Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EtymAesthete/Archive

23 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All three editors edit mainly in the same (medical/neurology) subject area, all three are very particular (to the point of being inflexible and overly pedantic) about supposed grammatical correctness, showing irritation at other editors' perceived lack of understanding of English grammar, and all three use the same edit summary format ("minor modifications for clarity") with grammar lessons enclosed in square brackets and liberal sprinklings of all-caps for emphasis: by EtymAesthete,  by Brainiacal,  by NewEnglandDr. Instances of two accounts working together to insist on the same curiously odd choice of wording while avoiding possible 3RR accusations: --DAJF (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * on 3 September 2013 ( by Brainical and by EtymAesthete)
 * on 22 February 2014 ( by NewEnglandDr and by EtymAesthete)
 * on 22-23 February ( by EtymAesthete and by NewEnglandDr)

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


 * Because true academics with knowledge of language history, philology, and etymology agree and support each other's stance on issues of language history, philology, and etymology against cry-babies and their kindergarten mentalities and social skills, they must be employing sock-puppetry. After astute explanations offered in the respective Edit Summaries by this editor and another editor on the Wasabi article, DAJF retaliates with the inappropriate kindergarten-like behavior and mentality represented by (in an Edit Summary?): someone needs to [sic] learn the difference between "which" and "that" as [sic] they are not interchangeable, complete with dangling phrase with improper punctuation, deficient knowledge of the difference between should and needs to, and brazen attention drawn to complete absence of knowledge of which and that exemplified by his edits, all in one Edit Summary!  It is "editors" like this that the mere mention of "Wikipedia" so often elicits from the public and media derision and even scorn.EtymAesthete (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As the user whose edits were being reverted in the Boeing 727 case, I do remember feeling it was slightly odd that two different people would insist in such rapid succession that such blatantly ungrammatical wording was correct. There were also these previous edits, in which first Brainiacal saves EtymAesthete from falling foul of 3RR and then EtymAesthete returns the favour.


 * (EtymAesthete: some debatable changes, some definitely incorrect, two correct single-character corrections; I reverted the whole thing, rather than unpick it)
 * (EtymAesthete: dropped some of the definitely incorrect changes; I reverted the whole thing again but then applied the two single-character corrections]
 * (Brainiacal: restores the debatable and incorrect changes, which EtymAesthete could not do because of 3RR; I didn't revert becuase of 3RR but somebody else did .)
 * (Brainiacal tries a different incorrect phrasing, with shoutycaps incorrect justification; I reverted, after one intervening edit. Now, we reach the edits in the OP here; Brainiacal can't now revert because of 3RR so EtymAesthete steps in to do it.)

Dricherby (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As evinced by their cited examples, and their kindergarten-style Edit Summaries within, the level of incompetence and complete lack of scholarship of the two "copy-editors" above is astounding.

In the case of Dricherby on his referenced article, he states in an Edit Summary, even after my academic Edit Summary explanation: "Both of which are closer in size to the 727-200" cannot stand on its own as a sentence so cannot be linked by a semi-colon. Not understanding the fundamentals of language, no less the meaning of the terms gerund and dependent clause, he became characteristically aggressive of one of this level of intellect, to initiate and continue to this day a war over this, when all the while he is shamefully wrong. And, at the same time, someone else of equivalent competence comes mysteriously out of nowhere to defend his malpractices. He/they should not be allowed to hold a pen to paper, let alone edit pages of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should be proud to have copy-editors of the intellectual caliber of EtymAesthete, Brainiacal, and NewEnglandDr, who give of their time to imbue Wikipedia articles with the scholarship that an online encyclopedia should have, along with - as evinced by my and the others' contributions - flawless logic underlying infallible contributions from an immeasurable wealth of not only our respective disciplines and hobbies but also our historical language knowledge.

What is, in fact, remarkable is the number of fellow copy-editors that are appreciative of my work and are, themselves, learning more about our great communication-tool called the English language and, through their self-enrichment, feel empowered as communicators. They are, moreover, delighted to educate others as well on the historical significance of syntax, grammar, and etymology, rather than living under the dark cloak of ignorance represented by what their grammar-school teacher erroneously fed them. And there are those that refuse to be educated because, for them, to be educated is to be corrected and to have nullified all that they have come to know, which is processed by them as a sign of weakness and, therefore, an admission of inferiority; so they defend their ignorance with a vengeance. We can cite numerous examples throughout history of how greater knowledge in science, medicine, archaeology, the arts, have been squelched due to the attacks against this greater knowledge by those fearful of their being discovered, and the concomitant limelight shone on their ignorance. I tolerate this type of bully behavior neither by those in academia and esteemed journals and publications to which I contribute nor by those here. EtymAesthete (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your personal attacks are unnecessary. I do not know what you mean by "initiate and continue to this day a war over this" given that, to the best of my recollection, I had no interaction whatsoever with you between our edits to the Boeing 727 article in early September 2013 and the opening of this investigation in late February 2014. Also, why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Dricherby (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your having entered yourself just a couple of days ago in this arena for the sole purpose of discrediting me with the shameful examples that you bring forth is continuing the war. Furthermore, my attempts and the attempts of another editor to come to a middle-ground on the issue - that is, using a semi-colon to separate the two sentences, or changing the predicate to a gerund or eliminating the predicate altogether in order to reduce the sentence to a dependent clause and justify, therefore, the comma - were systematically undone by you and your possible sock-puppets up until February 24, rendering the incorrect statement ...so many airlines replaced their 727s with either the 737-800 or the Airbus A320, both of which are closer in size to the 727-200, which I corrected yet again.  Furthermore, not only your entering into this arena but your using terms such as blatantly ungrammatical and definitely incorrect against corrections founded on logic and the rules of syntax and grammar rather than going into hiding in complete embarrassment of your lack of scholarship is a monumental example of defending one's ignorance with a vengeance. EtymAesthete (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Please keep personal attacks off of this page. NativeForeigner Talk 18:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All three named accounts are ✅. T. Canens (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged based on CU result and behaviour check. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

06 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same particularity to grammatical correctness as other socks in this edit and this edit; also, the usernames give themselves away. Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC) (modified 20:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC))
 * This user has also made personal attacks under the usernames NewEnglandDr2 and EtymAesthete3. NewEnglandDr2 has already been blocked by for 24 hours. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC) (modified 16:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - I've semi'd the page. But can a CU please take a look for confirmation and a sleeper check. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All accounts are now blocked. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 04:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All accounts are now blocked. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 04:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All accounts are now blocked. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 04:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 04:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)