Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Wiki-psyc


Wiki-psyc

21 May 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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#Cluster_B_PD.27s_and_psychopathy 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)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

@Penbat: 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)[reply]



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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

13 April 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Wiki-psyc first edited on 8th Jan 2015. His early edits suspiciously demonstrated that he hit the ground running. For example:

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Setting boundaries heavily underpinned by a single webpage cite. (There are also other additional arguments against the renaming - see Talk:Setting boundaries#Requested move 4 April 2016). The same link also underpinned the first three sentences in the lead and most of Setting_boundaries#Process.

As part of Talk:Setting boundaries#Requested move 4 April 2016:

Penbat (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Content dispute, not about sockpuppetry.
Response from Penbat on previous comments by Wiki-psyc
  • I have edited on Wikipedia for over 10 years. I have interacted with hundreds of editors - the vast majority without difficulty. Ironically the few editors I have had most problems with often turned out to be sockpuppets who were subsequently banned.
"Wiki-psyc, Penbat was acting in WP:Good faith. It's quite easy to see that you are not a WP:Newbie. Showing up editing like you've been editing Wikipedia for years is obviously going to result in suspicion of your account. I immediately pegged you as a WP:Sock as well."
  • I have no idea what "make claims about knowing my real name and profession and attempted to 'out me' (attempt to disclose editor identity)... but later edited it out" is about. Wiki-psyc needs to provide a diff to support his point.
  • "...no one really seems to care much about, one way or the other." It is a fact of life that many psychology articles, such as the ones Wiki-psyc was involved with, do not attract many editors willing to do in depth work (although some will do superficial edits) and that includes personal boundaries and exaggeration.
  • I did not like Wiki-psyc's edit 16 on the 21st May 2015 in exaggeration because it was a combination of a radical restructure and a deletion of perfectly decent cited text such as in the old "Manipulation" section. The radical restructure was not explained in the edit summary which just said "Removed redundant comments irrelevant psychology theory". It is very difficult to precisely separate out and identify all the lost text from the restructure.
  • Wiki-psyc's work has attracted criticism from others apart from myself for example:
  • 76.106.172.45 - see Talk:Personal boundaries#Dubious about the current state of this article - "I would like to add a vote to the side of 'Personal Boundaries'. Using 'setting' tells us nothing about the type of boundaries, plus it implies that we are discussing an active process of setting boundaries 'Setting boundaries' could be referring to the process of laying out measurement to delineate the edge of a person's property for all we know."

--Penbat (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the accused.

This seems to be about your bruised ego from a year ago and your extraordinary efforts to avenge it using the administrative process.

Nothing in this administrative grievance or in the other administrative grievances substantiates any wrongdoing or bad faith on my part. You are citing mostly content issues and graphic selection.

Moreover, you have used this as a diversion to revert much of the work that was done on the article in the last year (you made 26 edits in April) and reestablish what you had written previously.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Response from Penbat on previous comments by Wiki-psyc

I don't think the fact that I waited a long time in the hope that Smcg8374 (creator of boundaries of the mind) would give his third party perspective on personal boundaries stacks up well with your ego theory. Incidentally I notice that the previous link I gave for this was wrong - it should be User talk:Smcg8374#Personal boundaries and setting boundaries.--Penbat (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Penbat: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki-psyc/Archive&oldid=1076217056"