Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthinnutrition/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The master and the first two socks are 100% SPA for content about Teicholz and her book and the topic of the book, or about Teicholz' real world enemies. Teicholz's book says that fat is OK, and sugar is bad, and all the dietary advice that people have been given is corrupted by industry money and undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The the next three named accounts seem to one be person who is probably different from the first, most likely an undisclosed paid editor who is socking, who is working for the book publisher or someone else.


 * First group

One of the master account's first edits was this edit, attacking David L. Katz, who is one of the scientists attacked in Teicholz's book, who has also publicly attacked her, as described in refs cited in that diff this one and this one. So we have some possible WP:BLPCOI/WP:HA going on here as well.

The master account has also argued for Teicholz's theories at an article about the "fat or sugar" issue and at the talk page wrote: This is a very strange page. It represents almost zero of the actual controversy going on. What it does instead is provide one side of the controversy, and any edits that show the "other" side are being deleted. ...These are not consistent standards and reflect a bias on the part of the dominant editors. The piece in the BMJ by the American journalist is a good example. This was not an op-ed. It was published as a critical investigation by The BMJ, not as an op-ed (even though that might be the opinion of an editor here, but that is not accurate, per The BMJ). Her critiques were peer reviewed and withstood a major retraction effort. Therefore, they are accurate. The critiques on the review of saturated fat documented in this article, and the enormous controversy around this paper, should absolutely be on this page. I just tried to insert them, and an editor deleted them. Please explain. They are most certainly pertinent. ...  Note the conspiracy theorizing and the "Please explain", for later.

The "Nina Tiecholz" account has done stuff like this, with edit note adding sources, details on Seven Countries Study. Corrected information on my book. on 10 July. In that diff content was added about the RW Tiecholz' book.

I noticed this and other edits by the "Nina Teicholz" account that raised concerns for me about COI and/or IMPERSONATE.

Tonight I opened a discussion at that account's talk page, and to my surprise the Truthinnutrition account answered there (!), writing Hello, I am the person Nina Teicholz in the real world. I didn't realize that it was against wikipedia policy to correct information about myself and my work. I was just trying to make sure that my work was not misrepresented. I will, in the future, be sure to use the "talk" page instead. I can't remember what I contributed to the page on me, but I think it was a minor contribution. Let me know! Best, Nina.

I asked the person to come clean about using multiple accounts, and this time there was a response from the "Nina Teicholz" account that said I am working on a shared computer. I am only working on Nina Teicholz. I was not logged in earlier properly. I only have this account. I do not have any other account, and I am not familiar with that other account. My only intention was to correct information about my book and the way that information about me was portrayed.

The writing style in those replies by the two accounts, is exactly the same as each other.

I told the person that the response was not credible, and the Nina Teicholz account replied Why is it not credible? Please explain. If this is a system governed by logic than an explanation should be provided. Wow, this is an authoritarian universe, Wikipedia. I have been a monthly contributor to Wikipedia for years, but now I will stop by contributions. Unilateral actions. No explanations. Now my wikipedia page is under review because I removed a sentence fragment? This is not transparent nor fair, and there is no due process here. I have lost my faith in this organization.

This is exactly the same style of writing as Truthinnutrion was using, as noted above. These two quack so loud my ears are hurting.

The EBNutrition account is also a SPA for the Nina Teicholz, and made just one diff series on May 9 that is very promotional and seems very familiar with Teicholz's work for example noting that Teicholz first set forth the comprehensive set of arguments that saturated fats are not the cause of heart disease in an article for Men's Health magazine in 2007, which may be the earliest iteration of these arguments in a general-interest publication

The Monochuck account is probably a different person from the one above, but working with that person.
 * 2nd group

This account made 4 edits in late May (that I can see; admins can perhaps see more):
 * this one about a completely separate matter but apparently spamming refs from earnforex.com
 * dif adding a WL to the Teicholz book title, in article about Teicholz article.  I believe they created an article about the book at that time -- the article was this --  The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet --  deleted on 26 May
 * next edit I can see, is their creating a draft of the book article on May 27
 * then creating the draft talk page a few minutes later, writing The page was earlier created directly, but was deleted due to "Promotion" I feel subject meets notability but as pointed out needs to be adjusted so no more promotional that is why I created a draft here. The English there is poor, so I suspect it is not the same person, but rather a paid editor.

The next three edits to that draft were made by the Truthinnutrion sockmaster, this month. Interesting that the person knew where that draft was.

The Martinjohnson1 account has made 5 edits, 3 in mid-May, around the same time as the Monochuck, and 2 more recently.
 * The may edits added a picture and then fiddled with it. The actual diff where the picture was uploaded had a broken English edit note: I insert nina teicholz image, which makes me think it is the same person as Monochuck.  The actual image that was added to the article, this one,  was uploaded by a "Nina Teicholz" account  in the commons, and  Global contribs says that commons account, is the same as the en-WP account.  So it seems likely to me that we have two people working together, one that writes good English and the other, probably a paid editor working under multiple socks.
 * The other two edits made by MartinJohnson1 this July, were uploading 2 other images, which would appear to be some other paid work.

The Bilingual2000 account has been working in WP a very long time. I hesitate to include them, but they are the editor that created the article on Nina Teicholz, and if you look at the articles they created it is a lot of paid-editing like stuff.

It seems likely that there are two people here - Truthinnutrition/Nina Teicholz/ EBNutrition, and a socking paid editor, Monochuck/Martinjohnson1/Bilingual2000 (?), who are working together. Giving the apparent lying by the first set, and the apparent undisclosed paid editing and socking by the 2nd, I will not be surprised if there are more socks of both. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (added Bilingual2000 Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC))


 * Quick note - Doc james happened to file this a few minutes before I did, while I was still drafting.  The initial version is here, and when I saved mine, this created a second one, and I thought I did something wrong and collapsed them here, accidentally removing Doc James altogether, and then he added his argument back (we had remarkably identified the same initial set of 5 editors) so there was no issue there. I then moved his agument below.  Then I did some tweaking.  I then  added another person, and then Bri added an IP.  That is how we got to the current SPI here.  Sorry for the complication and for overwriting Doc James initial filing. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * All 5 accounts new and working to promote the person Nina Teicholz and her work. Here the Nina account implies managing multiple accounts. Here the account claims to be Nina. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Forex paid editing issue is a big one. It appears the industry is spending hundreds of thousands on getting WP adjusted to their liking :-( Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here they are admitting they are working with confederates on Wiki. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (added here out of order for simplicity sake) Here the Nina account stated definitively that the "helper" is Truthinnutrition. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The accounts in question have a rapidly changing story. The Nina account emailed me to say she was unsure if the Truthinnutrition account was her assistant but that sometimes her assistant uses her computer...
 * I do agree we have a group of accounts operated by a new user and a group operated by more established users. As is often the case the new users likely hire a more established editing firm which is why we see Bilingual2000 involved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to Group 1 and the claims made today about "assistant" that Bri mentioned. They said twice last night that they knew nothing about that account. Once, already quoted above but here it is again: I only have this account. I do not have any other account, and I am not familiar with that other account., and again here ... The Truth in Nutrition account was not one I reviewed or oversaw..... I don't think either statement is true, due to the similarity of writing styles and content.  The crisp sentences in perfect English, the "Please explain." the conspiracy theorizing... Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bbb23. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 you thoughts on this account? Also no other edits than about this person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 I have never suspected that Bilingual2000 was a sock of the rest. He just appears to be paid by them (likely a contractor). Missed that Ed was stale. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Awlspegs and User:Bilingual2000 use the same technique for uploading images to commons.

Here is an upload by Awls were they upload the image first to a brandnew Flickr account and than use that as justification for open copyright.

Bilingual does the exact same here Brand new Flickr account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅:
 * is.
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other and ❌ to Group 1:
 * Bilingual2000 is ❌ to Groups 1 and 2.
 * Monochuck, along with many other accounts, will be blocked as part of Sockpuppet investigations/Techjunkie90210, although the master of that case will change after I update it. They are ❌ to Groups 1 and 2.
 * I've blocked and tagged the Group 1 accounts and EBNutrition. I've blocked without tags the accounts in Group 2. I'm closing this case, but please don't archive it for at least 24 hours in case anyone has questions or comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly very damning behaviorally with respect to Bilingual12000, although I still believe, based on other behavioral evidence and technical evidence, that Bilingual12000 is not a sock of Truthinnutrition. As a CheckUser there's nothing I can do with Ed T. Pierce because it's .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bilingual2000 is ❌ to Groups 1 and 2.
 * Monochuck, along with many other accounts, will be blocked as part of Sockpuppet investigations/Techjunkie90210, although the master of that case will change after I update it. They are ❌ to Groups 1 and 2.
 * I've blocked and tagged the Group 1 accounts and EBNutrition. I've blocked without tags the accounts in Group 2. I'm closing this case, but please don't archive it for at least 24 hours in case anyone has questions or comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly very damning behaviorally with respect to Bilingual12000, although I still believe, based on other behavioral evidence and technical evidence, that Bilingual12000 is not a sock of Truthinnutrition. As a CheckUser there's nothing I can do with Ed T. Pierce because it's .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)