Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jrd-res1981/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Note, as happened back in Dec 2016/Jan 2017 discussed at Sockpuppet investigations/Jfgouzer/Archive, two editors have shown up at the Cysteamine and are edit warring together to add promotional content about this molecule's potential use as a skin-whitening agent.


 * 16-17 August Jrd-res first, with this diff series
 * 21 Sept Then HyperPigm (note the name, hyper-pigment) here where they are trying to add the cosmetic use at the bottom
 * around 15 minutes later, Jrd-res comes and ratifies that edit (diff) with edit note Reviewed qualitative changes of the page. These changes are appropriate. Thank you for not war editing

These are socks/meat like the pair nearly a year ago. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The content being added by these socks and the masters is aimed at promoting certain uses of this compounds that are not supported by MEDRS sources (which includes drug labels) -- see List of off-label promotion pharmaceutical settlements and off-label marketing. Perhaps User:Doc James can explain more if that is not enough information for you. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am gathering diffs and laying out this more explicitly. Diffs anon. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2017 (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

 * Could you explain to me in a little more detail why the edits from these two accounts are problematic, independently of potential sockpuppetry? I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the subject matter, but to me your interactions with them look like a simple content dispute. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm looking for is help cutting through the technical language to actually identify the unsourced claims. Your comment on the article's talk page, here, does this quite well. Format it along the lines of "in this edit, they make this particular claim, based on this source" I'll be much likely to figure out where the problem actually lies. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Since no further evidence seems to be forthcoming, and both of these accounts are now inactive, I'm closing this case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)