Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DPeterson

DPeterson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

  • See also LTA info which links to relevant RFAR, sock cases, and other case discussions.
1 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Ronz [edit]

Added substantially similar content as CarbonLife9889 (talk · contribs) and 12.183.100.130 (talk · contribs) who were blocked as socks of DPeterson. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DPeterson --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Please note these and these. The JohnsonRon, RalphLender, MarkWood, JonesRD and SamDavidson accounts were all found to be sockpuppets of the "DPeterson entity" in an arbitration on Attachment therapy in 2008 2007. User:AWeidman "joined" them in October 2008 2007.Fainites barleyscribs 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • Blocked. Obvious style similarities; exact same block of text. extransit (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
04 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Ronz [edit]

Ditto last report: Added substantially similar content as YorkieDoctor (talk · contribs), CarbonLife9889 (talk · contribs) and 12.183.100.130 (talk · contribs) who were blocked as socks of DPeterson. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [edit]

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Ronz [edit]

Ditto last report: Added substantially similar content to that added by SultanOfFaint (talk · contribs) and the other recently blocked socks of DPeterson. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [edit]
  • information Administrator note Sarner+Mercer blocked indefinitely and tagged. NW (Talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
08 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Ronz [edit]

Ditto last report: Added substantially similar content to that added by Sarner+Mercer (talk · contribs) and the other recently blocked socks of DPeterson. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [edit]

information Administrator note EmmaPsy.D. blocked and tag updated. Elockid (Talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Ronz [edit]

Another one. See previous reports. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Lova Falk [edit]

User contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foster_care&diff=prev&oldid=372764022
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_psychotherapy&diff=prev&oldid=372763936
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder&diff=prev&oldid=372763764
are exactly the same as those of User:EmmaPsy.D.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder&diff=prev&oldid=372377384
who was a sockpuppet of DPeterson.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

It should be noted that Ronald Federici (one c) is a psychologist who's professional opponents claimy he is an "attachment therapist" but who say's he is not. The DPeterson sock will certainly know of Federici, even thoughb he has spelled his name slightly wrong. This is not the first time this sock has used real world names.Fainites barleyscribs 22:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

information Administrator note Blocked and tag updated. Elockid (Talk) 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Fainites [edit]

Same edits/spam as recent sockpuppets. Recent ones were User:YorkieDoctor, User:SultanOfFaint, User:RonFedericci, User:EmmaPsy.D. and User:Sarner+Mercer. Fainites barleyscribs 22:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I think I should be on this page?
I agree, and have moved it (the quick'n'dirty way, but acknowledging you as the only contributor to that page, so I think WP:CC-BY-SA is satisfied). - 2/0 (cont.) 23:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Also - several of these socks often show up around the same time, so a quick sleeper check would be nice. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DPeterson is eminently WP:DUCK testable (or has been in the past), but habitually runs sleepers and sock farms (both IP and users) so concur that from past experience Checkuser is almost always worth considering too.
As backgound, DPeterson is a long term POV warrior who engages in sneaky vandal [1], sock-use (on some 50 articles before ban, primarily child, welfare, and therapy related topics), and editing to defame professional opponents [2]. His wiki-past before community ban showed little in the way of scruples. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - per ERROR: DIVIDE BY ZERO above. There's some bigger activity behind what's in this case that could be acted upon with CU. (X! · talk)  · @012  ·  23:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Avi (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by User:Fainites [edit]

Another pretend foreign duck. Contrib's are mostly usual spam of DDP. Cf 17th July report.Fainites barleyscribs 11:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 13:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Fainites [edit]

Bit of an obvious WP:Duck, see User:Ogel169, User:Ogelthorpe1111 and User:Romsteadogelthorpe. It has been suggested above in earlier investigations that checkusers should be done on this prolific sockmaster as he tends to do this sort of thing in clumps. Fainites barleyscribs 12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I do dispute the accusation. If you prefer I can change my account name if that would help avoid such accusations. OglethorpesFriend (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed – possibility of additional socks lying around. Otherwise, I'm fairly certain OglethorpesFriend is a sock on behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Sock blocked and tagged - obvious from edit about dyadic developmental psychotherapy and username. TNXMan 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 11:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Fainites [edit]

Another duck on contribs. Less copy-pasting than is usual with this sockmaster but same DDP/Becker-Weidman/trauma therapy related edits. Checkuser has been previously recommended for this prolific sockmaster, though he also posts from different locations and uses proxys. Fainites barleyscribs 21:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Bordering on duck, but it would be nice to have confirmation/sleeper check. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed as DPeterson:

 IP blocked –MuZemike 05:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 11:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Fainites [edit]

Duck sock of prolific socker DPeterson. Not quite as quacky as all the DDP edits and insertions of Becker-Weidmans material but Complex post-traumatic stress disorder is a well known stamping ground. In particular compare the edits of User:RankinUberall who inserted similar material into CPTSD as well as the more usual DDP/B-W stuff, and User:Edgarof Carbondale who made the one similar edit. There have also been numerous other DPeterson socks on this article, already blocked, and one called User:Abdul Faisel who wasn't blocked but simply stopped editing. Complex Trauma/Trauma Disorder is a new stamping ground for the Therapists Formerly Known As Attachment Therapists. Repeated, edit-warring insertion of copy-paste material is typical of this editor. Previous investigations recommend CU for this sockmaster although he also edits when travelling and uses proxy's. Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CU is only one aspect. Please look at the SPI duck point. Fainites barleyscribs 14:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. I have said many time that I am no sock. This fainnites is the one being disrespectful by calling me names like a Dr. B-W, that is not something I know about. And fainitees keeps turning back my edit...why is fainitees not called to question like I filed in some section of complaint here? Is he in good faith? Is he making personal attacks? Yes I think. TuvolaPHD (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Red X Unrelated to the last two socks in the archive. TNXMan 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


13 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

WP:DUCK sock of virulent sockpuppeteer DPeterson. The same DDP related edits. (more to come)Fainites barleyscribs 16:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Fainites barleyscribs 16:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Here he adds DDP to an existing section of Complex post-traumatic stress disorder though it is not supported by the ref. DDP was not included in the source and there has already been a discussion about this involving an earlier DPeterson sock User:Corkytig higher up the talk page here when Corkytig added DDP. Previous DPeterson socks on this article are User:PAMom, User:Corkytig, User:MentalHealthProf, User:PsychologistofChildren, User:AbdulFaisal (never blocked), User:AdvarkOfUni, User:Edgarof Carbondale, User:Ogel169, User:Ogelthorpe1111, User:RonFedericci, User:RankinUberall, User:TuvolaPHD. In addition to mainly DDP related edits there are a few claiming the name has changed to complex trauma (which is one of the things the DPeterson entity claims his therapy treats). Fainites barleyscribs 16:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous DPeterson socks adding DPP related edits on the Attachment-based therapy (children) page are User:PAMom, User:Corkytig, User:MentalHealthProf, User:MoshinHamid, User:GeneLesterisaMan (a name which incorporates a personal attack on another wiki editor involved in the Attachment therapy arbitration), User:HunterLancasterPHD, User:BotaRagu, User:EmmaLangston. User:Romsteadogelthorpe, User:Rasputin666, User:NasturiumPlace.Fainites barleyscribs 17:07, 13 December 2010 (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]
14 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The usual run of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy related edits. Promoting DDP by adding books as "empirical studies" and claims of efficacy. It is usually advisable to do a checkuser as this sockmaster often has sleepers. However, he also edits by proxies and when travelling so checkusers are often negative. In which case, please block as duck-sock of long term abuser.Fainites barleyscribs 17:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Fainites barleyscribs 17:00, 14 April 2011 (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]

All of the accounts in the archive are  Stale for checkuser purposes. TNXMan 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Fainites barleyscribs 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Another DDP related string of edits from duck-sock. (cf User:Mexico-Fred). Same obsessions as previous socks - see most recent sock User:Hershey123PA ‎. Fainites barleyscribs 13:02, 20 April 2011 (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]

 Confirmed as being the same as Hershey123PA (talk · contribs). TNXMan 13:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 19:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Usual Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy related edits from Ducksock. Fainites barleyscribs 14:46, 26 April 2011 (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]

 Confirmed the following are the same person:

28 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Sorry! Another DDP ducksock. Fainites barleyscribs 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Fainites barleyscribs 22:56, 28 April 2011 (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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Blocked the sock, but endorsing for sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like he was editing through a hotspot, so there are no other accounts to be found. Dominic·t 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
05 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

User is making nearly the same edits as MexicoSam (talk · contribs) and Hershey123PA (talk · contribs) both of which are confirmed socks of DPeterson. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:00, 5 May 2011 (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 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

SouthernBell55 has made the same edits to Attachment therapy as has CornerStoneBlue did here, MexicoSam did here, and Hershey123PA did here. I've added the other socks (CornerStoneBlue, MexicoSam and Hershey123PA) just for reference purposes. They all make one set of edits of the same type to the same article. Sadly, they just get blocked, and a new one is started. I guess this is the only way to stop them. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:40, 8 May 2011 (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]

Unfortunately, there's not a lot I can tell you here. SouthernBell555 and CornerStoneBlue have used the same type of computer. MexicoSam (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Hershey123PA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed matches to each other. There's a lot of editing from hotels, so  Inconclusive is probably the best I can give you. TNXMan 16:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note I blocked SouthernBell555 per WP:DUCK, and all the other accounts are blocked as well. I've also protected the Attachment therapy article for six months. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Pretty much identical to User: TuvolaPHD, an earlier sock.Fainites barleyscribs 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Fainites barleyscribs 16:21, 19 May 2011 (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]

 Confirmed as being the same as SimplexMA (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked as a sock. TNXMan 16:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged and blocked him. Thanks. Fainites barleyscribs 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


08 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same exact edits, attempting to add the same advertising (I'm not sure what else to call it) as the Sockmaster. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:31, 8 June 2011 (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]
17 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same edit on the same article, Attachment therapy as all the sockpuppets. Could he not try something creative? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I cited several references that meet the criteria as Reliable sources as I read the document you cited. The texts are published by highly regarded publishers, Norton & Jason Aronson. I cite more than one citation and the texts include various references to other related texts and empirical studies. I don't see how anyone could consider the citations I include as not meeting the standard he mentioned. I don't see the problem with this addition, which, yes, had been made by several others...I think it is valid and so wish to include it in the article.ChromEPHD (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find his insults and use of profanity demeaning and in violation of Wikipedia standards regarding avoid personal attacks and good faith See the following:
Please. Don't insult my intelligence. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain??? The texts are published by well respected publishers in the field of Psychology, Mental Health, and psychotherapy...so what is your problem with the references, citations, and addition to the article. Certainly it fits with the other treatments listed as an approach. It is one that is valued here in PA by the Commonwealth social services department. ChromEPHD (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that your comments may be a violation of the policy on assuming good faith and certainly your use of profanity is uncalled for and unprofessional. ChromEPHD (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have a clear bias and acts as if he owns this article. Not fair! ChromEPHD (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

obvious sock is obvious. blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk declined already blocked. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit is almost the same as all other socks of DPeterson, trying to add in external or internal links to Dyadic treatments, which have been thoroughly debunked. Seriously, this guy needs to get a real life, because it's not like me or other editors are missing this. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:38, 20 June 2011 (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]

 Checkuser note: Nothing for a checkuser to do here. We wouldn't connect a named account to an IP; if there's abuse/trolling/block evasion going on, it will have to be dealt with on a behavioral basis.  Frank  |  talk  01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked 1 week. Elockid (Talk) 15:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Once again, the same exact edits to Attachment therapy as the other socks from a newly registered account with its first edits to article. Can someone also protect the article from IP's and new accounts? The IP has already been blocked for a week, but since they did the same edits, maybe they're the same. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:44, 21 June 2011 (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]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 19:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This exact addition to this and similar articles has been made by DPeterson socks for several years. Just adding two more names and requesting a block, just to protect the article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:43, 10 December 2011 (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]
  • As is previously stated, he travels around, but a technical connection is  Possible and the behaviour is a giveaway. For that reason, AfricanLogo222 (talk · contribs) is a very  Likely sock. No comment on the IP. WilliamH (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same exact edits here, here, and here. The socks always add the same link or information which has been thoroughly debunked. Even if it weren't, we have been asking for WP:MEDRS for two years. DPeterson socks were just blocked yesterday. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:03, 12 December 2011 (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]
  • information Administrator note Checkuser will not connect an account to IPs. Nevertheless I've blocked both IPs for two weeks on behavioral grounds. Also note that the first IP was previously blocked as an open proxy, with the note that it may have been closed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits he's been trying to add for four years now. He's obviously not going to quit, but at least he's predictable about it. The second only has one DDP advert edit but it's exactly the same as the other ones. Also note vandalism against ACT again. 50.13.36.67 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2012 (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]
28 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I was asked by a user (email 2014-04-25) to review User:Argon&Helium as a possible sock of User:DPeterson. It's a WP:DUCK: the account is used to promote the exact same spurious stuff as all the other socks - the writings, name-dropping, clinical approaches and organizations to the same benefit of the same parties in the same real-world dispute, which have been reverted and blocked by many other users most years from 2006:

  • Makes repeat attempts to add and reinstate same or similar promo cites and writings as the sock party [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] ("The certification and training are offered in conjunction with a United States treatment center, The Center For Family Development") [8] [9] [10] [11];
  • History of attempting to create new "promo-spam" articles about non-notable therapy/training bodies, that benefit the same side in the same dispute;
  • Tries to reinstate usual attack posts against same real-world opponents, as on many occasions dating back to 2006;

User:2601:b:a580:a8:1bc:ed26:d5e:7b44 is a "More likely than not" sockpuppet or connected editor, which posted only to promote the same institute and to add more promotion to the same articles, but it's stale, and for that reason only I haven't blocked it, but noting it here for reference. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - overlooked User:Sargoncommit emailed to me on 2014-05-05. Concur and blocked also. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:20, 6 May 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]
  • May 2014:
PsychologyTrainer blocked (WP:DUCK). FT2 (Talk | email) 21:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DivingPro blocked (WP:DUCK). FT2 (Talk | email) 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 2014:
DanAtAGlance blocked (WP:DUCK). FT2 (Talk | email) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Checkuser verified & declined, following "I am new and I do not know what I did wrong?" appeal - FT2)
InstructorNAUI blocked (WP:DUCK). FT2 (Talk | email) 07:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VinelandII blocked (WP:DUCK). FT2 (Talk | email) 05:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
03 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The editors only edits to date are to restore the most recent sockpuppet's edits. Ronz (talk) 15:19, 3 July 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]
  •  Completed. Sock blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Closing now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
08 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Restored an edit by last blocked sock, SingaporeDiver (talk · contribs). Ronz (talk) 15:43, 8 July 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]
​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
03 November 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Both of these users are restoring[12][13] material added[14] by previous banned sockpuppets, keeping with DPeterson's MO of promoting Arthur Becker-Weidman. KateWishing (talk) 14:46, 3 November 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]
  • Socks blocked and tagged per DUCK. Closing now. Mike V • Talk 18:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
03 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Shameless WP:DUCK re-inserting[15] the same references to Arthur Becker-Weidman as past sockpuppets.[16]. See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/DPeterson. KateWishing (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. It seems that he sources or references added do meet policy regarding being reliable sources. In addition I tried to discuss the matte on talk page, but there was no dialogue, only reversions. NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Another straight forward DUCK sock. Mike V • Talk 04:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16 February 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:39, 16 February 2015 (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]
  • Blocked and tagged per duck. Mike V • Talk 02:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
08 March 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

all of the user's edits so far (WP:DUCK). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:29, 8 March 2015 (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]

 Clerk note: Looks like a duck to me (compare this with this). Admin needed to block. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK. Same edits[17][18] as past puppets[19][20]. KateWishing (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2015 (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]
29 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Standard fare from both accounts. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add the already blocked user:

The two accounts above have both been used to attempt to re-insert the usual material that Centerforattachment was trying to push into Dyadic developmental psychotherapy - as can be seen from the article history to May 2015 --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

 It looks like a duck to me - All of these users have been adding the disruptive material, with the socks on the original case editing the article as well. The Snowager-is awake 02:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

15 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK per the LTA case. Only edits are recreating the promotional article, Arthur Becker-Weidman. Assuming CSD will fail as it doesn't look to qualify for A7 (as currently tagged), nor does it appear to be the blatant copyvio that was the basis for the previous CSD. Given the tenacity in the history of this LTA, salting may be sensible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: Just a heads up ping since you added the CSD tag to this one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 15 August 2015 (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]

24 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


[21] ( ) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:13, 24 October 2015 (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]

30 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Standard focus on the promotion of DDP and citations of Becker-Weidman. [24] [25] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:49, 30 December 2015 (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]

30 March 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Sole edits are exactly the same as a previous sock's. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 30 March 2016 (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]

10 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Just one recent edit to restore content previously added by one of his socks (complete with the same typo "Clearninghouse"), with edit summary "minor". Perhaps usefully, the IP geolocates to Singapore (where the Center for family development is). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:17, 10 June 2016 (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]

10 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Just the latest duck. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • @Vanjagenije: For some reason your ping didn't create a notification FYI. Regardless, the diff I linked above is the only one from this account. For past diffs: [28] [29] and others. There's a relatively small set of articles for which the socks have been the only ones adding content promoting Dyadic Develompental Psychotherapy and/or Becker-Weidman over the course of a decade. I wonder if it would be useful to include an overview of the LTA with the SPI page (rather than the archive)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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

  •  Additional information needed - @Rhododendrites: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Adding similar content to Dyadic developmental psychotherapy (see also page history). The master and one sock puppet also added the exact same content to the article without a summary indicating an automated revert was used (1,2, 3), while the other reverted it back after the first sock puppet account stopped editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:14, 13 November 2017 (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]

  • All accounts listed have been indefinitely blocked. Leaving for clerk to tag and close per process. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Obvious sock. Only edit was to join the edit-warring with the edit summary, "reversion to previous version...seems edit war is going on here" [30] Ronz (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the last batch of socks were listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KeyBanking --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2017 (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]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

03 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


as usual — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:24, 3 December 2017 (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/DPeterson/Archive&oldid=1088279739"