Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ptb011985/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Users engaged in either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry on kraton (Mitragyna speciosa) article in attempt to minimize the coverage of potential harm claiming "consensus" against other editors. Each IP edit takes place immediately after a Ptb011985 edit and continues the pattern of minimization and mis-representation of sources. For example: The sequence of logged-in edit followed by IP edits is clear from the revision history The IP is apparently being used to create the impression of false consensus, which justifies a CheckUser. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Ptb011985 misrepresents the findings of an FDA report to argue kratom deaths are always linked to concomitant opioid use
 * 2) 107.199.128.249 adds claim that "natural plant form" of kratom does not cause respiratory depression
 * 3) and  107.199.128.249 adds malformed reference to support respirator depression claim but source does not make that claim
 * Regarding "consensus" so far Ptb011985's edits have been separately reverted by, , and . It is not the mere sequence of edits, but the sequential edits both making misrepresentations that seems diagnostic of some form of "...improper uses of multiple accounts". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's as much evidence of me using socks as you, i.e. none as far as I can see. They're misrepresentations according to you, and not to others. Not everyone agrees with you and your ilk.Ptb011985 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It's purely a coincidence, I have nothing to do with the editors who were editing around that time. Eggishorn is trying to defend his POV by falsely claiming consensus (when there are about the same # for and against), and now claiming sockpuppetry on the article. The FDA declared kratom an opiod yesterday, and there are an estimated 3-5 million users in the US alone. It's not surprising there has been some buzz on the article.Ptb011985 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding Eggishorn's claimed consensus, there are at least 4 editors including me who have made changes or voiced support for changes, so it appears we're about 'even' at this time, meanwhile he and his cohorts continue to revert all new edits under the flag of consensus.Ptb011985 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * is disrupting the Mitragyna speciosa article and Talk page with vapid soapbox arguments, and harassing another editor as reported here. --Zefr (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no sockpuppetry, so citing this case is pointless. If anything it bolsters my claim that you and a small group of other editors are trying to force your POV via threats, banning, and investigations. You first posted two warnings to my talk page for allegedly disruptive behavior. I then found your lengthy, page-filling FDA publication excerpts and continuous, instant reversion of productive edits that you disagreed with to be more disruptive, and advised you accordingly, which you call harassment. And watch WP:CIVIL with your word choice. Several editors disagree with your statement that the arguments are vapid and with your position on several issues on the subject; they are not me, and I imagine an admin would be able to establish that.Ptb011985 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston's claim of single-purpose account is a lie. I've made edits on a variety of topics. I'm not a kratom user nor do I know anyone who is; have never even seen the substance; my passing focus and minor edits on this article would have been a thing of the past if not for the fierce protection of the current version by a small handful of editors. Given his provably false characterization, any statements by him should be taken with a grain of salt. As for his other claims, which might also be false given the above, the IPs in question are in Texas, and last I checked Southern California is a big place. Ptb011985 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am an accused user, Southern California IP address. I made multiple edits subsequently because I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia and formatting. I apologize for my unprofessional ism, but no sock puppetry occurred, I only made a series of edits to counter misinformation in the Wikipedia article. I'd like to learn how to properly engage in discussion and edits because of the amount of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.225.207 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * and : Please also check 107.199.128.249 for sock activity. --Zefr (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't an obvious behavioral case for the IPs to be the same person as Ptb011985. However, two different IPs share a geolocation in southern California and are presumably the same person. The IPs as well at Ptb011985 do appear to be single-purpose accounts with a focus on Mitragyna speciosa. Any claims of consensus, when the vote is skewed by single-purpose editors, should be taken with a grain of salt. Users or supporters of kratom who have an interest in its continuing to be legal might potentially be drawn to this article, and they might have trouble editing neutrally. At present I'm considering whether semiprotection of Mitragyna speciosa would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You get different answers for the geolocation of the IPs depending on whether you click 'WHOIS' on the above template or go into their contributions. One way you get Texas, the other you get California. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another SPI has joined the talk page discussion User:Ave.Maria. All advocating that the FDA is "wrong" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have pretty much zero doubt that the two IPs who both made a flurry of edits to the article on Feb 8 and have both made no edits before or since are the same person, and there's little here to connect them to Ptb011985, who has now been blocked separately. No case can be made for sockpuppetry based on users having the view that "the FDA is wrong" in common; there are too many real-world crackpots. Case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * already did, see comment directly above. They added a comment after the case was already closed. We don't block dynamic IPs when they rotate, and I don't have any reason to suspect anything more sinister than that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)