Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeking absolute truth/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar editing pattern, editing the same subjects. Sandbox of GardenLoverAsia is a draft on which SeekingAbsolute was working heavily with COI/POV/Advertising intent. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 09:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Both editors have similar editing pattern on Draft:Henry Braun (statistician) and Hal S. Stern assuming inherent notability or pushing for AfC approval, ignoring AfC comments and moving to AfC Help Desk.
 * User:Garden Lover Asia/sandbox is Draft:Sandip Sinharay created and promoted by SeekingAbsoluteTruth (SAT) which has been CSD-ed for ADVERT.
 * GardenLoverAsia (GLA) has not responded to SockWarning on their talk page asking their relationship with SAT. GLA has, however, replied at AfC Help Desk
 * I am in a small field of research... yes---I discussed with a couple of researchers... I was talking with a few friends...at a recent conference and heard that articles submitted by them on a few other people and Sandip Sinharay were declined for different reasons (not a notable person, self-promotion etc.)
 * On one hand, they say they do not know anyone (basically SAT) who has worked on the same article, on the other hand they claim to have met and discussed the reasons of AfC decline, CSD who would be none other than SAT themselves.
 * Apart from factual anamolies, it is odd that two (or more) people, with aim to make a subject/niche more visible on wiki, would only contribute to the very same living people working in that field, rather than working on the subject matter and expanding it (esp since GLA claims to be a researcher).
 * Both are in the habit of writing long paragraphed replies and making personal attacks as seen in User_talk:User4edits/Archives/ what is your share in the $380 that Laura asked from Sandip Sinharay? and GLA @ AfC Help Desk trying to be the next Sherlock Holmes. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

1. User4edits's wrote "On one hand, they say they do not know anyone (basically SAT)" apparently based on my not replying to the SockWarning on my Talk page within about 1 day since the warning. Thus, User4edits assumed that my non-response in 1 day = a "no" response and hence User4edits's claim of "factual anamolies" is simply not true. 2. User4edits’ observation of “Both editors have similar editing pattern” is an obvious outcome of people in the same field and doing similar work (including academic writing) writing similarly. 3. User4edits’s statement that “it is odd that two (or more) people, with aim to make a subject/niche more visible on wiki, would only contribute to the very same living people working in that field, rather than working on the subject matter”  is based on the assumption that the better way to make a field more visible is to make a subject more visible, but can User4edits present results of a scientific study that proved that the better way to make a field visible is to write about a subject than people? 4. About personal attacks, given the editors' behavior (like noted above), I believe even Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi would be angry with such editors! (I would also like to add here that I submitted an entry on Hal Stern that User4edits declined on 6th June. Within 24 hours, another editor, Mdann52 accepted it and moved it to article space. So, editors like Mdann52 are furthering the mission of being an encyclopedia much better than User4Edits. This is more reason for people to be angry with User4Edits) And where are the personal attacks? The statement about Laura and $380 is a question and the comparison with Sherlock Holmes is a borderline complement!!! 5. I stand by my statement made at AfC Help Desk that we a group of researchers/friends (SAT is one of them) do work together to give our field more visibility. The coverage of subjects (in articles on educational measurement, psychometrics, validity, item response theory etc.) is decent-–more deep articles on ”three parameter logistic model” etc. will not be of interest to many. But we found it quite odd that some good measurement/statistics researchers do not have Wikipedia entries (Henry Braun, Robert Mislevy, Terry Ackerman, Neil Dorans, Sandip Sinharay, Michael Kolen, Hal Stern) while other researchers of similar stature do (Li Cai, Alina von Davier, Rebecca Zwick, Paul W. Holland, Howard Wainer). We decided to try to publish articles on the former unfortunate people. We think that is needed to further Wikipedia’s aim of being an encyclopedia. If one of us fails to have entries accepted, others will try with the hope of getting a more fair editor. From what we experienced, it will be hard, given editors like User4edits. “Good faith” is mentioned in many places in Wikipedia policies, but, unfortunately, it is not clear that “good faith” is practiced by many related to Wikipedia. But we will keep trying. Note that we are not pushing a political agenda, not doing any violence or vandalism, not selling anything, and only trying to give more visibility to some academic-type scholars in our field--not sure how that will harm the society. 6. I wonder if an investigation should be opened about Laura, $380, and User4edits. If nothing else, paid editors probably look for biographies that are borderline eligible yet rejected, and the editors can spend some time to have them accepted (note: they claim payment upon acceptance). Editors like User4edits, by rejecting most articles, are helping the paid editors make money. GardenLoverAsia

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * What makes you say "similar editing pattern"? The drafts are pretty radically different. UPE is probably a given but this otherwise doesn't look like socking to me unless you can point to specific edits that make you think these are the same user. Izno (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * The data demonstrates that this is one user switching accounts, not several people sharing a connection at a small institution as Garden Lover Asia suggests. All are . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The data demonstrates that this is one user switching accounts, not several people sharing a connection at a small institution as Garden Lover Asia suggests. All are . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The data demonstrates that this is one user switching accounts, not several people sharing a connection at a small institution as Garden Lover Asia suggests. All are . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The data demonstrates that this is one user switching accounts, not several people sharing a connection at a small institution as Garden Lover Asia suggests. All are . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)