Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scubadiver99/Archive

Report date March 4 2009, 14:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle (talk)

A long-term pattern of using SPA accounts to insert and maintain references to Brian Boxer Wachler. Use of multiple accounts in talk page discussions (see Talk:Keratoconus for examples) to provide the appearance of support. See previous case Suspected sock puppets/Scubadiver99. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

It appears that all of the above users (Scubadiver99, Mightyeyes, and Corneadoc) who have weighed in using cited studies to balance the emotional-charged accusations of others are now being accused of Sock puppetry. Providing unbias, fact-based information that happens to contradict assertions of others is more than just appropriate, but required to balance heavy bias that can misrepresent factual information. Corneadoc (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some periodic emotionally charged accusations made on the talk page regarding one specific section of the article, but it should be plain to anyone looking over my contributions on Talk:Keratoconus that I am trying to reduce the emotional component, not inflame it. This has been a longstanding issue of, frankly, fairly obvious sockpuppetry and COI editing. See Talk:Keratoconus/Archive 2 where User:Mightyeyes replaced User:Scubadiver99 in the discussions after Scubadiver99 failed to give clear answers to questions about COI. Similarly, User:Corneadoc replaced Scubadiver99 after an IP editor began to question recent edits and, of all things, COI editing. I'm not excusing the behaviour of other editors on the talk page, but the debate appears to be related to the promotion of Brian Boxer Wachler and his methods, rather than a content issue as such. I also note that Corneadoc uses a debating team tactic in his reply above, by simply attacking the sockpuppetry accusation yet not denying it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I deny any accusations of sock puppetry. This is clearly a "ganging up" of the anti epi-on camp to ignore the studies that show epi-on crosslinking works. The "gang of 3" Delicious Carbuncle, RH, Arpowers simply ignore the cited studies and have an "ax to grind" against Boxer Wachler. This is the heart of all the issues. They wish to completely remove any reference to epi-on crosslinking.Scubadiver99 (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of any "gang of 3" or "anti epi-on camp". I have no relationship with Arpowers or the IP editor who signs their posts as "RH". In fact, I believe RH has made several inappropriate personal attacks and is hindering resolution of issues with the article. My reason for starting this case is the same as the last one - sockpuppetry and likely COI editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

I agree this is obvious an sockpuppet or at least collaboration amongst people with a similar commercial interests. This is a medical article and I believe this issue is hindering this article's capability of being helpful to people that need treatment. Andrew Powers (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Corneadoc and Mightyeyes are almost certainly SPA accounts, but that in itself is not always a bad thing. These two acounts only edit Keratoconus and Brian Boxer Wachler. Note that Mightyeyes is almost certainly too old for a checkuser. Behaviour evidence is quite strong that these accounts are related, I'm not positive that they are the same person or not. If it helps I got most of my conclusions from the contribs and from http://toolserver.org/~eagle/socks/Scubadiver99.html which shows the relation between Scubadiver99 and the listed accounts. ——  nix eagle email me 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all looking a bit inconclusive, and I'm tempted to close this, pending anything further that gives cause for concern. Mayalld (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Per Mayalld, inconclusive and no new evidence. .  MBisanz  talk 05:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 15 2009, 13:01 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle

User:Scubadiver99 and User:Corneadoc are single purpose accounts of Brian Boxer Wachler. Corneadoc and Scubadiver99 have been edit warring about a change to Keratoconus against consensus (,,,,,, & ), and will not stop arguing contentiously about the change on the talk page. Following an ANI report, a poll was started by an uninvolved editor to determine if Scubadiver99 and Corneadoc were being disruptive. That editor appears to have agreed that they are.

User:Lasiklady has appeared on the talk page to support Scubadiver99 and Corneadoc, and offering identical references. User:Lasikladythai is a self-declared alternate account of Lasiklady. Having made half a dozen edits in total, Lasikladythai seems to have no trouble with Wikipedia terminology or syntax. Both accounts have no other edits besides Talk:Keratoconus. The past two sockpuppetry cases involving Scubadiver99 have been inconclusive, but the pattern continues, so checkuser is requested for this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * for CU attention. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

✅: ❌ to the above: --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 *  Syn  ergy 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 1 2009, 11:44 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle

User:Scubadiver99 was blocked 17 May 2009 for abusing multiple accounts, along with one sockpuppet. Both accounts were SPAs editing topics related to Brian Boxer Wachler. Following some cleanup of that article by another user, new user User:Swan Lover appeared to reinstate the disputed material. Additionally, Swan Lover is adding new material which is essentially the same as the material that the previous sockpuppets repeatedly inserted at Keratoconus (see Talk:Keratoconus if you dare).

There is a long pattern of Brian Boxer Wachler single purpose accounts fluffing his article and adding links to Boxer Wachler- associated websites (see prior cases and Suspected sock puppets/Scubadiver99). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

The "disputed material" are solely two publications that were disputed only in the Keratoconus article.

All references that I added to Brian Boxer Wachler article were in response to JamesBWatson's and Flowanda's request for citations and is acceptable per Biographies of Living Persons,WP:BLP. This includes personal website, curriculum vitae on website, and other information that is referenced in detail on Brian Boxer Wachler:


 * To verify Boxer Wachler as a pioneer -- plus the other information recently added -- please help provide sourcing per WP:RS that can be checked online by normal readers and that isn't limited to the subject's websites or references/journals without online links. Please see WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:N for more information. If you need help with sourcing, please ask or see the article's history for more information. Flowanda | Talk 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment which was posted while I was updating and providing "citations" which were requested by editor JamesBWatson. All information that I edited is compliant with Wikipedia's policy of using personal websites of living persons per this section, Using the subject as a self-published source, on WP:BLP:


 * "Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Thanks. Swan Lover (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle removed sentence about Dr. Boxer Wachler being recognized as one of the world's best refractive surgeons:


 * I think that saying "Dr. Boxer Wachler is recognized as one of world’s best refractive surgeons" and referencing it with your own website might be seen as "unduly self-serving", don't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I reinserted that credential and again cited source that is compliant with policy of Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP:


 * Please see letter from American Academy of Cataract and Refractive Surgery that confirms and verifies that this statement is accurate. Letter is located at http://www.boxerwachler.com/credentials. Swan Lover (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As a reaction to my response and reinsertion of credential, Delicious carbuncle now accuses me of sock puppetry.

All information that I added to Brian Boxer Wachler article was in response to editors JamesBWatson and Flowanda's request for references. All information is referenced and is in accord with Wiki policy for Biographies of Living Persons, WP:BLP, as cited above. From Delicious carbuncle's actions, including attacks against Dr. Boxer Wachler in Keratoconus article discussion, it seems that Delicious carbuncle may has some kind of agenda against Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan Lover (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not me but another editor who reverted your addition, so your accusation is baseless, but attacking the questioner is another hallmark of Boxer Wachler sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors have reverted your edits and repeatedly asked for reliable sources and offered to help with sourcing, but any further discussion related to content and sourcing should take probably take place on the talk page. Flowanda | Talk 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Approach the Bench has been blocked as a sock of Scubadiver99 based on behavioral and CU evidence. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

-- Avi (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are related:
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the following account is related to the two above:
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the following account is related to the two above:
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the following account is related to the two above:

-- Avi (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 04:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

03 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The first 4 are SPA who have only showed up to !vote at an AfD on the Brian Boxer Wachler‎ article, where we are trying for the 2nd time to delete this article. If you check the sockmaster you will find an extensive history of socking on that article, also outlined in the connected contributor tags at the article talk page, where additional SPA/PROMO accounts are listed. Jf300 has done some other things but voted very similarly and may well be an additional SOCK. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Sorry for the confusion. We have another SPI which is basically the same as this one here except this one has a few more accounts tagged.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Already checked, see Sockpuppet investigations/Battistin72/Archive.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is dealt with at Sockpuppet investigations/Battistin72. Probably all the same case, so I'll request merging. Closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

04 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler
 * -> also promoting "corneal crosslinking" and editing Brian Boxer Wachler


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

4 brand new accounts voting on some obscure AfD about a person who appears to have paid to have an article written about themselves. These two other accounts User:Battistin72 and User:Jennifer1776 have been confirmed as socks already and have been editing the same topic area / person's article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Adubbins1 is not a new account. They wrote this promotional peice here
 * Appears we have an older SPI here dealing with the same issues
 * And another just opened here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And here. While CU shows they are "technically" unrelated, there is obviously some kind of coordination going on here; either paid editing or on some sort of "Doc Wachser" email appreciation list. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment My comment was substantive, and provided a suggestion to move forward to fix the article. I made myself known to multiple mods, I followed each and every rule, and my comment was not just a random vote in favor of the subject of the article. It's unfortunate to see folks completely ignore substantive comments that propose solutions to a problem, solely in the interest of getting their way rather than engaging in constructive dialogue about fixing a problem. Jf3300 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly. We however are simply looking to verify your statements. If the CU looks good it will give your comment as a new editor greater weight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment My only edit on Brian Boxer Wachler was for adding a link to corneal collagen cross-linking which I had expanded at that time. having keratoconus is the only reason I am interested in corneal collagen cross-linking and I have no financial interest in any of the mentioned articles. I am disappointed. I thought you are more experienced than this. don't you have something called WP:DUCKTEST? do I really look like other listed editors? if what I am doing for corneal ectatic disorders is called "promoting", then you must be promoting medicine and Wikipedia! I know CU is not a big deal, but according to WP:SI, you accused me of puppetry, and I feel offended, helping keratoconus to keep its "featured" status (and expanding related articles) would be a good apology! k18s (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No CU has been run. Your rephrasing of the Cochrane review was concerning. Unfortunately with all the paid editing in this topic area it becomes harder to AGF. We have had a bunch of editors making claims of not being paid and then turning out to be part of the OM ring. Anyway it is a sad position for us to be in. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * CU is not offensive, accusation is. but I understand you are just trying to keep the Wikipedia accurate and spam-free. let's talk about the KC and CXL on my talk page. k18s (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. what does OM stand for?! k18s (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * New account promoting keeping this person's account here User:Jjacksoneverst Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) ( comment refactored by Berean Hunter to correct account name 13:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Hi, I'm not a sockpuppet. I usually edit without logging in, because I'm lazy, but in a deletion discussion I felt I should log in. Thanks. Proserpine (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - Can this page be history merged into Sockpuppet investigations/Battistin72? We should have it all in one place.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Group 1 – The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 2 – The following accounts are to each other.  The untrustworthy locations cloud the anlaysis. :
 * Group 3 – The following accounts are to each other:
 * I’m not repeating the other previous findings of Courcelles, but I agree that with the possible exception of K18s, those accounts who are not sock puppets are meat puppets. As already noted, some of the IP addresses being used are suspicious.
 * I've blocked/tagged only the confirmed accounts. The rest I leave to others to sort out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - This is almost certainly (known for interest in Brian Boxer Wachler‎). I'm requesting this page to be history-merges into Sockpuppet investigations/Scubadiver99.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved casename to Scubadiver99 and blocked Bennydarko, Adubbins1, Trev5150, and Proserpine as meatpuppets. Leaving for another clerk to review the case merge and close.
 * Group 3 – The following accounts are to each other:
 * I’m not repeating the other previous findings of Courcelles, but I agree that with the possible exception of K18s, those accounts who are not sock puppets are meat puppets. As already noted, some of the IP addresses being used are suspicious.
 * I've blocked/tagged only the confirmed accounts. The rest I leave to others to sort out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - This is almost certainly (known for interest in Brian Boxer Wachler‎). I'm requesting this page to be history-merges into Sockpuppet investigations/Scubadiver99.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved casename to Scubadiver99 and blocked Bennydarko, Adubbins1, Trev5150, and Proserpine as meatpuppets. Leaving for another clerk to review the case merge and close.
 * I've blocked/tagged only the confirmed accounts. The rest I leave to others to sort out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - This is almost certainly (known for interest in Brian Boxer Wachler‎). I'm requesting this page to be history-merges into Sockpuppet investigations/Scubadiver99.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved casename to Scubadiver99 and blocked Bennydarko, Adubbins1, Trev5150, and Proserpine as meatpuppets. Leaving for another clerk to review the case merge and close.
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)