Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatehji/Archive
Fatehji
- Fatehji (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
02 February 2011[edit]
- Suspected sockpuppets
- RogerThatOne72 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Kundalini yoga is the subject of renewed enthusiasm from editors who seem to be followers of Yogi Bhajan and are working here as single-purpose accounts. At least three of the participants (Fatehji, RogerThatOne72 and 66.65.62.138) are the same editor, according to YellowMonkey's CU findings from last September. YM's information was given on his own talk page. These editors make frequent personal attacks on anyone who undoes their revisions of the Kundalini yoga article. (Scan down the IP's contribution list and look at the tone of the edit summaries, including 'you suck' which was the edit summary for this charming exchange in April, 2010).
Fatehji was blocked for 72 hours in February 2010, after which the IP started editing in the same cause. The new account, RogerThatOne72, started editing in August 2010 after Fatehji had stopped editing. Their POV seems to exaggerate the importance of Yogi Bhajan in the history of Kundalini yoga.
A lengthy account of the life and teachings of Yogi Bhajan can can be found at this link on the SikhiWiki. Even that article is more modest than the new material than the above editors insist on adding at Kundalini yoga.
It is a formal violation of WP:SOCK for this person to edit Kundalini yoga, a contested article, with both his IP and with his RogerThatOne72 account. Since the disruption has continued over a long period of time I propose an indef for RogerThatOne72 and a long-term block of the IP.
I've previously discussed what to do with other admins at User talk:SpacemanSpiff#Kundalini yoga and User talk:Gatoclass#Kundalini yoga and multiple accounts. I will notify them of this filing in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comment I'd come to the article after seeing a report at WP:ANEW initiated by Rogerthatone, but mostly because I was involved in cleaning up some of the POV that goes around in the 3HO/Yogi Bhajan set of articles. Fatehji was put on notice at ANI and subsequently abandoned that account to start with the next one, thereby avoiding WP:SCRUTINY. The edits by the IP and sock subsequent to the ANI notice are sufficient to block, but there are potentially other socks as many of these accounts play only on one article at a time within the 3HO/YB set, so a fresh SPI using the prior logs might not be a bad idea. —SpacemanSpiff 19:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
Clerk note: I'm closing this with no action, and here's why. Based on behavioral evidence, I'm pretty convinced that RogerThatOne72 == 66.65.62.138. The problem, though, is that the IP hasn't edited in more than eight days, so I can't really justify a block on an IP that old. Similarly, Fatehji hasn't edited in more than half a year - and isn't even currently blocked. If either the IP or Fatehji become active again then relist it (a bit sooner, preferably) and we can act on it. Until then, though, I don't think we should act on pretty stale accounts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
