Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk/Archive
Sounderk
- Sounderk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
30 July 2020
Suspected sockpuppets
- Sounderk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- ThesariusQ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Igor_RD (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 2806:10A6:19:5B4A:F1BB:23D7:EFE2:AEF5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Echidna1000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Socionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The same modus operandi: to remove criticism and classification as pseudoscience [1], [2], [3], 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.
Q Valda, 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)
Does not pertain. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Member Q Valda is trying to challenge this decision. He even threatened the mediator Helgo13, as the mediator Helgo13 himself defined: 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. [6]. 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: [7]--Sounderk (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
--Sounderk (talk) 17:10, 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
--Q Valda (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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: [8] Crossroads -talk- 20:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added IP 2806:10A6:19:5B4A:F1BB:23D7:EFE2:AEF5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 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 ThesariusQ 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)
- Ponyo, we now have Echidna1000, 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
The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Sounderk (talk · contribs) and ThesariusQ (talk · contribs) are
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to each other and Igor_RD is
Possible to the other two based on geolocation only. This could also just as easily be WP:MEAT, however.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons 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)
- Drmies, 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)
Clerk note: 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)
15 January 2021
Suspected sockpuppets
- Psyhence Phi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 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. [9] Clearly trying again after the passage of time. Also a WP:SPA, naturally. Q Valda, letting you know too. Crossroads -talk- 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The suspicious SPA Echidna1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also reappeared and should be investigated. Crossroads -talk- 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want to investigate me, Crossroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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
Unrelated as far as technical evidence goes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Closing per the above. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
27 September 2022
Suspected sockpuppets
- Jim MacKenna (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools
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: [10] and [11] (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 [12]. 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)