Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sko1221/Archive

Evidence submitted by EyeSerene
See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579 EyeSerene talk 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I, sko1221, have had multiple IPs in the last few months - I did nothing myself to change my IP address. I have not been involved in disruptive behavior, and would like examples of this pointed out: '''"The suspected accounts/IPs have for some time been involved in disruptive advocacy on Talk:Medical cannabis, Medical cannabis and a few related articles" - proof? What is disruptive? What other articles?'''

Because I have been planning to make a Wikipedia article for my church, I have done nearly all editing regarding Cannabis while not logged into sko1221. My thinking was that it would not be something my church would want to be affiliated with.

I read the article about sock-puppetry, and it looks as if the problems arise when someone is pretending to be multiple people in order to win arguments. I think one can observe that I have not done this, nor have I been unruly when engaged in discussions. I have contributed much to the Medical Cannabis article and don't believe I have caused any problems.

My most recent discussion involved my questioning some work to the Medical Cannabis discussion page by Viraditas, who deleted at least 2 sections of the discussion without any notes or explanation, and to question his actions brought about quite a lot of anger. Let me explain, I had just finished watching the news about Obama's speech in China, and how it wasn't aired in it's entirety but only the bits that the government was comfortable with. Literally 30 minutes later I found the same thing had happened on the Wikipedia page in question. This page automatically archives within 45 days, and nothing like this had ever taken place before in the 9 months I have been watching this discussion.

Viraditas defends a self-outed marijuana-pill scientist as an active editor to the page and is also the one who defends the image of a tincture of marijuana (in other words, a pharmaceutical version of marijuana) as the lead image for Medical Cannabis, even after the leading marijuana scientist in the country (Abrams) was consulted. Dr. Abrams' opinion was that the tincture should be in the history section (as it's 100 years old), and a picture of a marijuana bud should be the lead image. But you will see nothing has changed to this day. Read Viraditas' work defending it tirelessly - and ask yourself if this is truly an unbiased editor, or should he be removed from editing this page altogether?

The issue of medical marijuana is a heated one. The Pharmaceutical interests seem to be holding sway over this Wikipedia article, and "Power Editors" using bullying techniques are keeping it that way.

I don't know whether you will find my actions worthy of blocking, but what really matters to me is that Wikipedia will take action so that interest groups like this will not be able to control what information the public gets. I don't know how you will see to it, as it's really up to the little guy to try and fight for the truth. But with the Power Editor problem, I don't hold high hopes for this.

The first time I was reported as a sockpuppet seems to be used to validate this complaint against me. I can only assume none of you have actually taken a look into the result of that report. Do you take the fact that someone decided to report me as evidence of my guilt? To save you time, a summary: I was found not only innocent of all accusations, but the group of Administrators agreed with me and the changes I made to the article are still present today. What was the change? I went up against another interest group - they had created a nice brochure for the wonders of Foie Gras and flipped out when I argued that an image of the all-important feeding process should be included. I was immediately accused of being an animal rights advocate, a sockpuppet, etc. But the Admin team found the POV to be on their part, not mine.

That was literally the first time I ever pressed "edit" on a Wikipedia page. After that, I spent a few months editing other pages here and there and it was only when I (Sarah Katherine - sko1221) stumbled upon Medical Cannabis that I found this same reaction. The Obama administration had announced a change to policy regarding medical marijuana that day, and I had visited the page for the first time just to input this new announcement. It was the same flip-out that happened at the Foie Gras page. And indeed, this was the same thing: I had potentially found myself face to face with another highly profitable interest group.

Now, if you all find some reason to delete all of my comments, I will take this story higher. Censorship makes me very uneasy.72.213.22.76 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where to put this, but Viraditas is lying about me below. I just needed to say that.  Since this is a sockpuppet investigation, I will leave the rest up to Admin.  72.213.22.76 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think someone can differ from me without lying.

Getting specific:

- I said I was a cannabis advocate in real life? Where? When?

- The Pot Snob and I are allies working together?

- I encouraged personal attacks?

- You make it sound as if I promoted claims about cannabis repeatedly, when only once did I answer an editor's question with a link to an article. This is hardly promotion, and one instance does not deserve mention in this manner.

- That I do not discuss in a calm manner is another falsehood that can easily be disproved.

If you have further accusations, please submit them with proof included and we won't have to go through this back and forth. If I claimed something about my RL, add a link to it so we can all take a look.

I read the warning you put on Pot Snob's page, Viraditas, and the very same COI warning could be posted on Alfie66's page. The fact that you instead protect Alfie66 from any queries makes me wonder about your own habit of projection and your own obvious bias, which you call 'protecting' the page from advocates. 72.213.22.76 (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Comment from Viriditas: My work on Medical cannabis has been to both protect it from the advocacy bias of its proponents and from the skewed detraction of its opponents. My entire edit history to both the talk and article show this, and diffs can easily be provided. Sko1221's history, OTOH, shows a history of advocacy, encouraging personal attacks against her perceived opponents, and either making or promoting off-topic medical claims about cannabis that belong on the refdesk, not in article space. Her comments about "interest groups" are a projection of her own work here, as she has in the past, allied herself with SPA user accounts such as User:The Pot Snob, who have admitted that they work as cannabis advocates in RL, and he was given a COI warning in 2007. I have looked at the allegations made against other editors like Alfie66 and found them to be lacking in merit. Unlike Sko1221 and Company, Alfie66 uses the talk page to discuss his edits in a calm manner, and tries to work collaboratively. Although things were different in years past, today the problem is not coming from the opponents but from the advocates. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sko1221, do you think that it is possible that somebody can have a different opinion than you (or be wrong) rather than "lying"? Have you thought about this?  And if there is something I said you disagree with, simply saying "you're lying" doesn't address the problem.  What am I wrong about, Sko1221?  Please be specific. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sko1221, the COI warnings were placed by User:Pairadox, not myself. please pay closer attention to the diffs.  I have not protected anyone on either side.  I have merely enforced basic civility on the talk page.  You are free to use Alfie's talk page or the COI noticeboard to discuss what you perceive as bias.  I've looked into it myself, and don't see any. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, and as for the rest of the issues I brought up? 72.213.22.76 (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser results show as related or unrelated? There are other IP's such as, etc. I guess with the full stop you are saying that Iowawindow is the only unrelated result? Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by EyeSerene talk 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Filing request further to above ANI thread. The suspected accounts/IPs have for some time been involved in disruptive advocacy on Talk:Medical cannabis, Medical cannabis and a few related articles. I'm fairly sure from the edit patterns that they're the same user (the two IPs resolve to the same location), but there may be more accounts involved so rather than just go ahead with WP:DUCK blocks on these, I thought a CU might be more helpful. EyeSerene talk 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 02:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * 72.213.22.76 admits to being Sko1221, which is ✅ as and .  is ❌. Brandon (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
All registered accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged per CU findings. IPs blocked 1 month each with one of the IPs tagged. MuZemike 01:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Iowawindow unblocked, as they were not actually related per Brandon's report. NW ( Talk ) 03:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)