Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive

10 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These four accounts have all recently been created and have edited only Talk:Occupational health psychology. There is currently a dispute going on between two users on that page. Iss246 has at times been accused of editing against consensus ( - I will not comment on whether that is actually the case; it is only significant that the accusation has been made) and it looks like these accounts are being used to give the false impression of support for Iss246's edits. Each of them has made a similar comment on the talk page supporting Iss246. They have used similar kinds of arguments (and their writing style is similar), citing a background or experience in the field, and all argue that OHP is an independent discipline. That these four accounts were all created within days of each other, just as Iss246 was involved in this dispute, and all have posted very similar arguments supporting Iss246's position within a few days of each other seems suspicious enough to suggest that sockpuppetting is going on. This evidence alone is not sufficient to establish sockpuppetry, so I believe a CheckUser would be useful to establish whether these accounts are connected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I was about to post to the talk page of WhatamIdoing —(who, like myself, helped cleaning up the article talk page a bit)— to get her opinion about this, and see if would be a good idea to come here, but it looks like ItsZippy was here first. - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is iss246. I know what a sockpuppet is. It is a person who pretends to be another person so s/he could artificially increase the number of comments s/he can contribute and make it seem like commentators other than himself/herself are making contributions. Those individuals are not me. I did not write their comments. You can check my IP address (I almost feel like the fifth grader in the school yard when the bully searched my pockets for the quarter my mother didn't give me). I am at home in New York City at my desk as I write these comments and as I have written most of my Wikipedia contributions (occasionally I switch to a second home PC running from the same home network but I don't know if the IP address changes if I move to my backup PC). Please determine if the IP addresses of the writers are New York City addresses. But please be aware that I will be in Chicago from June 19 -24 and in the UK and Italy from mid-July to early August. In all likelihood, I will check in with Wikipedia (which I did from the Middle East in January and from Colorado last October). Thus my IP address will temporarily change in the near future. Since February I have only contributed to Wikipedia only from NYC although I made a trip to New Hampshire in April (to win an award for having climbed a lot of mountains) but I can't remember if I looked at Wikipedia on that trip to New Hampshire. I also stayed in Providence en route to NH but don't remember if I contributed to Wikipedia from there.

Only one element of this accusation disturbs me. What disturbs me about the accusation is the potential for my comments in the debate and the comments of the 4 people mentioned above to be discounted because of the sockpuppet indictment, even if I am not a sockpuppet operator (and never have been). Sometimes just bringing to bear an accusation taints a person (and I suppose the comments of the four people I have been accused of manufacturing). Which should not be the case but human psychology is what it is.Iss246 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot one other thing. I was in Los Angeles from May 15-20, and I contributed to Wikipedia from my hotel room. So for a few days, I had a Los Angles IP address.Iss246 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is iss246 again. What is CU evidence?Iss246 (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I got it. CU is check user.Iss246 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I also now need to re-open the previous sockpuppet investigation listed above, with some critical evidence which has since come to light since the 10th July 2013. Administrator Kww’s strong believed that obvious Meatpuppetry was at play, but at the time there “was not enough meat” and only sockpuppetry was investigated. The critical missing evidence needed was proof that all of these new accounts actually knew each other personally, and supported the same cause. It is now known that the 7 members of the who were all directly solicited by iss246, to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process and all suddenly joined up at the same time between June 7 & 9, 2013 all adding their unwavering support for iss246's point of view here Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 1, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. Since this investigation, Iss246 has admitted to contacting all of these different editors who opened new accounts simultaneously, and indeed admitted they are all members, friends and colleagues of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Furthermore these IP addresses above were never examined as sockpuppets, and are likely to be second accounts held by any of these other new accounts opened with actual usernames, including iss246. This sudden influx of multiple new accounts and IP addresses, made administrator itszippy report it as a sockpuppet and opened the SPI.

After the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive had closed, all of the other 7 new accounts & IP addresses iss246 had asked to join Wikipedia, did not edit again. Only one editor stayed. That editor and close friend of iss246 was psyc12. Since July last year psyc12&iss246, have edited in unison against my editing attempts. It has made my editing as an independent editor virtually impossible. Any editors can look at the editing history of psyc12 working together in unison, with his close friend iss246 at any time and clearly verify this pattern.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. However, I cannot prove it, checkuser says the are not socks, and any collusion between the accounts seems fairly innocuous. There's just not enough meat here to take action.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - socking seems plausible but need CU evidence to be definite. Rschen7754 23:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, the named accounts all appear to be unrelated - they are using different devices from very different locations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

09 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am requesting that the previous sockpuppet investigation Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive be re-opened please, based on critical new evidence I have identified, since the 10th June 2013, including 3 'associated' IP addresses, that were not investigated as par of this case prior. Furthermore these IP addresses were never examined as sockpuppets, and are likely to be second accounts held by any of these other new accounts opened with actual usernames, including iss246's account.

At the time, administrator Kww’s strong belief was that obvious Meatpuppetry was also at play, but at the time there “was not enough meat” and only sockpuppetry was investigated. The critical missing evidence needed was proof that all of these new accounts actually knew each other personally, and supported the same cause. It is now known that the 7 members of the who were all directly solicited by iss246, to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process and all suddenly joined up at the same time between June 7 & 9, 2013 all adding their unwavering support for iss246's point of view here Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 1, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. Since this investigation, Iss246 has admitted to contacting all of these different editors who opened new accounts simultaneously, and indeed admitted they are all members, friends and colleagues of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. This sudden influx of multiple new accounts and IP addresses, made administrator itszippy report it as a sockpuppet and opened the SPI. Please refer to itszippy's detailed notes and diffs here at Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive.

After the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive had closed, all of the other 7 new accounts & IP addresses iss246 had asked to join Wikipedia, did not edit again. Only one editor stayed. That editor and close friend of iss246 was psyc12. Since July last year psyc12&iss246, have edited in unison against my editing attempts. It has made my editing as an independent editor virtually impossible. Any editors can look at the editing history of psyc12 working together in unison, with his close friend iss246 at any time and clearly verify this pattern. I will also provide a series of specific 'diffs' to support all of the above evidence. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The three IP addresses communicated as separate 'identities'. They were not noted in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive. However they were involved on the same talk page noted by itszippy and acting with 'separate voices'. I strongly believe they may be sockpuppets for any of the main accounts mentioned above. It may be a good idea to conduct a checkuser for each of these separate IP's in order to give the impression to other editors that they were distinct editors from the other 5 main related editors with user names and further support iss246's case and their side at the time. I'm not sure what further information would be required to do so?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can the previous case from June 10, 2013, Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive which was opened by administrator itszippy be placed at the top of this case, indicating that there is in fact a detailed archive to this current case, and there has been a lot involved with each of these accounts and IP addresses as well as the administrator's comments like Kww, noting they stronly suspected meatpuppetry was also involved. I am following through with these strong suspicions Kww had and is noted clearly on that case under their administrator's notes. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "long stale" please and how that relates to this investigation and the 7 accounts and IP addresses including iss246. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a rule for all cases? This case involves both suspected sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry and are intertwined in with all of these various account names and IP addresses. Are meatpuppetry cases dealt with here as well please?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark Artsten, the point is that psyc12 was one of the 6 other new accounts that suddenly appeared with supposed 'different voices' but all supporting iss246's opinion in order to influence the normal editorial process. I also believe that any of those IP addreses which 'gave the impression' that they were also 'independent voices' may very well be connected to psyc12 or iss246. There seems to be grounds to support that belief and perhaps a usercheck on each of these IP addreses and accounts listed above, would verify that? Also which diffs would you need please in regard to the meatpuppetry that Kww suspected strongly? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark. The edits from the other 3 IP addresses that gave the impression that they were also independent voices, appear very similar to iss246 and psyc12's editing style, opinions, etc. But these Ip addresses were giving the impression that they were individual voices. Can't the IP address be linked to the IP addresses of these other accounts, eg psyc12 or iss246? I strongly suspect that these were sockpuppets of either iss246 or psyc12 at the time. Can we go on that evidence?


 * Also the fact that psyc12 was one of the 'invited editors' by iss246 to influence the consensus and falsely sway opinion on their side, who Kww suspected strongly of meatpuppetry at the time, has continued on after this time, continuing to support iss246 in article forums and very disruptive to the normal editing process. The meatpuppetry has now been much more formally supported through evidence which can be clearly provided. If psyc12 joined Wikipedia at the exact time the other 5 or 6 new accounts were all opened and jumped in supporting iss246, and has continued ever since, what is Wikipedia's policy please. Sorry for all the text but these are very serious matters with the involvement 6 or 7 suspected meatpuppets all supporting iss246. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't Meatpuppetry soliciting other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion? This has continued for 7 months. These 2 editors are members of the same professional society with a recognized agenda. They have never disagreed and often have worked as a tag team. On every topic discussion, both of them 'appear' together very quickly as a couple, supporting each others position in a dispute, helping to resolve a dispute in a certain way, helping to sway consensus, etc. classic meatpuppetry. Whuch began as meatpuppetry, not just 2 previously independent editors aligning on Wikipedia. Never acting as single editors and have never in 7 months and 100s of edits, significantly disagreed. So basically this meatpuppetry has continued unabated for 7 months. I could clearly prove this through the objective edit history.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Meat puppetry All of the classic signs are evident here in this case. It also states that meatpuppetry cases are dealt with right here on this page. This is disruptive to editing and creating serious bias in these specialized topics in international psychology and Their articles on Wikipedia. These topics are akin to medicine and specializations within medicine and none of this I am saying should be taken lightly. I am standing my ground here, to alert Wikipedia to this. These 2 members from this professional society are using Wikipedia as a tool, and although my own editing has been somewhat cumbersome, I can prove all of this quite clearly. What evidence do you need?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All accounts are long stale except for iss246 and psyc12, so please focus your evidence on these two. Are you claiming that they are being operated by the same person, or just working together ideologically? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean it it's kind of pointless to spend time investigating accounts that made one or two edits seven months ago and then were abandoned. We're really just concerned with accounts that have been active recently. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We can deal with meatpuppetry here in some cases, but in other situations we'll refer it to a different board. We need to see very clear evidence accompanied by diffs though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue at this point is that checkuser date is only kept for a certain amount of time, and that time period has elapsed for all but two of the accounts. So at this point we can only compare Iss246 and Psyc12. We would want evidence that suggests that both accounts are being controlled by the same person. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A few things: no, the checkusers will not link a named account to an IP address. In any case, even if those IPs were a registered user evading scrutiny it's likely that the user has changed IPs by now. Second, whatever someone's motivations were when joining Wikipedia 7 months ago, we need evidence of recent disruption to take action here. i.e. someone may have registered an account to help a friend last summer but then began editing productively. We're not going to penalize them 7 months after the fact. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is misfiled, and should be filed under the capital letter. --Rschen7754 03:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've moved it to the right title. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on the comments above, this seems like an issue better dealt with at WP:ANI or WP:COIN. It appears at this point more like two editors who may know each other off-wiki editing in ideologically similar ways than one editor making edits at the request of another or two accounts being controlled by one person. Closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

During a debate at the occupational stress article editor Ohpres suddenly appeared out of nowhere and supported every edit Iss246 made. They edit the same two articles. An administrator told me it is likely to be meatpuppetry. Sportstir (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like after clicking this link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive that Iss246 has previous form in the area of meatpuppetry when they are not getting their way, others suddenly appeared in previous investigations. Sportstir (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Note - see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171 and its history, filed two days ago by against  - Could this new request be some kind of retaliation? - DVdm (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I checked Ohpres and found . Not enough to check 12k account Iss246. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Iss246 has repeatedly reverted edits I've made to multiple pages. I believe two pages were edited as user Oceansandsand. I am trying to improve the quality of multiple pages with issues, but the changes keep getting reversed by Iss246 across many pages for no clear reason. Karenwilson12345 (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm seeing no convincing evidence to support sockpuppetry, and have concluded that these accounts are controlled by different people. Closing without action. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Suspected cite-spam, source advocacy for Paul Spector and insertion of paulspector.com sources into numerous Psychology related topics. someone else reverted it...
 * Psyc12 on 19 October 2021, I removed this.
 * lss246 restored it back on 13 August 2023
 * lss246 re-restored it on 14 August 2023

Further narrowing down for addition of "Spector" within some of articles found to contain paulspector.com in the source located Ajsgom1 which looks like a one time use account that made just two edits and they both involved inserting Paul Spector. Anyone actually able to find any instance of initial insertion of Paul Spector or Steven Eric Spector into any article by anyone but these two or "single purpose" accounts??

Due to the above occurrences, I investigated further and those two accounts appear to be responsible for all the initial additions of "paulspector.com" in every articles where they showup in insource: that I've checked. these concerns have surfaced on user's talk page on 2021 Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * lss246 on 14 July 2021
 * Iss246 on 14 July 2021 introducing Spector into Psychology and Iss246 and Psyc12 can be seen working alongside in close intervals. While Iss246 is in a dispute with another editor over contents around this time, it is quite Psyc12 and Iss246 seems to stick together in enforcing the presence of Spector.
 * lss246 on 6 January 2020
 * Psyc12 on 12 June 2020, another "Spector" insert on the same day
 * Psyc12 on 23 June 2021
 * lss246 September 30 2021 edit that has to do with adding Spector

Comments by other users

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

I suppose all of this could be a coincidence. But I find it interesting (and only realized it after I saw this SPI) that after 8 years of editing, Psyc12's edits almost came to a halt soon after I made my comments about refspamming and linkspamming on Iss246's talk page. Both editors have made good edits, which is sometimes how socks fly under the radar. Sundayclose (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , have you been able to find any instance of Paul Spector or Steven Eric Spector being introduced into any article by anyone aside from those two users or obvious single purpose accounts? Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The only editors I have seen associated with either Spector are Psyc12 and Iss246. Sundayclose (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now even more interesting, Psyc12 emerges with their only edit in the past 14 months when Iss245 needs to defend inclusion of cites and links to Spector. If possible check for off-wiki coordination. Sundayclose (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very interesting indeed. I wonder how he became aware of that discussion. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm concerned about off-wiki communication if they're not the same person. WP:MEATPUPPETRY is just as bad as sockpuppetry but probably more difficult to prove. Sundayclose (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sundayclose, There's no way for us to do that, and it would be a violation of the privacy policy anyway.
 * If it can't be done, that's fine, but there's no harm in asking. I didn't ask that someone be outed. But if it were possible for CU to determine off-wiki communication, that's no more of a privacy violation than CU identifying two accounts being operated by the same person. Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Violating the privacy policy is not quite the same thing as a privacy violation. Doing that would require tracking people well beyond what's permitted by our privacy policy.  In practice, MEATPUPPET incidents are only discovered when the communications happen on wiki or otherwise in public (e.g., on Reddit) or when one of the participants says that's what they've been doing (e.g., "My whole class is trying to improve this article").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Graywalls, I would encourage you to read the WP:OUTING policy very carefully. Claiming on wiki that User:____'s real-world identity is ______ is one way for COI-focused editors to find themselves on the wrong end of a block.  Please be careful about what you say on wiki.
 * When Wikipedia editors are defending articles against a long-term socking campaign (see Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171/Archive and Sockpuppet investigations/Sportstir/Archive), it's hardly surprising to see them closing ranks and supporting each other's edits. Besides, if the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology is correct about the author's reputation, then (unrelated to whether the user is or isn't the author) we should not only be citing his work but also writing an article about him per Notability (academics).  One would expect knowledgeable Wikipedia editors to be citing reputable authors like him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did I say User:___ is person:__ ? The URLs/domains are related to one another. That is, related between the URLs. If you believe I'm saying User xx is real world identity xx, then I didn't mean it. What I mentioned is that I'm only aware of two users who have initially inserted the specific .com domains into articles. Graywalls (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Iss246 and Psyc12 were previously checked in 2013, see Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive. At the time, the finding was "unrelated". After a full decade, it could be worth another check, but I figure this is worth mentioning. Mz7 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I ran another check, and I'm still saying 'unrelated'. I can't rule out off-wiki coordination, but assuming their geolocations are accurate (and I have no technical reason to think that they're not), the two accounts were making edits at about the same time from very different locations. Closing without further action.  Girth Summit  (blether)  14:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)