Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikisunn/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikisunn

Wikisunn (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
22 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

E-mail received from user:Jayen466. Hi Rumiton,

I am pretty certain that Radiantenergy is a sock of Wikisunn, who was banned from the Sai Baba article in the 2007 arbitration. Wikisunn stopped editing after the arbitration; Radiantenergy began editing over a year later.

Behavioural evidence:

1. Semantic similarity in user name.

2. Both accounts are focused on Sai Baba.

3. Both have a habit of spelling "n't" as a separate word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22n%27t%22+wikisunn

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22n%27t%22+Radiantenergy

4. Both use the phrase "with out discussing", using that spelling of "without":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22with+out+discussing%22+wikisunn

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22with+out+discussing%22+Radiantenergy

5. Previously suspected by White adept (himself a sockpuppet of a POV opponent, if I remember correctly):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_12#Similarities_between_banned_user_.22wikisunn.22_and_.22radiantenergy.22

I think there is enough for an SPI if you think it is necessary. Rumiton (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I confirm I sent the e-mail copied above to Rumiton. --JN466 13:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have been working on the Sathya Sai Baba article on and off over the last few years. I was accused of being a former banned user as well. I was accused of being SSS108. Of course I was not him, and the truth came out eventually. Radiantenergy has probably been the one of the most important editors of this article in the sense that he has a high degree of integrity and no axe to grind. If people are not aware this article has been under attack ever sense the beginning of wikipedia. There is a small but determined element out there wanting to defame Sai Baba and make it look like he was some kind of devil. Radiantenergy has been vigilant in restoring sanity to the article as well as being an editor interested in being fair to the concerns of editors diametrically opposed to him. People can say all they want about "allegations" against Sai Baba, the reality is that His legacy is overwhelming positive. People want to get rid of Radiantenergy because he wont allow the article to become a ridiculous spoof. Radiantenergy does not try and use the article for propaganda purposes like the editors who want to focus on "bad" things "allegedly" done by Sai Baba. If you look at the history of his posts and his commentating he is one of a few sane voices in this process.Sbs108 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defending yourself against claims:

  • I am not the Sock Puppet of user:Wikisunn. This is the most ridiculous claim I have come across. Why did I say that? I will explain below.
  • Jayen466 says there is "Semantic similarity in user name". "Radiant Energy" is a term related to electromagnetic waves energy. Does that mean every user in wikipedia who has interest in the fields of radiometry is my sock puppet accounts. Lets see if any other user account has similar username as mine.
User:Radiant!
User:Energy
User:Physicsjock
User:Energyfreezer
  • Based on Jayen466 arguments all the above accounts should be my sock puppet accounts since they all use similar name or part of my user name. I think this argument is absolutely illogical.
  • Jayen466 says "Both accounts are focussed on Baba". If Jayan466 had taken time to read my contributions then he would realised that I had contributed a lot even to other articles. [1], [2]. In fact [3] - this article was created by me.
  • Jayen466 said "Both have a habit of spelling "n't" as a separate word". Let see with in 5 minutes of my search I found 3 wikipedia article using the word "n't". If I spent more time I am sure I may find more articles and users who use the word "n't" instead of not. Does that mean all those users who used "n't" are my sock puppets? The following are the articles in Wikipedia which uses the word "n't".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masry_Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton-Eyed_Joe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibrach
  • Please remember that Wikipedia users are all around the world. User's Country, region and educational back grounds everything varies. There might be some terms which are used differently by group of people based on their regional and educational backgrounds. Some people write the word "Color" and some people write "Colour" does that mean all those who use the word "Colour" are sock puppets? The same argument applies to his "without" claims. Out of my 3 year contribution to this article since 2009 there might have been an instance or two where I forgot to leave a space between words or probably made a typo error. Does that mean I become a Sock Puppet of another user for that? Do we start to suspect every user of Sock puppetry who makes a typo or mistake when writing? What happened to [4]?
  • Regarding the last claim about User:White_Adept talk page - User:WhiteAdept was a Sock Puppet who made the Sathya Sai Baba article a BLP nightmare in 2009. He made 190 edits in a matter of 10 days adding vulgar murder pictures, libel content banned by arbitration commitee. There are several case including arbitration enforcement case on this user from both Sathya Sai Baba article as well as by Falun Gong article in which he was involved. I decided to clean up this Sathya Sai Baba article which was filled with libel content and broke every BLP rule at that time.
  • The article would have remained the same BLP nightmare if I hadn't taken up this cleaning effort. I can tell you it was not easy effort to get this article to this top shape from how it was in 2009. In the past 3 years I have brought the Sathya Sai Baba article to an encyclopedic standard using highly reliable references including scholarly sources through out the article.
  • I will also like to point out that on March 4th 2009 Jayen466 wrote in User:Jehochman talk page about User:WhiteAdept claims about me. As the claims were baseless and did not make much sense it was ignored. [5]
  • I don't see any sense in the above accusation claims of Sock Puppetry on me. I think I have addressed every claim issue and explained myself very well. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy it. And unfortunately, this style of denialism is common on the Sai Baba talk page as well when it comes to article content.
  • There are only 45 talk pages containing the phrase "with out discussing" in all of Wikipedia together. 6 of these feature one or several uses of the phrase by Wikisunn/Radiantenergy.
  • There are only 352 talk pages containing "n't" in all of Wikipedia together. 22 of these feature uses of the misspelling by Wikisunn/Radiantenergy.
  • As the user compare report shows, both have also made very similar edits to Swami Vivekananda:
    • 2007-02-05 18:46 UTC Wikisunn 1 Added Books on and by Swami vivekananda
    • 2009-01-29 04:12 UTC Radiantenergy 4 Added references to books on Swami Vivekananda
    • 2009-02-01 23:41 UTC Radiantenergy 3 Added to section Books on and by Swami Vivekananda
    • 2009-02-01 23:47 UTC Radiantenergy 2 Added more reference
    • 2009-02-17 19:11 UTC Radiantenergy 1 Books on and by Swami Vivekananda
The statistical likelihood of these being random occurrences is zero. Further stylistic research into the two accounts' language usage will, I'm sure, provide further points of commonality. (Any further commonalities should not be posted here, but provided offline to the attending admin, to prevent further socking in future.) --JN466 10:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CU probably couldn't help with this case, since the Wikisunn has been blocked so long. But the behavioral evidence looks strong.   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My defense against these Claims:

  • Following are some other users who also often used the term "with out discussing". Does that mean they are all my socks?
User:Khukri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhilKnight/Archive14
User:Ghostexorcist [8]
User:Philip Baird Shearer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Archive_18
User:Sethie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_11
User:Mohammad Adil [9]
User:Malevious [10]
  • n't is an auxiliary verb used by several users. If 352 talk pages have used the term "n't . Multiply that by the number of users who use this term often. That means all those users are my socks?
  • Millions of Wikipedia users who are in India or from India or who have visited India knows about "Mahabalipuram" and famous gurus like 'Swami Vivekananda" and his teacher "Ramakrishna Paramahamsa". There are big temples, schools, colleges and big Institutions on Swami Vivekananda and Ramakrishna all over India. Mahabalipuram is a famous tourist spot in India just like "Grand Canyon" is in US. Your argument does not make sense that I am a sock because I edited a famous tourist spot or famous guru's from India known to millions of people. There are 1000's of users who edit these page regularly because they are probbaly from India or familiar with those places.
  • Just because I edited famous tourist places from India or famous Guru from India once or twice in all these 3 years does not make me WikiSunn. What about all the other articles I contributed as unregistered IP which had nothing to do with India? See my userpage to see all those articles I edited before becoming a registered user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Radiantenergy

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs or links of recent problematic editing related to Sathya Sai Baba[edit]
  • Talk page contributions: User_talk:Rumiton#Sathya_Sai_Baba, Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Responses_to_criticism_section.
  • Recent edits you might consider: [11] (the phrasing "after indications that his challenge lacked merit" is not in the source, and Alaya Rahm is a living person; [12]. I'll add a link to this to the Sathya Sai Baba talk page; other editors may wish to weigh in. I haven't been watching the article or its talk page closely of late. --JN466 13:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor is acting like a public relations officer in that edit, yes. Could you find enough more to establish a pattern of pro (or con) editing? I think there are other problematic editors involved too. The talk page is a mess. Jehochman Talk 13:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make one point here that these were discussions I had with other editors related to the article issues User_talk:Rumiton#Sathya_Sai_Baba, Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Responses_to_criticism_section - I don't see what was wrong with that?
Jayen said in this [13] (the phrasing "after indications that his challenge lacked merit" is not in the source. This phrase "after indications that his challenge lacked merit" was not added by me to begin with. It was added by another user:Boromir123 years ago. [14] It was part of the article for years.
Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree the talk page is a mess, always has been, and there is more than one problematic editor. Unfortunately the editors with pronounced pro-Sai Baba or anti-Sai Baba bias have always outnumbered disinterested editors trying to fix the article. --JN466 21:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here on 29 April 2011 Radiantenergy argues that the BBC is not a reliable source. "BBC stories are not carved in stone. On many occasions they have retracted stories when they were forced to retract. Probably if there is a Class Action Suit on BBC by the Sathya Sai Organisation probably they may retract their stories. There are always fringe theories and make believe abuse allegation stories on the internet. As you very well know the negative attack sites on Sathya Sai Baba are filled with these libel stories." This is fully consistent with the arbitration committee's finding of fact that Wikisunn displays "a tendency to discount reliable sources if they differ from his own conclusions, 'I know there are alot of authors / Webmasters either praising or defaming Sai Baba. But they can be treated as reliable source only, when the real facts / reality matches with their claims. By that what I meant is, if there is no truth in their statements and there is no connection between what they are saying and what is really happening in Baba's ashram then they are not reliable sources.'" --JN466 20:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular argument about the BBC not being a reliable source is a longstanding one. Here in July 2009 Radiantenergy argued likewise, "BBC must be declared as 'unreliable'." Compare Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Editing_by_Wikisunn: "Wikisunn in this edit removes well sourced information from an article in The Times which accurately attributed to The Times the opinion that Sathya Sai Baba's teachings were 'a collection of banal truisms and platitudes'. Wikisunn commented 'I seek administrator’s help, please stop Andries from reverting this article again, adding vulgar quotes on Baba (breaking NPOV), non reliable sources. These edits were discussed in Thatcher's page'". --JN466 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit on 31 May 2010 may have removed reliably sourced material (the BBC's assertion that Indian press reporting was censored), and it devoted more than half the article's length to a long primary-sourced quote from Sathya Sai Baba himself. --JN466 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit from 25 April 2011 removed a reliably sourced section on an assassination attempt made on Sathya Sai Baba. This edit later that day removed it for a second time. The edit summary implied talk page agreement: "rmv as per talk page discussion and added the link to the main article". Radiantenergy's interlocutors on the talk page, Off2riorob and Will Beback, expressed surprise at the whole section having been deleted ("Am I looking in the wrong location? This content just appears to have been removed? Where is the agreement for that, all that is left is the link to the main article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)"; "Sorry, I haven't gotten to it yet. I'm away from the computer for a couple of hours, and will add it when I get back unless someone beats me to it. Will Beback talk 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)"). Removal of well sourced information was one of the arbitration findings. --JN466 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:My evidence against these claims of my disruptive edits:

I will like to point out Jayen466 was not involved in any of the BBC discussions and other discussions. He has misquoted facts and misrepresented my discussions as he was not present and I will like to clarify on the above.
  • Here Jayen466 stated - *Here on 29 April 2011 Radiantenergy argues that the 'BBC is not a reliable source..'.
  • This argument was related to BLP noticeboard discussion [16] about a Court Case which brought the earlier BBC documentary into question. How is a talk page discussion considered disruptive editing? The earlier BBC documentary had a lot of inflammatory material regarding the subject. I felt that its appropriate to discuss about this source. Talk Page is the place where the usage of different sources are weighed to be used appropriately in the Biography. How is this discussion considered disruptive to the article?
  • The next link provided by Jayen466 is from a reliable source noticeboard discussion - [17]
  • This was another BBC and other related source discussion in the Reliable Source Notice Board. If there is a question about the usage of the source that is the place to raise the issue. The BBC transcript is still used in the article. I did not remove it. I do not understand how a Reliable Source NoticeBoard discussion on weighing a source usage can be considered as disruption to the article?
  • This page was proposed to be deleted as it was filled with Libel content and strong POV statements but in the deletion discussion it was decided that the page will be kept but it was recommended that all libel content can be removed and the page shoud be cleaned up. They had given specific list of sources to be removed. I did not remove the BBC reference. It is still used in that article. I implemented the recommendations of the Deletion discussion. You can see the recommendations here - [18]
  • In the earlier RS discusison it was agreed that the Official websites could be used in religious articles. The reason being that some information regarding the Organisational structure could only be found in their official site or in primary source. Again I have never edit warred for removing any primary sources used in the article. Infact I helped in replacing the Whole Biography section which had heavily used Primary source with Secondary scholarly sources. Please see some of my edits adding highly regarded secondary scholarly sources. I spent more than a month in helping with this effort of adding highly reliable secondary sources to the Biography section.
[19], [20], [21]
  • In this edit the only reason it was removed because there was a dedicated article covering the same material. After my discussions with User:WillbeBack and User:Off2riorob the text was added back with correct wording. You can see my discussions in User:WillBeBack talk page - [22]. How is talking to other users and coming to an agreement about adding appropriate text - an evidence of disruption?
  • I do not understand how talk page and other discussions be considered as proofs of disruptive editing? Isn't the way Wikipedia works where every source is weighed and discussed in talk page and in noticeboard discussions?. I am not User:Wikisunn. In the last 3 years I haven't disrupted this article in any way. I have always discussed my edits in talk page with all the other editors. I rather helped in cleaning up this messy article filled with libel content and added highly regarded secondary scholarly sources. The talk page archives are proofs of my edit discussions. I have never disrupted this article in any way. If necessary, I can submit a history of my edits which helped to change this article from a BLP nightmare to a decent encyclopedic one.

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not believe in Radiantenergy's sockpuppetry[edit]
  • I am still following the discussion and I do not think Radiantenergy is a sockpuppet of Wikisunn. Nevertheless, I think that Radiantenergy's edits and comments are very rarely helpful in the last months. I admit that he corrected bad edits by an anti-SSB author a long time ago. When I make a detailed argument, Radiantenergy does not even attempt to counter it with reasoned argument, but only says that I have a Conflict of Interest. (The arbcom said that I had a CoI and I admit that I was very emotionally involved.) Andries (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've sent you a mail with further evidence to consider, just FYI. --JN466 12:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not look at any evidence yet, but I have seen Wikisunn's and Radiantsenergy's comments, arguments and edits. Their tone and personalities struck me as different. There has been until now never been any proven sockpuppetry on the SSB articles, though users have been scrutinized in two arbcom cases. Andries (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Modern arbitration practice is to issue sanctions that last at most one year. Only in exceptional circumstances are permanent bans issued, usually for recidivist behavior. JN466 admits that Radiatenergy was helpful in 2009 cleaning up BLP. My decision here will hinge on whether Radiantenergy's current editing is helpful or harmful. Please post diffs or an explanation of why current editing is damaging the article. Whether or not they are a sock puppet, something can be done about harmful editing.

If current editing is not harmful, or if Radiantenergy comes to an agreement with other editors to create a more healthy editing environment, I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, when filing a complaint like the one above, if you reference an arbitration decision, please link to it. I'll now go digging to see what happened there. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2, I will restate my position. In addition to any evidence that the accounts might be the same, I want to also see evidence that the accounts are engaged in the same sort of wrongdoing. That would be sufficient to place the new account under the sanction of the old one, whether the new account were a sock puppet, a meat puppet, or somebody unrelated who happens to be doing exactly the same wrong things. Should that happen RadiantEnergy would be free to appeal the ban directly to the Arbitration Committee. Jehochman Talk 13:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the evidence above, Radiantenergy is hereby considered the same editor as Wikisunn for the purpose of applying an indefinite topic ban. Whether they are the same editor, or merely friends, or unrelated parties with a strikingly similar point of view does not matter. We can never be sure if two editors are the same person, but when the behavior is both indistinguishable and problematic, any sanction applied to one may be extended to the other(s). Any further violation of the topic ban may result in an immediate block. This sanction may be appealed to ArbCom, or arbitration enforcement. Jehochman Talk 22:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn/Archive&oldid=1069904644"