Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokefoot/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Smokefoot is currently reversing my edits regarding the Constituents of tobacco smoke category (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry) One edit by User:Tirine broke the pattern (see Here)...and made me curious...there are 70 odd chemicals categorised but none had been edited in respect to tobacco smoke in the last few weeks...now two editors where editing this issue at the same time. User:Tirine's First Edit was made at 16:22, 17 July 2017; Immediately after User:Somefoot was editing on this subject. Both then took a break before resuming to edit at the same time. If this were just a coincidence the fact that Smokefoot has uncharacteristically avoided editing Acrolein is not explained. I believe Smokefoot has an unblemished wiki history and, initially I could not see a motivation. However His claim to consenus is weak and I think he was just too embarrassed to edit Acrolein in his own name. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I havent been subjected to this scrutiny before, so its kind of stimulating. Apparently Bosely's curiosity was elevated because of the combination of two editors, me and a newbie, working on pages that interest him. Fair enough and surely well intended investigation.

The main issue is that I (or we at Project chemistry) thought that we had convinced Bosely of the ill-advisability of mentioning that a given chemical occurs in tobacco smoke in every article that is focused on said chemical. See talk:WikiProject Chemistry. This kind of listing thing could go on forever - components of computers, pizza, whiskey, wood, algae, ... you get the picture - its a messy world. His listing also betrays some naivite about the sensitivity of modern analytical methods (we can detect ultra traces of lots of stuff), so there is the issue of WP:UNDUE. So I thought that the issue was settled and that Bosely, being a responsible editor, would then undo his disputed edits. But he didnt. So I started doing this laborious and tedious work. He is probably agitated and got worried and now this --Smokefoot (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The evidence is too weak. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)