Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The same modus operandi: to remove criticism and classification as pseudoscience, , , seems like intended for violation of 3RR rule. There is a long-running conflict (ru:Википедия:К посредничеству/Неакадемичность/Соционика/in russian) over socionics in the Russian Wikipedia. Almost all supporters of socionics (many were sock- or meatpuppets) were permanently blocked there. Q Valda (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

, can you link to which accounts have been blocked at ru-wiki? Also, are there any sockpuppet-investigation equivalents there? Crossroads -talk- 16:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Russian Wikipedia has a similar page — ru:Википедия:Проверка участников. There were a lot of requests to checkusers about socionics supporters, as a result of which many were indefinitely blocked:
 * ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Женя Гавриленко,
 * ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Артемьев Георгий,
 * ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Gennadiy Frolov,
 * ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Соционики,
 * ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Aleksandr Bukalov,
 * ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Prometeus-Z,
 * ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Юлиана лемешева. --Q Valda (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"'NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are' Verifiability 'and' No original research '. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus'." Member Q Valda is trying to challenge this decision. He even threatened the mediator Helgo13, as the mediator Helgo13 himself defined: “First, you have to stop having a discussion like this ('juggling ... will not end well”) if you don’t want problems when discussing your actions in a much wider circle than the local mediation. You seem to be a mediator, but instead of a solution, you create a conflict yourself, and out of the blue. Second, you were offered specific questions on SALW, but there was no answer to them. And something tells me that the answer to the specific question of whether the current wording in the article suits (this is exactly what worries me the most at the moment), we will never hear.- Q Valda 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC) The wording in the article is not satisfactory, since it is not in accordance with the result. And I don't need to threaten me with a "broad discussion", you have the right to do so, as I have the right to use administrative powers. - Best regards, Helgo13 • (Obs.) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)  In the edits of user Q Valda about socionics, there is falsification and manipulation in the retelling of an authoritative source. This is an attempt to prove that the existence of psychological types is rejected by psychology. In doing so, he even tries to refer to an article that refutes this very point of view. In this work, 4 stable psychological types are identified. Even the title of the article by Gerlach M., Farb B., Revelle W., Nunes Amaral L. A. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets // Nature Human Behavior. - 2018. - No. 2 (September). - S. 735-742. . In addition, the isolation of psychological types is one of the main scientific methods in psychology. In all other sources, which the user Q Valda tries to put in the preamble of the article, the word "socionics" is mentioned only once. Moreover, these sources are not written by experts, not psychologists and cannot be considered authoritative on the topic of socionics. In ru-wiki, these sources were rejected by the intermediary for citation on Wikipedia: "'To be honest, I agree with the bottom line. In terms of the fact that there is no reason to include this opinion in the preamble. There are too few sources that consider in sufficient detail the issue of pseudoscience of socionics (in contrast to the same NC). You can't even write a section on them properly, and in order to include this in the preamble, kmk, such a section must first appear. After all, the preamble is the summary of the article. --ptQa 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--'" --Sounderk (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "'Socionics is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity.'"--Sounderk (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this request as manipulation and harassment of the opponent. In the ru-wiki, the socionics mediator Helgo13 decided to strictly apply the fundamental rule of Wikipedia WP:NPOV By wiki rules,
 * An example of an academic tertiary source: Prof. Krysko V. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0


 * The place for discussion of content of the article is not here, but on its talk page or at FTN: Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Helgo13 has no authority here. Relevant to this case, I note that both Sounderk and ThesariusQ are WP:SPAs, and ThesariusQ in particular sure looks like a sockpuppet because of showing up out of nowhere when needed. Crossroads -talk- 17:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

--Q Valda (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked accounts of socionics supporters in Russian Wikipedia:
 * ru:Участница:Валентина Мегедь
 * ru:Участник:Женя Гавриленко
 * ru:Участник:Smyslovik
 * ru:Участник:Murad250977777
 * ru:Участник:Gennadiy Frolov
 * ru:Участник:Staruwkastarik
 * ru:Участник:RVR246
 * ru:Участник:Aleksandr Bukalov
 * ru:Участница:Юлиана лемешева
 * ru:Участник:Prolisock
 * ru:Участник:Irdims
 * ru:Участник:Prometeus-Z
 * ru:Участник:Gelios1
 * ru:Участник:Olly k2


 * I just added Igor_RD to the report, showed up to do a 4th revert as their first ever edit. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I still think at the very least ThesariusQ and Igor RD should be blocked. Sounderk has been here longer but is still an SPA and likely behind the puppetry. Even if they're not WP:SOCK, they're obvious WP:MEAT. See also WP:DUCK. Crossroads -talk- 20:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also this single purpose likely WP:LOUTSOCK IP: Crossroads -talk- 20:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added IP to this list, as it was also participating in the Socionics reverting, it however is a Mexico based Ip, so unlikely to be found to be related with checkuser. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ru:Участник:Gennadiy Frolov and have the exact same user page formatting with their username in a subheading, I think that is clear evidence that they are the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , we now have, another SPA showing up out of nowhere. Can you run CU again? Not sure if I am allowed to change the "status"/color coding of the case. Crossroads -talk- 00:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Echidna1000" easily reveals their real name, and a related YouTube video confirms their long term interest in socionics. Far more likely WP:MEAT than a sock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are  to each other and  is  to the other two based on geolocation only. This could also just as easily be WP:MEAT, however.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Sounderk and Thesarius per NOTHERE, the AN thread, and the discussion here. I threw in CU blocks for User:Gennadiy Frolov and User:Gennadiy Frolov2. I have no opinion on Igor, I'll let someone else look at it--a NOT HERE block might be just as applicable. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , So blocked. On its own, their first edit could be excused as newbie enthusiasm.  In the context of all the socking and edit-warring going on, they're clearly not up to any good. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * on the topic of Echidna1000, they are a SPA, but their history with Socionics goes back many years, so I'm not seeing any strong reason to believe this is socking. I think that covers the cast of characters, so closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account that has returned to continue edit war diff1 diff2 diff3 the same changes that SoundErk: example diff and ThesariusQ example diff fought for, namely the removal of an extremely well sourced statement that Socionics is a Pseudoscience. Also making the same repetitive talk page arguments in the same writing style talk page diff. MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

I'm a different new user to Wikipedia. Since it seems I'm arguing against something that was argued against before, it's clear that the alleged article's "well-sourced" claim should be revised. We (editors) are not here to follow the whim of any other editor but to share the facts as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyhence Phi (talk • contribs)

Obvious WP:DUCK making the same edits and commenting in the same way and in the same talk page section as the previous socks. Clearly trying again after the passage of time. Also a WP:SPA, naturally. , letting you know too. Crossroads -talk- 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The suspicious SPA has also reappeared and should be investigated. Crossroads -talk- 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to investigate me,, you can check out my YouTube channel, "World Socionics Society". Plenty of videos of me and I only have one Wikipedia account. Other people voicing these criticisms aren't me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echidna1000 (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ as far as technical evidence goes.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 18:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Jim MacKenna is primarily concerned with edits about Socionics, which was Sounderk's topic focus. Recently they have been edit warring to include a long list of questionable sources in an effort to show that Socionics is not a pseudoscience. This list of sources is nearly identical to a similar source list complied by confirmed sock ThesariusQ here (that is the final edit in a series building the list up). Jim MacKenna has also been arguing that only psychologists can author reliable sources on this topic for example here. This is a favorite argument of the sockmaster here as Sounderk and here as ThesariusQ MrOllie. Writing style is similar as well, compare these two edit summaries: and  (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I'd like to point out that MrOllie in the discussion repeatedly recommended that I look into the archive of past discussions. And after that, when I used the arguments given in the discussions recommended by him, he tries to bring charges against me. What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim MacKenna (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually, the goal of pointing out old discussions to someone is not that they repeat the reasoning that did not work back then, it is that they avoid it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see this report, this user is pretty obviously the same person coming back after time has passed to push the same POV. Crossroads -talk- 22:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU log data leave no room for doubt - this is the same person. Blocking and tagging, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  19:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)