Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ingenium/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Ingenium was edit warring with poor sources. Post being warned a brand new account began. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Another IP [[User:Doc James| Doc James] (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

These other edits are not me. I do not have more than 1 account. Those other edits were from an IPv6 address, and I do not have IPv6 at my home or on my phone. Show me actual evidence. If you haven't noticed, kratom is suddenly in the news. It's not surprising that other people are trying to correct things when the wikipedia page is the first place people go for information. Much of the verbiage on the page has a bias and omits important information. Ingenium (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (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
Closing procedurally only. See report below.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sudden flurry of similar editing activity at Mitragyna speciosa from these a/cs, downplaying the evidence of harms caused by abuse of this drug. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And you seem to have an inherent bias against it, refusing to allow anyone to cite sources to the contrary or adjust the language to be neutral rather than biased. These are not sockpuppets, they are legitimate users trying to correct this article and the admins here are preventing it. Ingenium (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

I tried to delete the sentence that says "Kratom has become a subject of concern in many countries because of the rising number of hospital visits and deaths among its users".

In the abstract of the cited article it says "...a growing concern for the drug’s effects and safety of use has resulted in national and international attention primarily due to an increase in hospital visits and deaths in several countries that are said to have been caused by extracts of the plant. "

The distinction of the term SAID to have been caused and actually stating that it has caused a number of hospital visits and deaths is important. It gives the impression that deaths are 100 percent due to Kratom alone which no reputable scientific source has confirmed.

I also tried to delete the statement "According to the DEA, 15 deaths in the United States between 2014 and 2016 were caused by kratom." The DEA has refused to show the scientific evidence that 15 deaths have been caused by Kratom alone. They also do not cite any specific studies in the cited article which state that there has been 15 deaths due to kratom. They are not a reputable scientific source on their own.

In the thousands of years that Kratom has been used by humans, there is not one scientifically proven case that Kratom alone has caused a death.

"Although mitragynines agonize mu-opioid receptors, respiratory depression, coma, pulmonary edema and death have not, to our knowledge, been associated with human kratom ingestion."

The pharmacology and toxicology of kratom: from traditional herb to drug of abuse International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2015, Page 1 Marcus L. Warner, Nellie C. Kaufman, Oliver Grundmann

I stand by the fact that both of those statements should be deleted and I implore you to end this investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:377F:A930:596E:C829:EBE9:62FC (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The three accounts are but probably .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of CU evidence, a general weakness of behavioural evidence, and the fact that this is a controversial topic recently in the news (thus likely to attract multiple editors independently making similar edits), I am unconvinced that sockpuppetry is involved here. Closing without taking any action. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)