusion of the first paragraph. The very same that ANOTHER EDITOR included after reading that conclusion.

This is rank harassment. I have had plenty trying to edit at Wikipedia. Editors will apparently stop at nothing to 'win' in an edit war. But, I tried very hard to engage in none and to avoid and encourage none.

First, I entered my contributions on the IC Talk pages and stayed involved to answer criticisms and questions as they arose. Second, I requested that other editors without COI include my info. Third, I was told to do the edit myself. Fourth, I waited until it was clear that the only way the info would be introduced was to do it myself. Fifth, I engaged in a lengthy discussion defending my contributions against ridiculous claims. My contributions were finally overturned citing COI. Since this cannot be disputed, I did not attempt further edits.

Regardless, the truncated version of my original edit that is being disputed here was approved by an administrator who ruled that the source given for the truncated info was acceptable because that limited contribution was only a statement of the facts easily obtained from the source and WAS NOT interpretive.

From the Noticeboard:


 * >                      Look, let's simplify this. What specific text are you trying to add to which Wikipedia article that you claim this patent supports? The specific wording and context matters here. --Jayron32 07:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * >                          As I said earlier in this discussion, my first attempt was to provide the info on the IC Talk page so that someone else could incorporate it. But, I was encouraged there to introduce it myself, and after waiting a substantial amount of time and noting no one else undertook the task, I introduced the text (in quotes below) being careful not to alter pre-existing contributions.


 * >                          I am not wed to the exact words by any means. My only point was to make a note in the IC history section that a patent was filed on the process to make monolithic ICs in 1956 and it was awarded Letters of Patent on two separate dates because its claims were split, one set awarded in 1961 and one set in 1965.


 * >                          Text I wrote that has been deleted and that I would like at least partially reinstated:


 * >                          "Also in 1956, a patent application describing how to fabricate an IC was filed by Frances Hugle, US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956. This patent was ultimately divided into two claim sets, the first set was awarded articles of patent in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271).


 * >                          This is the first published description of how to actually grow semiconductor devices on a substrate incorporating a printed circuit, what equipment is required for this purpose and how to regulate the process depending upon what characteristics are desired.


 * >                          Though Frances was the first to describe how to fabricate an IC, her claims were not patented until after both Noyce and Kilby were awarded patents for her invention. (please see the Inventors section of this article's Talk page for a more in depth discussion of the Frances Hugle patent(s).)


 * >                          Thus ideas such as those following continue being espoused:"


 * >                          Minimally, I think the first paragraph quoted above should be included where it was originally placed in the history section of the article(just after the second paragraph). Most accurate would be to include both the first through third paragraphs since none are interpretive.


 * >                          Cheryl Hugle (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * >                              Actually, I think everything from "This is the first published description..." forward are interpretive, and would require secondary source confirmation to state that they were the first. The dates of the patents, and their content, can be garnered from the patents themselves. However, the patent itself contains no information about what may or may not have come before these. It may be the first such IC of its kind, or it may not be, but that can't be shown via the text of the patent itself, per se. What you would need is a reliable secondary source which analyzes all of the available information and itself makes the claim that this was the first. The patent itself cannot be used to reach that conclusion. --Jayron32 20:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The person who has posted this here is the same person who posted to the other board. But a ruling was obtained and he can read it for himself!

This is a case of harassment and should be stopped. When it is discovered that IT IS NOT A SOCK PUPPET who made the edit based upon the ruling of the other board, could you please block this person from harassing me and my edits?

Thank you. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"A discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard concluded the sources were insufficient to support the claim, and the claim was reverted"

This is also a lie. My text was removed by the person who posted here BEFORE any claims were supported or otherwise! (please check the history) It was again removed by another editor who cited COI issues and that it should be included by someone else if merit be established.

Merit was established as already shown and the edit was reintroduced (the truncated version expressly allowed by an administrator) by another editor. In all ways, what transpired followed Wiki protocols... so instead of gracefully accepting that one cannot just make up nonsense and get away with it, this person is apparently intent upon posting to any board, making any claim, undoing edits that are approved, wasting my time and others, and clearly lying in the process. This needs to be stopped!

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

I am not sure if I was supposed to post in this section or the one above. If I made a mistake, I apologize. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Can I make a request to revert an edit of the investigator(s) here?

Since the current edit was based upon the assertion that it was reverting a sock puppet edit, please disallow the change (undo) reverting to the previous edit as authorized on the Reliable Sources notice board. I would do it myself but if I do, someone will claim COI. Thus, my editing hands are tied as far as defending Anglerphish's edits. The editor may defend himself, or may not (I have no idea how committed to defending himself against the fray he may be... and there is always a very intense drawn out fray it seems)... but since his work is opposed on false grounds... it should be reinstated and protected. Thank you.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

" We have a single purpose account engaged in a months long dispute over the addition of a very specific claim to Wikipedia."

This is simply OUTRAGEOUS! The article I contributed came under incredible attack and I stayed long hours defending it. Many deletions were inappropriate (were not supported by Wiki protocols) and remain so. For this, I am labeled a SPA? Did it ever occur to anyone that people get involved here BECAUSE of specific interests and then if encouraged by their experiences, remain as contributors who begin branching out? I certainly have many other interests, even more primary interests. Do you think these experiences encourage me to remain and make contributions?

I have been unfairly maligned by this group. The person who first alleged the sock puppet charge has repeatedly taken positions against my edits, not first at this IC article. Following his allegations (intended to malign and discredit?), it was used by another editor who also opposed my contributions, and was ALREADY told that his opposition was NOT upheld at least as regarded the later included paragraph... which he used the sock puppet allegation to have deleted.

Then, someone apparently trying to salvage my edit was labeled a sock puppet (which word I did not even know until this arose!), no proof possible because the ALLEGATIONS are false!

This is utter censorship based upon power plays and the simple ability to get away with it!! These people have consistently opposed my edits and that is all that is going on. Wikipedia, bad job!! Very bad job!! I will find someway to report this abuse of contributors by those determined to maintain their edits regardless of merit.

And a single purpose account? I have ade contributions to more than one article, at least 3 in the past few months but several years ago, I first tried to get involved with Wikipedia on other topics (I don't remember my user name then but can look it up if you are interested):

I contributed (to Talk pages) on Wikipedia years ago on the issue of human anatomy. I was quickly discouraged by the level of regimented thinking. I also contributed to other parts of Wikipedia. I met with dogmatic and limited people everywhere that no matter what publications were submitted for consideration, editors were unable to open up to anything but their own preferred interpretations.

But several months ago, I decided to try again since a piece of history I knew about had not been included. So, I wrote a preliminary (needed lots of editing but I did not think it was a problem for a beginning) article and submitted it to AfC. Unexpectedly, I was offline for months and when I returned, I found it mired in problems, and myself the victim of ridiculous charges. That nightmare just keeps on giving. And now, wherever I go on Wikipedia, some of the same characters show up!

You pretty much have this thing backwards.

What can I say? I once wrote an answer for Wiki answers... on anatomy... defended it... was found guilty on the basis that I was defending a position an 'editor' disagreed with... that person refused to give sources to support her view, just the claim that she was right and I was wrong! That was years ago. Now, we are there again. Some of you do not like that there is substantial proof that the histories written about the IC are fantasies. I am not saying to discard the fantasies, they tell us much about ourselves. I am saying that there is NO REASON to censor publications demonstrating that they are fantasies or contributors seeking to enrich the articles by mentioning them.

AND, the inclusion of mention of this patent was UPHELD at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard! Please note that. I am really Fed UP with this process. Anything goes here when you don't like what someone else contributes, regardless of sources. This is clearly a political battle and the fact that there are greater numbers on one side is all that is deciding this outcome, I am falsely accused, but to support the prejudices here, facts are being misrepresented and twisted... and there has been plenty of that at least by the first person who suggested I was a sock puppet!

Again, I am found guilty by simply LYING about the actual facts of this situation. How low can we go Wikipedia editors and admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"We have a single purpose account engaged in a months long dispute over the addition of a very specific claim to Wikipedia. A newbie appears during the dispute to make the same claim. It seem fairly obvious that Anglerphish is either a sock or a meatpuppet."

This is most definitely a very UNFACTUAL representation of my efforts here! How is this allowed? Who says you can make up these stories and use them to decide guilt or innocence? Again, totally outrageous. Dishonest. Disgusting.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"We have a single purpose account engaged in a months long dispute over the addition of a very specific claim to Wikipedia."

This is an outright lie. Please demand that the person who made this statement justify it in an open forum.

Thank you.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

I also want to iterate that this investigation began with someone telling a lie:

"A discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard concluded the sources were insufficient to support the claim, and the claim was reverted"

This is a matter of record and it can proven to be a lie. In fact, you have the proof in my original comment above. It is a lie in that:

1) the sources were insufficient to support the claim,...

This is completely false. Look above, the edit disputed here was EXPRESSLY approved on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard!

2)...,and the claim was reverted.

FALSE! The claim was reverted BEFORE any determination anywhere and before it had even been presented to any board... and again AFTER a determination was made OPPOSITE to the one being claimed here.

This whole matter rests upon people claiming things they KNOW to be false, presenting FALSE chronologies of events, and MISREPRESENTING my contributions!

And now, misrepresenting my computer capabilities!

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

What this witch hunt has determined is:

If someone thinks an early patent that describes the fabrication of an IC (but does not belong to Noyce or Kilby) should be mentioned in the history section of the IC article, they are a puppet of Cheryl Hugle If someone opposes that mention, their position, even though based upon lies and misrepresentations, should be upheld. Because they are not puppets but responsible members of Wikipedia society thinking for themselves!

Isn't anyone ashamed? At all?

(The next time someone agrees with me, I'll know to tell them they are only doing it because they are a puppet!! How do I know? Wikipedia said so!)

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind."

There isn't any evidence!! I haven't done anything but try to make a contribution to an article! Later expressly allowed, in part, by an administrator! That part, was what another editor tried to insert.

Still, it was twice deleted! Some editors are working together to block this info's inclusion and they have resorted to lying about my activities, the nature of the sources (and what they say), etc. This appears to be a coordinated attack on my ability to contribute here and now on the ability of another.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, "

I have done so. It has had no bearing on this ridiculous investigation. The characterization claimed by the checkuser is utterly false. Please assign to another person.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Hi Cheryl, the result given by the CheckUser are at the very bottom of the page, and I am the only CheckUser who has edited this page. As I said below, your accounts both appear to be ❌ which backs up your story. We understand your defense that you have made, but we don't process these cases in real time, as in we don't make our decisions in seconds, so mass posting your defense and comments over and over again is not going to help anything, and will take longer for this case to close out. The comments at the beginning of the case were made by the person who /suspected/ (they didn't know 100% for sure) you might be a sock. So right now, it appears that this case will just be closed out with no other action taken towards you. Please sit back and be patient, and this will be closed soon. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"so mass posting your defense and comments over and over again is not going to help anything,"

Sorry, I was just VERY upset and felt like no one was listening to anything factual... and that maybe I needed to explain everything in detail... like talking to my husband:)

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - We have a single purpose account engaged in a months long dispute over the addition of a very specific claim to Wikipedia. A newbie appears during the dispute to make the same claim. It seem fairly obvious that Anglerphish is either a sock or a meatpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible Anglerphish is using a proxy, but if not, this is ❌ by technical evidence. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing per above. Note that this is not intended as an endorsement or rejection of the edits in question. Rschen7754 00:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)