Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Penyulap/Archive

03 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Penyulap has admitted to disrupting Wikipedia with this throwaway account, saying: ""So ? I vandalize wikipedia, I like it. I do it repeatedly, I've done it before and I'll do it again and I'm serious. Try to stop me. here is a diff, ban me. I even use sock puppets to vandalize and I'm getting bolder because nobody cares, I'm completely out of control.""

The diffs point to actions made by ThomasMoore1852, disrupting Wikipedia with a few throwaway tricks such as redirecting the user's own page to the article Thomas Moore, and creating a perhaps humorous image in a graphics editor for Wikimedia Commons, writing as ThomasMoore1852; the goal being a perhaps humorous "barnstar" for a user who archived it removing the image, if that gives any clue regarding its value. Most of the image was linked back to Penyulap's user page, cementing the connection between Penyulap and ThomasMoore1852.

I am asking for a checkuser because of Penyulap's claim of multiple socks. I do not think that Penyulap needs to be blocked, at least not permanently, as the disruption appears to be intentionally fun than otherwise. Please block ThomasMoore1852 and any other socks that are found. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect User:PALZ9000 and User:ThatPeskyCommoner may also be sock puppet accounts.--Craigboy (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, some sort of evidence for such claims might be good? I have interacted with ThatPeskyCommoner and Penyulap and they both seem very different to me.  Worm TT( talk ) 14:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going off the comment made on wikispaceflight. Penyluap often has a very strange sense of humor, the style of the response was very similar to that of his and this user had never commented there before or contributed to any spaceflight article.--Craigboy (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's Auntie Pesky, a matriarch I respect and trust 100%, if I'm being a naughty so and so, you go straight to her and tell her. She'll smack me into line with no more than a glance I promise you. It's like when I glare at you, but it works on me for real. Penyulap  ☏  01:55, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Craigboy, my robot account is me, that is my robot account. That's what a bot account is. I announced PALZ9000 repeatedly, on the ISS talkpage and on the wikiproject spaceflight page. Look at his contributions, he's a bot. look at his userpage, he is my bot. This is all NASA's fault though :), because if there is a bot that is helping do a serious job on the ISS space station article, then why personify it, why give it humours remarks and humourous little interactions when it's a serious job? Well Sir, ask your congressman after reading the .gov ernment website. here is one of many examples, don't get me started on robonaut and his facebook page, andy would love that in article space lolz. "sowhatopedia" zomg. Anyhow, to imitate me would require a group effort, for a decent spoof you'd need Bishoen's art skills as well as Auntie Pesky's insights, and Andy's ability to wordsmith. An imitation I would dearly love to see, and would give my best personalized awards out to the greatest contributor to that effort :D Anyhow Craigboy is one of the best editors around here, I often wish he'd say when he knows he is wrong, but that is something few people do, so it's hard to ask him to be that great. Craigboy only ever goes wrong because of WDGraham and Ckatz setting such a horrid example on the ISS talkpage. And now Ckatz has grown far too weary of walking straight headfirst into my simply phrased questions like the current one WDGraham brought up on his talkpage about Ckatz, 'is he acting as admin or is he acting as an editor on the ISS talkpage' Ckatz is far too weary and cautious of me now to answer such a simple question because he knows he will caught exquisitely if he dares to answer it. To his credit he doesn't take down my {uninvolved help} templates, which WDGraham does, and even thinks that involved !votes are allowed to take it down, (facepalm) I'll be returning the uninvolved templates to the ISS talkpage soon anyhow, I wouldn't call it a fishing expedition though, no admin in their right mind would say that stealing all the status quo votes by tying up a poll back to front is acceptable. Anyway, with all of that nonsense and WDGrahams' constant projection it's perfectly understandable that other editors end up without a clear understanding of the consensus process and therefore have trouble.

Craigboy is a good guy, one of the best. Penyulap  ☏  16:48, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * see look at that, worm makes a response to Craigboy but doesn't tell him it's a bot account, it's always left up to me to help people isn't it. Penyulap  ☏  16:53, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap please do not go off-topic. It's a bot you used as a puppet. --Craigboy (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, naturally that is true in a sense, it's also impossible to hide the operator of a bot, they are tagged checked marked and so on. But he should probably keep his humor on his own page, and items like the pesky express and so on. Penyulap  ☏  01:49, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

At the webpage of User:ThomasMoore1852, a new twist has developed: Penyulap and ThomasMoore1852 are both involved in reverting to a disruptive redirect taking userspace into articlespace. If the ThomasMoore1852 sock was fairly harmless before today, the weather has shifted toward tag-teaming. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * New abuse


 * Still looks like confabulation all week with patches of envy to me. Penyulap  ☏  02:28, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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

Yep, that's me, I'm terrible, better check out my bot account as well. I'm happy to point you to the socks that checkuser won't show you, there is one spot I demonstrated in conversation on Auntie peskys page, thing is, with socking or meatpuppetry, the ability to puppet is inversly proportional to the desire to do so. Intelligent people are able to sock with ease, however they are consequently able to abide by simple social rules. Having a wide spread of friends willing 24/7 to post things for you, in good humour, goes hand in hand with social skills, that is, if I were anti-social enough to need to sock to try to get into the community, I'd hardly have as many friends as I do. Anyhow it's all moot as I'm not socking for antisocial reasons, and that image hasn't been simply archived, it is taking pride of place centre-stage on the user-page of an editor in good standing.

I welcome any checkuser investigation. I'm good. Penyulap  ☏  03:54, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * considering the earnestness and good faith of the requester, I do feel guilty for not being more guilty, I really should go and do something naughty. Penyulap  ☏  04:06, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got to say, I'm not seeing the abuse. I should point out that uses that image prominently on his userpage. The worst thing he did was create a redirect which isn't appropriate.  Worm  TT( talk ) 08:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had quite a reasonable length of interaction with Penyulap, and have always found him to be both highly intelligent and (importantly) good-hearted. I can't see any evil in him, and would be highly surprised to see any genuine abuse or bad-intent disruption. I will continue communicating with him, anyways (we have no trouble understanding each other).  If anyone has any major concerns, it may be a good idea just to keep me in the loop, as I'm happy to act as go-between if anyone has any problems with communication.  Penyulap's a high-functioning autie, like me, and on the whole is a net asset to the community.  We do have the occasional odd kick in our gallops, but it's not vice-motivated.  Pesky  (talk ) 09:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap's proported autism is entirely irrelevant to this inquiry, and I question wny Pesky has broached the subject, unless it is an attempt at amelioration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BMK, it's just that sometimes we auties have some problems in communications; I'm not only autie myself, but have taught many, many people with non-standard thought-processes etc. On the whole, I'm fairly good at being able to maintain constructive communication (interpretation?) in both directions; always happy to offer any assistance where autism-spectrum disorders might be part of the explanation for communications breakdowns and odd break-out behaviours. Pesky  (talk ) 05:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If Penyulap is autistic and thus prone to outbursts of hard-to-detect hard-to-refute sneaky vandalism, more concrete action needs to be taken to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the vandalism in question? He added one space to the lead. It did not affect the meaning. I still see no abuse.  Worm TT( talk ) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The added space in itself is not vandalism (and note that Penyulap was the one claiming that it was vandalism), making non-edits like that one with the sole purpose of having a trolling edit summary is disruptive though. The actual vandalism was the redirect (deleted by me as such). Fram (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Disruptive, yes - and I agree the redirect is problematic, which is why I agree with your 24 hour block. Any more and it seems like a bit of a mountain out of a molehill situation.  Worm TT( talk ) 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not certain that the redirect was vandalism as it looks like the name was already in the article (unless 97.64.175.49 is another sockpuppet) - it may have been a mistake, but comments such as the "vandalism" edit summary would have been a reason not to assume good faith. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing admin: Please note that Penyulap stated above that he has "socks that checkuser won't show you." As such, corrective action is needed to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe he wasn't being entirely serious? And, Hipocrite, in all seriousness, your usage of the word "thus" up above ... autistic and thus prone to outbursts of hard-to-detect hard-to-refute sneaky vandalism was a bit off.  Being autistic doesn't make people "prone to" sneaky vandalism.  Yours is the kind of comment that could get people's backs up far more than a stupid redirect might.   Pesky  (talk ) 21:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I bother, all things considered, but for anyone in the future, I might as well explain (I don't need to explain for the benefit of people here, people have either made up their minds which policy to ignore, or not to help this guy, even though I have linked to the policy several times for his benefit, and the whole quote with two links in it gives a glossary a cat could understand, anyhow, here goes.) The timing chain is my making the personalised wikilove award called the Pesky express, it's linked to here in the barnstar that INeverCry gave me (correction it has been archived, here is the link). I skimmed his contributions to the project, and his honesty and integrity, in all of a few minutes to an absolute accuracy of 100% and set about making some personal awards that were appropriate for his enormous efforts despite the pain that he IS in. (I know this, I can see through and beyond, not just between, the lines). His contributions include the Fudge Family Frolicks, which, if you look at the history of his talkpage where I awarded it to him, it's image-mapped and linked for easy reference, the author of the work is the man my legitimate alternate account is named after, Thomas moore who was great awesome friends with Lord what is his name again, Byron, Lord Byron. Thomas Moore's pages would look rather sparse and bare if left empty, people might link through to them from the award itself, and think 'did INeverCry make this or something' so I've fixed that with economy of effort by again, following accepted common practice of redirecting from userspace into articlespace, and addressed the empty talkpage with a typical message that Thomas Moore might get from his best friend. Now who the hell would call their best friend Lord Byron I ask you ? So obviously you look for a pet name, which there is none, so you just copy the real name from the article, and then the note on the userpage has hidden code to prevent archiving, as well as the archiving being set up to clean the page, and obviously I have those pages on my watchlist. Now would some of you people be so kind as to explain to this editor about Legit accounts, or how silly it is to declare an investigation, the thrust of which is to say that Penyulap and Thomas Moore is the same person, and then claim a tag team, zomg. Please for the love of god, somebody help him ? Penyulap  ☏  03:13, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * You bother because you're good-at-heart. What would you like me to do for this guy?  Try sending him over to my talk; you know what excellent stalkers I have  maybe, between us, we can do something.  If I can help anyone through a challenge or a difficult patch, I'll give it my best shot.  Pesky  (talk ) 04:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see little use in helping someone who has done such harm to me, I've got another block out of this whole fiasco, and the descriptions by all parties of my intentions are blatantly idiotic. INeverCry is in pain, and edits despite that, and I try to cheer him up a little and this shit is what I have to put up with, PLUS in XYZ months from now, more morons are going to be 'oh yes Penyulap has been blocked for this kind of thing in the past' and more morons will come to the party, Basically, do you see where I'm going with this ? Do something nice for someone and everyone lines up to fuck you over for it. THAT'S WIKIPEDIA for you. Penyulap  ☏  07:06, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

In regards to being 'annoying', as Dennis states below, then I shall offer an olive branch to anyone who wants one. Accusing someone of sock puppetry is a serious and offensive charge, it's widely considered to be a personal attack. That said, I can recognize that Binksternet was not aware of SOCK LEGIT policy before he kicked off this mess. If he is willing to admit as much, then I'll come the other halfway to make amends.

As for the admin who blocked me, stating that the redirect was the reason that she blocked me, and then retracting that statement on her talkpage, if she'd like to admit that the block had no merit and was a mistake, then I too shall make retractions and make amends. Penyulap  ☏  19:55, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * @WilliamH Since any alleged vandalism cannot be named your question about reasons not to sanction Penylup is difficult. I surmise there is an issue about keeping an account good while having another account vandalize. Is there any way Penylup can agree to avoid this type of thing in the future? Would that be enough? I think he said he'd label humorous socks. I can understand why he would not want to give out an award under his established username. What about an agreement to mentoring by someone who has used humorous socks? Maybe this was just a short, rough patch. Maybe cooling off even by everyone who is already cool could let Penylup collect his thoughts. I recall Scottywong was under suspicion for something, took a break, and came back able to explain things. Maybe that would work. NewtonGeek (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I tend to agree with Worm that there isn't actual multiple account abuse here, and the one redirect was already dealt with. Penyulap isn't socking, he is just being annoying.  I would strongly recommend that he declare any alternate accounts he has on his user page, and each alternate account should be linked or commented back to his primary account, per WP:SOCK, or if he has no intention of using the accounts and doesn't want to list them, they can be indef blocked as to remove any future concerns, but one or the other needs to be done.  I like you Penyulap, but this just cost me most of an hour, and others just as much time, and this isn't as humorous to others as it perhaps is to you.  I will leave open until I know if we need to give a "friendly" indef block (ie: user request) to any unnecessary alternate accounts or not.  He would need to log into each and request for a block to take place.  I'm also neither endorsing nor declining the checkuser request, due to voiced concerns and Pen's apparent willingness to have one run and admission that they exist, and would ask another SPI clerk make that determination.  I don't claim to always get Pen's humor, so I can't say if it was a joke or not. If one is run and it finds socks that he hasn't previously declared them, then this might change the outcome here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  18:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * would you assist by expanding on the opening sentence of WP:SOCK and how it applies to the primary (and I claim only) purpose of my Thomas Moore (and any identical others in future) accounts. I have absolutely no qualms or reservations whatsoever about revealing privately any future socks to any responsible party in future, so that they can be checked for full compliance with NOTIFY and SOCKLEGIT. However, I do have a liking for brightening up peoples day with my art if I am able to, especially in the cases where people struggling against disabilities, or suffering for their integrity, are involved. Penyulap  ☏  19:45, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Humor accounts are tricky Pen. You can use the first sentence of LEGIT as a rationale to not disclose, and likely successfully.  The problem is that by the time you have a chance to offer that rationale, you will be here at SPI or ANI, so it is at your risk, as the reporting party wouldn't know it was a legitimate alternate account.  This is called drama, something I want to avoid, and again, not everyone always gets your unique brand of humor.  At the very least, I would consider putting some kind of tag on the sock stating "This is a one of the many multiple personalities of Penyulap" (itself, somewhat humorous) would at the least be wise even if you didn't on your main account, similar to doppelgänger notification.  Or at least a hidden comment on the user page signed by that account and your main account, although that might not hold up to higher scrutiny with some admins.  This would be seen as a good faith measure that would stop any future SPI in it's tracks (but not necessarily ANI).  The fact that we are here is a bit disruptive itself, and not every admin is going to give the benefit of the doubt.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  20:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, how about this, I make it so that a reasonable person looking at the talkpage of the sock account can easily see that it is actually me, whilst making it impossible for people to reverse search for those socks(or harder anyhow) and go from my account, off to those other accounts, and causing grief to the recipients of my awards. I think that pretty much addresses the thrust of your advice ? I'll also try to spell out SOCK LEGIT to extinguish confabulations before they get so far as to cause me this level of permanent damage. I'll write my name onto the talkpages of the socks, in human language, and make it impossible for search engines to detect it, that should fix the problem.
 * As for being here in the first place being disruptive, the evidence that backs up the claim of socking is insufficient to separate it from a personal attack, and so I'll wait and see what Binksternet has to say now he has had time enough to study the matter. The original idea that there was felonious intent doesn't stack up in any reasonable persons book against the fact that this example could only have been found by Binksternet through my own admission on the matter. Let it be remembered that this is not an identity issue at all, lack of identifying the sock is not the cause of any of this mess. I should have used a different illustration at ANI to say "hey, words aren't everything you know" to the comment that my comment was a direct response to. Whatever, don't help, don't edit, whatever. You know, ever since I stay out of article space I get into a lot less difficulties, like I said, this place has become a forum, nothing more. Penyulap  ☏  20:44, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Having kept a vague eye over this case for several days, I am presented with an individual who openly admits to using undeclared accounts to vandalise Wikipedia. (Note that unlike the aforementioned addition of spaces, no one can comment on said vandalism for obvious reasons.) This appears to be as a quintessential case of WP:GHBH. If anyone can explain to me why Penyulap should not be sanctioned, I would be very curious to hear. WilliamH (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even see the G and B--just the Hands. I don't understand Penyulap's rebuttals. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't see the bad hands because Penyulap has not revealed them, despite openly admitting that he harms Wikipedia with such accounts. It cannot be considered unacceptable or questionable to sanction someone who so openly admits doing something that he knows he shouldn't: presumeably why he chooses not to reveal the accounts in question. WilliamH (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The april fools day glossary of terms explains in great detail the complete thinking on the terms, and gives illustrations as well, it even links to them. Some vandal on the ISS talkpage was continually putting clubot-level junk into that article, eventually, he didn't get into 'sneaky vandalism' to get past the bot, he went the other way, you know, given the resources available to such a person, it's the best they can do sometimes. He went the other way, and 'vandalized' the ISS article by inserting a useless space. I know that the person follows and tracks me, I know there is a texan string of IP's that followed me over from the tooth fairy article I edit, someone traveling by road daily around Austin. So what was a genius going to do to crush out an endless string of I pretty much guessing !vandalism because they are probably null edits, I haven't read policy on this, but by the way people are acting I bet a space is not vandalism it's just a null edit. Makes no difference, in the eyes of the ISS vandal, seeing me go ahead and join him in his supposed vandalism by inserting spaces alone and nothing else, putting in edit summaries he cannot possibly ignore, and then putting up the april fools day reverse psychology glossary and explanation 'that a cat could understand' put a comprehensive end to that particular vandals career. This is basic 101 psychology people. Reverse psychology. It's not rocket science. You can prevent vandalism if you want to, I mean look at this for simple psychology, how to extinguish completely the will to be upset and direct it away from any kind of war over the article, and hopefully into editing who knows. Heck, take the whole talkpage as an example of how to put out fires, and the edit summary of the article as a shining example of the results. It's a front door article too, right where 'would be' vandals arrive. I have no interest in cleaning up after vandals, I avoid and despise it, that is someone elses job. Oh I fight vandalism better and harder than anyone however, but my tools are psychology and reason. I accept other peoples views and find common ground. The use of TW if it is done badly, and inappropriately, causes more problems and fuels the vandalism making it worse. This juvenile mentality is why I do not make anything like this for anti-vandalism, despite so very many ideas, (really outrageously cool ones too I might add).


 * The first sentences on the vandalism pages put it quite clearly, probably allowing for a great deal more !vandalism than a space in order to protect the ISS article, or to educate someone at ANI that words do not mean everything (but hey, apparently the consensus is that you just find whatever you want by taking things out of context and ignoring whatever you want, illustrated everywhere, in the original discussion at ANI with the propensity to misquote Alan by cutting his sentence in half, leaving off the 'to improve wikipedia' part, is as clear and popular as the epic fail of that circus board itself, it's the norm, it's encouraged because it is not sanctioned against or discouraged in any way at all. Except maybe by Pesky, I notice she points out unfair things, I guess there are a few who do that.) Pretty much you cannot use 'words' to defend wikipedia at all. Even a mention of the V word provokes shouts devoid of reason in the mob. That's all that's needed.


 * Suggesting that I have other 'bad hand' accounts, and presenting as evidence the idea that they exist because I have not revealed them is on par with everything else presented here. How about this for a question you cannot answer me WilliamH, where have I ever said or suggested that I am concealing anything (bh) at all ? Penyulap  ☏  22:54, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest, I'm having a bit of a time following you here Penyulap. While I'm sure it isn't intentional, much of this is a bit confusing for an old yankee at the end of the day.  A summary, perhaps?  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All evidence presented relies exclusively on misquoting, misinterpreting and misunderstanding my remarks. I feel like Jesus come back to Earth, finding myself amongst a mob of Christians who are all telling me what I said, plus arguing over it, debating over it, fighting over it and shoving me out of the way and knocking me over as they go about the business of deciding what it was that I said. The last thing anyone wants is clarification. Penyulap  ☏  23:19, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I will respond to this in greater detail tomorrow, however I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is a lesson for Penyulap as to how badly sarcasm transmits on Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The systems in place on wikipedia work exclusively in practical terms to filter out good editors, and encourage and reward bad editors. I see who is listening, and you can hear me when I say, look around, this trauma is the reason why good editors leave. Whereas this ordeal is not applied to the real threats, who simply create new socks and return with fresh resolve. On the other hand, I, as I have outlined on the project page, see the remedy as impossible, but am happy to provide examples occasionally, but this is really taking it's toll. The fact, the absolute fact is, just going and sharing a website with one or two other people is an easier way to author. Penyulap  ☏  23:32, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Groan. As I alluded to, I now realise that your comment "I'm happy to point you to the socks that checkuser won't show you" was one of several which were sarcastically meant. While I apologise for drawing the wrong conclusion, I do so on the basis that I expect you to accept that, had you not written messages which did not clearly indicate your intended meaning and in some cases, were the direct opposite of it, this whole affair would be much less protracted or may not even have occurred. Sarcasm transmits extremely badly over the internet, and expressing what appeared to be an admission of abuse with undetectable sockpuppets in an environment where real disruptive users do the very same thing — in ernest — is a really bad idea. As far as I'm concerned, this case can be closed. WilliamH (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Groan to your hearts content, that was no sarcasm. It was a genuine offer. Dennis, I made the changes yesterday when you suggested it. Penyulap  ☏  01:45, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * - Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My previous comments regarding notices on user pages, as some level, is still recommended. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  00:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded to Penyulap's comment "I'm happy to point you to the socks that checkuser won't show you" firstly in earnest, but then suspected it was sarcasm. However, Penyulap has subsequently clarified that it was meant seriously. If another administrator sanctions him, I don't have any objections. WilliamH (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Marking as closed with no action taken. --MuZemike 23:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)