Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc/Archive

21 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Implausible new user who has hit the ground running making a controversial deletion of cited material here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exaggeration&diff=663329250&oldid=654158781. He also has an interest in borderline personality disorder, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Codependency&diff=645284580&oldid=645238464 which was an obsession with User:DendroNaja who claimed to have it himself: User_talk:Penbat I think User:Star767, User:Mattisse or User:Zeraeph are alternative possibilities tho. In fact, User:Star767 has worked on exaggeration - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exaggeration&action=history. User:Wiki-psyc obviously has some keen interest in me as he coped some elements from my user page as it was in January https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Penbat&oldid=641790365 when he created his user page. Penbat (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
The primary basis of this claim is "new user... has hit the ground running making a controversial deletion of cited material ". The claimant, however, made no response on the talk page of the cited article regarding this "controversy", but instead filed a fraud claim here. This has the appearance of a "bad faith" claim - an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined. The reported fraud and connection to this long list of other members is abstract at best. Most concerning is this editors commitment to monitor/stalk a new editors work going forward "Anyway I will see how things develop and try to refine my case. " I'd encourage the claimant, before engaging on "hunts", to read this article and consider the discouraging affect of his behavior on others and the affect on the Wikipedia project overall: | "The decline of new editors at Wikipedia" - MIT With respect to the fraud claim, specifically:
 * I have had no involvement in the above cited topic prior to 20 May 2015
 * I do not have prior or duplicate accounts or usernames
 * ::Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This is not how the sockpuppet investigation works. If you think that is a sockpuppet of, then you should open a new investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR and provide clear evidence of connection between the two accounts. If you believe that he is a sock of , than open a new investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse. The investigation should be opened under the name of the master (the oldest account). We also need clear, strong evidence. Diffs that you provided do not prove anything. Please, try to find some convincing evidence.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Something is amiss for a brand new account to suddenly make quite radical controversial changes at exaggeration which coincidentally User:Star767 also worked on (and I worked on extensively). Also I have demonstrated that User:Wiki-psyc has copied elements of my user page so has an interest in me. However I can see that I have hedged my bets by suggesting it may also be User:DendroNaja. Anyway I will see how things develop and try to refine my case. Another point is that although User:Star767 has been denounced as a sockpuppet, personally I doubt if he is User:Mattisse so it rather dilutes the SPI going to the master level. --Penbat (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence is very weak. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

13 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Wiki-psyc first edited on 8th Jan 2015. His early edits suspiciously demonstrated that he hit the ground running. For example:
 * on edit 2 and edit 3 he created an elaborate user page (see here and here)
 * on edit 21 he did a (subst:uw-harass2|User:Wiki-psyc) see User talk:Penbat

On 21st Aug 2015 Wiki-psyc controversially renamed personal boundaries as setting boundaries without any advance discussion or WP:RM. This renaming was underpinned by a single website link - Setting Boundaries and Setting Limits written by "R. Skip Johnson" who has no stated or known relevant academic or clinical experience. There are 38 other references in personal boundaries including ones from heavyweights such as Charles Whitfield, Robin Skynner, John Townsend (author) and Henry Cloud. In my opinion the link is WP:UNDUE and fails WP:RS - see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (There are also other additional arguments against the renaming - see Talk:Setting boundaries). The same link also underpinned the first three sentences in the lead and most of Setting_boundaries.

As part of Talk:Setting boundaries: Penbat (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2001:5B0:2969:DB48:D50C:6B39:D05B:E2BD and Wiki-psyc both unconventionally used "No change" instead of "Oppose".
 * All three editors (Wiki-psyc, Ditnog and 2001:5B0:2969:DB48:D50C:6B39:D05B:E2BD) posted similar bland statements basically just saying ^setting boundaries" is the right choice without giving supporting evidence.
 * Ditnog unconvincingly made his first edit after a three and a half year absence just to contribute to Talk:Setting boundaries and nothing else.
 * Ditnog was blocked using WP:DUCK on 12th April 2016 by JzG, see User talk:Ditnog and "Sock puppetry (user:Wiki-psyc, per WP:DUCK)"

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

Looks like we will have to wait a while for response - User talk:JzG. I understand your point but if A is a sockpuppet of B, surely both A and B should be blocked anyway and it is more of a detail which was the original account - obviously in this instance Ditnog was the known original account. Obviously there could have also been other related unidentified accounts pre-Wiki-psyc as well. --Penbat (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment from the accused.
 * General comment: On the very first day that I opened a membership here, Penbat filed an unsubstantiated sock-puppet grievance against me. That case was set aside as it had no merit. I have chronicled what I would refer to as a Penbats witch-hunt here. My work on Wikipedia is sound, none of it has been reversed. If you look at my edits, most are substantive content work. I have never been disruptive or rude. I have never been in an edit war. I have never been disrespectful of another members. As best I can tell, Penbat filed these grievances because I reworked two article that he originated (Exaggeration) and months later, (Personal boundaries - August of 2015), the article associated with this grievance. That rework in both cases stands.
 * Specific comment: I have never posted under another member name. There can't be any evidence to suggest that I have.
 * I suggest that this is more a matter of Penbat's obsessive bullying of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Please read the Talk:Personal boundaries discussions (all 3 of them in March April) where these charges are coming from. He made 65 edits in this talk page discussion. Collectively, everyone else made 24. He attacked editors for their opinions and he filed multiple grievances with the admins - apparently on everyone that didn't agree with him. He filed three on me - even went as far as to make claims about knowing my real name and profession and attempted to "out me" (attempt to disclose editor identity)... but later edited it out. All of this was unprovoked and about an article name change that occurred in August of 2015 (without challenge for months) that no one really seems to care much about, one way or the other.
 * I'm sure this won't go anywhere as has been the case in the prior suckpuppet accusations and ANI complaints, but how long can one member harass another member with impunity? I don't provoke, fight back, or even defend. I just try to avoid this member. I've lost my motivations to contribute on Wikipedia because of this unprovoked harassment and this can be seen in my diminished posting.   Please read: History of stalking/bullying.
 * Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Is the checkuser's finding a typo? If not, may I respectfully request that the rationale be explained in general terms? I can't possibly have a direct "technical" association with the Ditnog account. If I remember correctly that member only had 2-3 benign edits over a 10 year period. It doesn't even make sense that I would have needed to create another identity - that member wasn't a problem member. It also means means that I would have had to have planted a benign membership years ago and resurrected it to vote on a minor article name change? That's really unlikely scenario. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2016 (TC)


 * Comment to admin it might be worth doing a check user on Special:Contributions/2001:5B0:2969:DB48:D50C:6B39:D05B:E2BD as well to shed more light.--Penbat (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)THere


 * We should check 73.207.160.35 also. There were three commenters in that discussion with less than 10 edits. Two voted one way, one voted the other. Two were contest, the third was not (not surprising). Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I object to the above "Content dispute, not about sockpuppetry." block see User talk:Vanjagenije --Penbat (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wiki-psyc has still not explained how he could possibly start editing on Wikipedia in January 2015 hitting the ground running as if he had been editing for years.--Penbat (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is endless pettiness of one member (notice there are no other complainants). I've pretty much stopped posting - it not worth the hassle. I would, however, on principal, not want my membership wrongly closed. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just answer my previous question Wiki-psyc, if you had given a convincing answer I would have got off your back ages ago.--Penbat (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for admitting that you have been harassing me. Penbat, your "ground running" theory is such an indirect and circumstantial argument - and the admins have told you that more than once. How hard would it be for an experienced writer in the field with formal programming training to rewrite an article on a general topic like "Exaggeration". All you have to do is parrot the coding. It doesn't take 10 years, as you assert, to become an editor if your have this skill set. More importantly, your feelings of entitlement to attack new editors and demand that they prove to you that they are not villains or you will harass them is bad style. You're obsessive. You even reverted an admins comment in this hearing. What's this all about with you? Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I cant believe this constant tirade of abuse by Wiki-psyc (as I have rebutted line by line in the "Content dispute, not about sockpuppetry." section), and the fact that he fails to answer my previous fundamental question has not been picked up. It is nonsensical to block Ditnog but not Wiki-psyc. Why only check user Ditnog but not Special:Contributions/2001:5B0:2969:DB48:D50C:6B39:D05B:E2BD ?  --Penbat (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * CheckUser is not allowed to publicly connect accounts with their IP addresses because of the privacy issues. Now, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely grateful for you explaining to me why the IP checkuser was not done but do not appreciate your drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass link. What exactly does it relate to ? Perhaps you could ask Wiki-psyc to stop piling on his endless abuse. I genuinely do not know why you have not taken into account the fact that Wiki-psyc hit the ground running when he first edited and his constant torrent of abuse. I also genuinely do not understand how Ditnog can be blocked but not Wiki-psyc. --Penbat (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Why is Ditnog blocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki-psyc and not vice-versa? Ditnog is much older account.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - until we receive answer from .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Can we compare Ditnog to Wiki-psyc?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Although is older than Wiki-psyc, that account is already blocked by  as a sockpuppet of Wiki-psyc. I'll leave it like that since Wiki-psyc is much more active account. Case closed.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)