Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Mrm7171

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Mrm7171

Mrm7171 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Mrm7171 spent a great deal of time claiming that occupational health psychology (OHP) is no more than a subdiscipline of industrial and organizational psychology (I/O). It is not a subdiscipline of I/O but its roots are in health psychology, I/O, and occupational health. A sentence in paragraph 1 of the OHP entry says as much, and the sentence is sourced. Parenthetically health psychology's origins are in clinical psychology but health psychology is not a subdiscipline of clinical psychology. Almost every edit Mrm7171 made in OHP and I/O article and talk pages were directed at making OHP a subdiscipline of I/O.Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then Psych999 entered the picture, and started editing in much the same way as Mrm7171. Many of Psych999's edits were nuisances edits. I suspect that Psych9999 is the same person as Mrm7171. Psych999's efforts doubled when Mrm7171 was blocked from editing. I thought that I would raise the matter here.Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


For example, here is a Psych999 entry on the OHP talk page from 03:38, June 26, 2013. Note that the comment is clearly irrelevant. Psyc12 had explained licensing in psychology.Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said an "OHP practitioner or OHP researcher for that matter, (as it currently states on the article page) did not need to learn anything new, necessarily." Do they? For example the fact of the matter is that an ex floor tiler for example, who has hurt his knee and needs a quick career change, could technically, put up a sign on his door and call himself an OHP practitioner, and, actually charge the unsuspecting marketplace money for it, anywhere in the world, without doing one day more, of training? Nor would he need to join a society or group of OHP practitioners, because an OHP practitioner is an unregulated job title, and as such anyone, absolutely any one, any where in the world can call them self an OHP practitioner on their business card and, disturbingly, charge money for it.

Here is Mrm7171 from his/her talk page on July 7. Hi iss246. including a link in the i/o article is irrelevant and crowding to the article. Cannot have every link in an article's contents page on wiki. Way too long for readers to work through the contents page including anything even vaguely relevant. eg OB OHS, goes on and on all ion the contents page, could list 100 different "relationship to...links, as you've done? Can you imagine it? Isn't 'OHP', the coined brand, (but maybe not Occupational Health Psychology as a 'topic/area' of study), multi disciplinary as you keep on saying?

It would be much more worthwhile including a similar section in the occupational health psychology article, I think. That is, relationship to I/O psych link in the contents page of the occupational health article? which I am going to do unless there is very good logic not to. Your response on my talk page is fine. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, ISS246, I say Please do not blanket any good faith additions I make to articles, without discussing with me. Don't try to drag an editor into an edit war! I don't want one. I am not deleting your input. Discuss with me instead. On my talk page is fine with me. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
08 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Mrm7171 is deemed by some to be a disruptive editor. They've been blocked three times, the last time by me. Interestingly, two relatively short-lived accounts showed up on Occupational health psychology, one of which mainly active during one of those blocks. Psych999 has a flurry of edits during the 7-14 July 2013 block (account was created 25 June 2013) and is abandoned on 11 July. All accounts take issue with Iss246--for Mrm this need not be argued, it's all over the article talk page, and here and here is Mattbrown doing it. Here (you'll have to read some of the material into which this edit is inserted) is Psych duking it out with Iss. Psych also makes the same kinds of lengthy talk page comments that Mrm makes, with many revisions after an initial posting.

I'm quite confident that edits by Psych and Mrm are too similar to be coincidences. In the interest of trying to control ongoing edit warring and troubles in that article and its talk page, besides some other venues, I'd like CU to give some closure here. By this I'm not saying that Iss246 is blameless, but I think this SPI is a good start. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Ever since the 30th of January, 2013, my editing has been 'spot on' and the complete opposite to disruptive although me proving a number of editors wrong, has probably led to this action here now. To point the finger ‘just at me’ now when it has clearly been 2 way’ seems grossly unfair as I learnt a lot from my blocks and my editing behaviour has improved significantly. I stand by that. Anyone can look at my edit history over the past 8 or 9 days since the 30th of January, 2014. If there is ANY evidence to the contrary, I invite any editor to provide it right here, rather than make baseless claims that my editing is now in any way disruptive or rehash the past since my block expired 9 days ago. If I had continued the same behavior fair enough, but I have not.

However since then, a number of editors, instead of giving me a fresh start, Wikipedia:Assume good faith have continuously 're-hashed' the past, or 'prodded and probed' me to react negatively. I have not. Please refer to my edits here Occupational burnout, Talk:Occupational burnout,Industrial and organizational psychology, Occupational safety and health Talk:Occupational safety and health. This here, should not be another opportunity to tarnish my name since my editing has been very constructive since 30th January, 2014.

What this matter is about here is re-opening the case which was open for 8 days and then closed 7 months ago. The account psych999 is just not mine. Full stop. It never was me 7 months ago. That was determined back in July 2013. Several administrators looked at it very closely when iss246 falsely accused me of it then, and when administrators had all of the fresh edit activity, IP addresses and checkuser tools, data etc to go by and certainly looked at it very carefully and closely 7 months ago. I was cleared. Now 7 months later it has been re-opened as I pointed it out to Drmies today that even though I was cleared and it was not my account, 7 months ago, iss246 keeps throwing that and anything else they can re-hash from the past, it in my face, in an attempt to tarnish my name, discredit my editing on these very important professional articles. Please refer to my talk page, User talk:Mrm7171 I just want to move forward here and have made significant efforts to prove that since the 30th of January, 2014Mrm7171 (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing my name and efforts on Wikipedia is being falsely dragged through the mud here and given my very good record since 30th January, I feel this record needs to be set straight, with administrators provided with the whole picture. This issue of ‘OHP’ and various related article pages, has been ‘fought out’ since 2007 between iss246 and numerous other psychology editors. And well before I joined Wikipedia in 2013! See here for example: Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

This is what one psychology editor said in 2011 of iss246. Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Iss246 fighting it out with many other psychology editors over the years, at any cost, provides clear evidence that this dispute over OHP & related articles, has definitely not been ‘one sided.’ Not by a long shot. I simply have stood my ground where other psychology editors over the years have understandably fallen by the wayside. Furthermore the exact same things I was blocked for, iss246 has also been guilty of 10 times over.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) However unlike myself iss246 has never been blocked for his offences over the years, and learnt lessons from the experience, mainly because no one has reported his behaviour to an administrator’s notice board.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive

I also now need to re-open the previous sockpuppet investigation listed above, with some critical evidence which has since come to light since the 10th July 2013. Administrator Kww’s strong believed that obvious Meatpuppetry was at play, but at the time there “was not enough meat” and only sockpuppetry was investigated. The critical missing evidence needed was proof that all of these new accounts actually knew each other personally, and supported the same cause. It is now known that the 7 members of the who were all directly solicited by iss246, to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process and all suddenly joined up at the same time between June 7 & 9, 2013 all adding their unwavering support for iss246's point of view here Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 1, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. Since this investigation, Iss246 has admitted to contacting all of these different editors who opened new accounts simultaneously, and indeed admitted they are all members, friends and colleagues of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Furthermore these IP addresses above were never examined as sockpuppets, and are likely to be second accounts held by any of these other new accounts opened with actual usernames, including iss246. This sudden influx of multiple new accounts and IP addresses, made administrator itszippy report it as a sockpuppet and opened the SPI.

After the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive had closed, all of the other 7 new accounts & IP addresses iss246 had asked to join Wikipedia, did not edit again. Only one editor stayed. That editor and close friend of iss246 was psyc12. Since July last year psyc12&iss246, have edited in unison against my editing attempts. It has made my editing as an independent editor virtually impossible. Any editors can look at the editing history of psyc12 working together in unison, with his close friend iss246 at any time and clearly verify this pattern.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the time I joined wiki, it was apparent there was an ongoing dispute between Iss246 and Mrm7171. More often than not, I found Iss's position more credible. Often Mrm's position was based on opinion that ran counter to my understanding, and when asked to support with references they often did not really support the opinion. Often other independent editors like Bilby, Richard Keatinge, or WhatamIdoing agreed with Iss as well. There are also cases where I disagreed with Iss. The health psychology talk page today shows an example where I am supporting Mrm's suggestion to delete a section that I wrote myself. Mrm had a valid point that there was no RS to support what is listed as a related discipline--it was just my subjective opinion as he/she states. Psyc12 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep comments short and to the point. Psyc12, your commentary may be valid but has no bearing on this SPI. Saying that you're not Iss, or don't always agree with them, is irrelevant, since Mrm's accusations are just a way of diverting attention. At least Mrm isn't saying "papa, Iss is doing it too!". Mrm, most of what you say has nothing to do with this SPI. You managed to quadruple the size of this document, but I guess that was to be expected. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not diverting attention at all Drmies.Wikipedia:Assume good faith These are serious issues involving the opening of 6 new accounts to support iss246's argument at the time. I have been gathering further evidence to support administrator Kww's strong suspicions at the last investigation and decided it was high time to present the case. That's all. However, agreed, this is not the place to put this information. So apologies for that at least. I actually posted this information right here, the other day as I had hoped an administrator would re-open the case, on my behalf, as I was unsure how. That's all. I subsequently worked out how and a case is now ongoing and open here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246. Sorry again, for extra text here.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant point here is that psyc9999 is not me. Full stop. That was determined back in July 2013. Several administrators looked at it very closely when iss246 falsely accused me of it then, and when administrators had all of the fresh edit activity, IP addresses and checkuser tools, data etc to go by and certainly looked at it very carefully and closely. I was cleared 8 months ago. Iss246 accused me of being Mrm7717 too here Talk:Health psychology. As far as I can tell from edit histories, that name doesn't even exist, does it? Did iss246 actually make it up to try and further discredit me. Similar to what is happening here. My editing since January 30th has been exemplary. Where is the Wikipedia:Assume good faith here? What is this?Mrm7171 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close similarities of grammatical / rhetorical / general editing style, of policy comprehension / use, and of specific ideas and interests. WP:DUCK Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which account are you talking about Richardkeatinge. Mattbrown69 or psych9999? That is important. Please provide diffs. Rather than insinuations. This case has also been re-opened and closed 3 or 4 times now. And in July 2013, 8 months ago, a checkuser was completed and cleared me when everything was fresh. This topic of OHP and all related articles has however received a very high profile outside of Wikipedia it seems. I am NOT psych999. Wikipedia:Assume good faith What is this?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard keatinge I realise you have been personally involved in these articles and you personally don't like me because of my conflicts with iss246, and since 30th January my editing has been exemplary, however if you are going to make accusations like that above, specify with diffs please.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mrm, your representation of what happened in the earlier SPI is completely incorrect, completely. There was no CU, so you weren't cleared. It was a poorly-written report, which was closed for lack of evidence. You are adding so many words that I'm thinking of hatting them. Don't worry, I'll find a neutral heading for it. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8 months ago, every tool available could have been used and case was looked at for over 10 days. Cleared. I'm fine with a check user. Completely confident. I am not psych999. Is richardkeatinge talking here about mattbrown69's editing style, etc or psych999?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer for Mattbrown69, but probably both. To come to that conclusion I spent a long time on looking at all edits of psych999 and Mattbrown69, and rather a lot of Mrm7171's. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are missing something here. The reason mattbrown69 looks like me Richardkeatinge, and others, is that it was my original account which I completely abandoned back in January, I think, and for valid reasons. I have never denied that, nor in any way used it for evil, so to speak. Ever since, I have only ever edited under one and the same account, mrm7171. But for the last time, psyc999 is NOT me. However I think it should be pretty clear to all involved editors by now, that these related psychology articles have quite a large audience, outside of Wikipedia, and concerns I have raised over 'OHP' are obviously felt by other concerned professionals too. Since 30th January my editing has been exemplary. I would really, really appreciate some assumption of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies posts this as evidence why they believe I was psyc9999. "All accounts take issue with Iss246--for Mrm this need not be argued, it's all over the article talk page, and here and here is Mattbrown doing it. Here (you'll have to read some of the material into which this edit is inserted) is Psych duking it out with Iss. Psych also makes the same kinds of lengthy talk page comments that Mrm makes, with many revisions after an initial posting" Response There is no "ongoing edit war" like Drmies says. My editing since 30th January 2013 has been constructive and civil.

I have looked in detail at psyc9999's edits from 8 months ago too and need to make a few points here to defend myself further. Psyc999 does not have "many revisions after posting" like Drmies says, none that I can see, although I probably do. I think Drmies is obviously getting psyc12 mixed up with psyc999 here. Psyc 999 does not "duke it out" with iss246, as Drmies says although again I probably have in the past. I could go on. Drmies makes these errors and casts these accusations flippantly and then says they are confident? I was not psyc999 8 months ago. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

It should be pretty clear to all involved editors by now that these related psychology articles have quite a large audience outside of Wikipedia for a long time and concerns I have raised over psyc12&iss246 and 'OHP' are obviously felt by other concerned professionals too.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AGK:As I clearly stated above a few days ago, mattbrown was my username I used when I first joined Wikipedia, in January 2013. Used it for 2 weeks. Made no more edits until May, when I abandoned that username for privacy reasons and changed to mrm7171 instead. Have never edited under any other username.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a hanging offence, especially for a newbie. A case well worth dropping. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Psych999 is  Stale, so the request concerning that user is no Declined.

    I see both Mattbrown69 and Mrm7171 have edited Occupational health psychology, but the filing party has not illustrated with diffs exactly why he thinks they are socks. @Drmies:  Additional information needed, please explicitly demonstrate the behavioural connection with Mattbrown69 (remembering you are addressing amateurs to this topic area). AGK [•] 22:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected due to lack of evidence. AGK [•] 16:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The Docsim account was created on June 20th and made a few edits that day, but was otherwise unused. On July 31, Mrm7171 was blocked by Bbb23 for 6 months. Docsim started editing in earnest exactly 35 minutes later, (after being unused since it was first created) and has continued since. Docsim focused from the start on the same areas that interested Mrm7171, (occupational safety and health [1]), and just over a week after Mrm7171 was blocked, Docsim started editing on the Occupational health psychology‎ (OHP) topic, which was Mrm7171's major focus, by continuing a thread at WP:NPOV/N that Mrm7171 had opened [2]. More recently, Docsim started directly editing the OHP article, engaging in a slow-moving edit war over the same concerns that Mrm7171 was focused on [3]. In regard to style, both Docsim and Mrm7171 use very similar writing styles, and Docsim has raised the same concerns with the article and editors involved (mostly that they have a COI) that were raised by Mrm7171. Both editors appear to edit from the same time zones.

I should note that I regard myself as involved in this case. - Bilby (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking so quickly. :) My feeling was that the account passes the duck test, especially given the timing and the identical arguments, but I wanted to see if the checkuser precludes it - it looks like it is up to the closing admin to make a call. Thanks again for handling the CU. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Same city, different range/provider, same operating system, different browser.  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am somewhat familiar with the case and the editors involved. I am convinced this is the same MRM7171 user whose disruptive edits have taken up so much time already. Will block sock indefinitely, and lengthen master's block since what Docsim was doing is the same thing that got MRM blocked. Thanks DeltaQuad. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Other clerks: please leave this open. There's a discussion going on whether to make the block of MRM7171 indefinite. I'm in favor of it, but I'm awaiting comments from at least one other administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


26 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Attention was caught by this COIN filing by Truthbringer1, where he/she rants about Psyc12 and iss246 and problems with Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Mrm7171 had the same sad (and unique) obsession and wrote about them much the same way. here is a COIN filing by Mrm7171. Quack! Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Old "evidence", much of it seemingly having nothing to do with allegations of sockpuppetry.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the article Elton Mayo the two close friends outside of Wikipedia psyc12 & iss246 worked in unison and as a 'tag team' to recklessly remove a solid, long term edit regarding the established occupation of psychologist Elton Mayo clearly stated in all of the major published reliable sources. First, psyc12 sneakily removed the first 5 reliable sources and left one and then his friend iss246 snuck in, sneakily, like a fox during the night, and removed the final reliable source, and the long established edit.

On the Elton Mayo talk page there are at least 10 reliable sources including the encyclopedia brittanica all stating Elton Mayo is a psychologist!

Psyc12 & his friend iss246 are going around to select articles and removing very specific references which relate to their OHP society and Elton Mayo appears to be in their literature. That's all they do on Wikipedia. They have been branded with COI and as SPAS by administrator Atama in the past. Check their editing histories!

They removed this edit [4] edit with no less than 5 reliable sources attached.

I am not mrm71 but there are many concerned individuals in Australia who don't like the history of their National figures like Elton Mayo 'doctored' as psyc12 & iss246 are currently doing. If nothing else, are all other experienced editors and administrators who are here to supposedly protect the integrity of Wikipedia articles, reading this here and at the this COIN filing and let iss246 & psyc12 blatantly remove a reliably sourced long standing edit with no less than 5 major reliable sources attached? In fact, on the talk page it looks like there are at least 10 reliable sources to this widely accepted fact that Elton Mayo was an Australian born psychologist!

How would American editors feel if an article on George Washington was blatantly vandalised like this by a non US editor?? If this biased and disruptive editing by iss246 who was recently blocked for edit warring and his friend psyc12, is allowed to continue by all administrators here and at COIN we will all write to Wikipedia central to object strongly. Elton Mayo was a Psychologist. Ten reliable, major published sources say so. There are countless others that could be used. Wikipedia is obviously based on what the reliable sources actually say. Not some editor like iss246 & psyc12 want it to say. That is fabrication. Pure and simnple!Truthbringer1 (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iss246 cannot and has not produced one, single, reliable source clearly stating that he was not a psychologist. Elton Mayo is an Australian icon. Could someone please follow up on this, for the integrity of Wikipedia and for our Australian and other readers?

It would be like some Aussie vandalizing the George Washington article and saying he was not the first President of the United States (1789–1797), the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. And provide not one single, reliable source clearly stating George Washington was not the first President! Thanks for everyone's integrity ahead of time.Truthbringer1 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is the same issue that was brought by the sockmaster in this diff and others on the Talk:Elton Mayo. Jytdog (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Truthbringer1 is not Mrm7171, then it is very odd that they are focused on me in the same way as Mrm7171. More than 200 people have edited the Mayo article, yet they single me out here even though I am not part of the dispute they have with Iss246--my last edit was months ago. Further, I had nothing to do with removing psychologist from the article, and in fact I supported it by adding a reliable academic source.Psyc12 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Looking into this, I think there's something pretty solid here. I've sat this out because I feel I'm involved, due to previous issues with Mrm7171, but hopefully I can help shed some light on this. Accordingly:

  • Mrm7171 and Docsim (an Mrm7171 sock) were blocked on 24 October. Truthbringer1's account was created on 26 October, 2 days later. [5]
  • Truthbringer1's first edit was to the Elton Mayo article, [6], duplicating an edit made by Mrm1717 five months earlier [7] In those five months, there was no edit war or any other attempts to change the article in line with Mrm7171's version. Mrm171's version was not the previous version in the article, which used different sources.
  • Truthbringer1's second edit was to go directly to COIN to accuse Psyc12 and Iss246 of having a COI [8] There was no clear reason for Truthbringer1 to go straight to COIN, given the at the time no one had reverted or commented on Truthbringer1's only edit.
  • The argument offered at COIN was unusual - that Psyc12 and Iss246 have a COI in regard to psychology and Occupational Health Psychology due to their membership of an OHP professional body. This is exactly the same argument pushed extensively by Mrm17171. [9] [10] [11]
  • Finally, the kicker for me is the writing styles, which are identical. Right down to the use of selective bolding of for key words and phrases. For example, Mrm1717 and Truthbringer1

- Bilby (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk note: Nothing here to suggest sockpuppetry. Complaints about content disputes, edit warring, or even vandalism do not belong at WP:SPI unless there is specific evidence (i.e., diffs) showing the likely existence of sockpuppetry. Closing. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. I'm mainly reporting the new sock, Happydaise, a clearly experienced returning editor (seventh edit was to file, unprompted, at RSN: [12]; tenth edit ever was to file, unprompted, at DRN: [13]) who started right in on disrupting the same article, and targeting the same editor, targeted by the master and the previous socks and previously reported suspected socks (some of which SPI investigations have so far been declined despite abundant evidence). The childish game-playing, the report filing, the lack of capitalization, and the targeted article all match up with master and the previous accounts reported.

I'm also adding in two accounts (Mattbrown69, Psych999) which were closed without action in previous SPI reports, even though clear evidence was provided. Overall, the pattern among all 6 accounts (the master, the two blocked socks, the two others that have been previously reported but not acted upon, and the new active account) is consistent -- targeting the exact same article(s)/subject, disruptively editing, picking childish and meaningless fights with Iss246, consistently spelling "iss246" and "psyc12" (and other usernames, and even article titles) lowercase: Mrm7171: [14], [15]; Truthbringer1: [16]; Mattbrown69 (edit summaries only; he made no talk posts): [17], [18], [19]; Docsim: [20]; Psych999: [21], [22]; Happydaise: [23]; the gibberishy childish lack of capitalization: Mrm7171: [24], [25]; Docsim: [26], [27], [28], [29]; Mattbrown69 (edit summaries only; he made no talk posts): [30]; Psych999: [31]; Truthbringer1: [32]; Happydaise: [33]; and on and on. Also: Signing with the tildes abutting the text. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: I came upon this obvious sock via a recent ANI thread [34] that asked for help at Organizational behavior and its talk page, where two editors were arguing. Happydaise was clearly the aggressor, and on the talk page Iss246 had this to say [35]:

User:MjolnirPants, thank you for your concern about the list of contributing disciplines to organizational behavior. Happydaise reminded me of some other "newcomers" to Wikipedia. He seems to be a "newcomer" to Wikipedia, but he acts like a past user who went by various names (Mrm7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, Docsim). Under each name, he would join Wikipedia, and then proceed to make wholesale, unilateral changes with a swiftness that undercut his newcomer persona. Iss246 (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Therefore I'm pinging Iss246 to see if s/he has any more behavioral evidence to add.

  • I've created an editor interaction analyzer chart for all six accounts: [36]. In terms of the number of specific pages overlapped with the master, Happydaise has more overlap with the master than any other sock or suspected sock. More than even Docsim, who was an outlier in that they had an actual personal story, frequently repeated and very consistent: that she was a married female physiotherapist in Australia. And like the master, Happydaise has consistently targeted Iss246 – even on that user's talk page, which talk-page harassment none of these other accounts beyond the master has done. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Invanvector (and others): These accounts:

which Ivanvector has removed from the top of this report [37] were not "checked and found to be unrelated in the past". There was no CU and no investigation, because it was for some reason rejected out of hand by AGK in February 2014 [38] despite abundant confirmation from Drmies (the filer) and Richard Keatinge – which discussions received endless wall-of-text interference from the sockmaster. Checking the edit habits of these two accounts against Happydaise and the others is in my mind an extremely important pillar in this current sockpuppet case, because these two accounts bear much more resemblance to the master than the accounts which have already been blocked as socks. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • New info: After repeatedly being pressed to the wall and after repeated wall-of-text obstructionism (17 lengthy posts) in the SPI, the master admitted that Mattbrown69 was indeed his account [39], [40]. He did not admit to Psych999 before the case was prematurely dismissed, but the habits are very similar. At the very least, Mattbrown69 should be listed as an account of the master (in fact, Mattbrown69 is the master, because as Mrm7171 admitted, that was his first account). -- Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Can someone please change the heading to Sockpuppets of Mattbrown69, since that is the master (first account), and any further investigations should be checked against behavior on that account as well as the others. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • After now reading about sockpuppets I am simply amazed that i have been drawn into some web of previous people's lives on wikipedia. Can I please ask how my question on including anthropology, ethnology and sociobiology into the article or that the list should be sourced, is in any way related to these other people banned and what they seemed to b e talking about? I only wanted dispute resolution which i looked up and then stumbled through the steps they ask you to do on the dispute resolution noticeboard and for that you say Softlavender that Im "clearly experienced returning editor" - well i'm very flattered but doesn't my editing show a different story. Nothing really adds up. And why are you saying Im the aggressor when I kept seeking dispute resolution. That all now being said; I'm very open to you doing any technical checks you want to do. i can say with my hand on heart Im nothing to do with this other people and after looking at the issues they were all raising it seems ultra clear that i am talking about completely unrelated issues. Also I didn't come in and target anyone. I questioned the un-sourced list, not targeting any one. That is stupid saying that. Does any of this common sense count for anything here?Happydaise (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just now looking at the people you are talking about that i am supposed to be, none of the areas they were interested in am i interested in or know anything about so what are you saying? I also need to repeat that this other editor attacked me, not me targeting them. what utter balderdash. I just made my first edits about the un-sourced list in the article and doesn't it need to be sourced and they contacted me and attacked me - not the other way around. Isn't that clear. What is your problem Softlavender. you have accused me of this for six days or more and i really can't see where or how i could possibly be related to these other people from 2013. is this who you are - just someone who attacks new people for no reason. Id like to use stronger language toward you as a matter of fact but yeah- whats your problem. And you deleted my work today and then did not discuss it or why you did that. you seem to be targeting me - more like it. As far as listing things on peoples own page people seem to have listed things on my page too- so yes i did list that question about you explaining why you took my work out- on your page but how is that targeting you either. Everything you say here is stupid as far as i can see. But heck go ahead and do whatever checks you want on me. I have no problem with that at all.Happydaise (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the bottom of User talk:Mrm7171 it shows that I commented on that user's SPI case. In terms of scope of interests, it does appear that Happydaise and Mrm7171 could work in the same area. Mrm7171 was a prolific sockpuppeteer. This won't help out with CU much since I assume Mrm7171 is stale. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to give me an answer on all of this rot. My experience so far of Wikipedia is appalling. I mean i question an un-sourced list in an article and walked into all of this. Yep i did spend too much time working through the steps to list the dispute in an area I read it should be listed on the dispute resolution list - but then no-one even participated. I did it twice even. For that - i am pounced on constantly and this whole thing here sits and shames me. Do you try to scarte people away here or something. As for my scope of interests as this person directly above me says - i mean - what scope of common interests. Is there any complaints processes I can use here?Happydaise (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I have removed Mattbrown69 and Psych999, they have been checked and found to be unrelated in the past and neither account has edited in over three years. There's no point continuing to rehash those investigations.
  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention to check Happydaise versus any useful log information on the master, Docsim (talk · contribs) and Truthbringer1 (talk · contribs), I'm aware the accounts are stale but you guys surprise me sometimes. Some of the connection suggested by Softlavender checks out: that Happydaise jumped into a dispute with Iss246 very soon after signing up and brought it to DRN very quickly, along with certain similarities in editing style (common caps errors and typos [41] [42] [43] [44]). However these are pretty weak evidence, Iss246 has some of those similarities as well, and could plausibly simply be ESL issues. Therefore either CU can shore up this case, or I think it should be closed as inconclusive. I welcome further comments from admins & clerks who have interacted with this case previously. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing of value on the first round of checks, so didn't go further. Use behavior. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged Mattbrown69 due to the admission. Not originally an abuse of multiple accounts, but as Mrm7171 is indeffed, all of his accounts should be blocked. I don't think Psych999 is worth looking into unless they start editing again; the only reason I blocked Mattbrown69 was because of how easy the case was. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with no action. Operating in the same topic area is usually strong evidence of sockpuppetry, but it's also usually in rapid succession with other socking accounts and in a far more minor article, where multiple interested editors may be considered unusual. One overlapping topic alone isn't enough here, given the circumstances. The only other evidence of sockpuppetry is similarities in how they type, but upon examining the typing patterns of the master and alleged sock, I've found more dissimilarities than similarities. Per WP:BEANS, I won't post them here, but I can lay them out by email if requested. I don't find the evidence strong enough to support a block. Further, the alleged sock has since gone inactive for about a month, so this may be moot. ~ Rob13Talk 06:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Originally an editor who went by Mrm7171 (and other names such as Psych999 and Mattbrown69, and the IP address 121.91.164.65) followed me around changing my edits on a daily basis. Eventually Mrm7171 was banned from WP. Since January 2020, another editor, Sportstir, began undoing my edits in much the same manner as Mrm7171. Sportstir concentrated on the same subject matter as Mrm7171, namely, occupational stress, which took him/her to the occupational health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology etries. Sportstir's edits were like Mrm7171's, in that they centered on the topic of work-related stress, which crosses over encyclopedia entries. You can check the contributions of Sportstir. His/her edits are directed mostly at me. If you check the contributions of Mrm7171, you will see that his/her edits are directed mostly at me.

Much of the editing by Mrm7171 and Sportstir has been to give industrial and organizational psychology a larger place in research on job stress and to reduce the role of occupational health psychology in that research. I know that this seems petty but there is evidence from the prominent i/o psychologist Paul Spector [45] that i/o psychology came late to the study of job stress. Of course i/o psychology deserves credit for studying job stress. But it is not the center of research on job stress. No one field is the center of that research.

Appropos of the above, Sportstir and I had a disagreement about the word "particularly." Here is that diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupational_stress&diff=955994269&oldid=955824215 No one area within psychology is "particularly" above any other area in terms of research and practice with regard to occupational stress, a topic that crosses disciplinary boundaries. That is the only view I was trying to express. But Sportstir continued to single out i/o psychology as the most important field in the area of occupational stress. I have since suggested that we recognize fields outside of psychology that have contributed to our understanding of job stress including sociology and occupational health and safety.

I have made more than 12,000 edits on WP. Most are on psychology-related topics (e.g., fluid and crystallized intelligence; psychometrics; the psychologist Isidor Chein). I am a research psychologist and professor of psychology. I have been in the field for 40 years. What made me suspicious of Sportstir is that most of Sportstir's edits were directed at me. It is certainly true that other editors can modify or delete my edits. That's fine. But it is unusual for one editor to single out the edits of one other editor and one topic to the exclusion of the large number of editors who contribute to WP and the vast number of topics WP covers. The majority of Sportstir's edits are directed at undoing my edits. Iss246 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrm7171/Archive&oldid=1142566832"