Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88

Moksha88

Moksha88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88/Archive.

28 May 2021

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Apollo1203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skubydoo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Harshmellow717 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hexcodes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Golfer1223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These accounts have worked together for at least six years to consistently promote information reflecting favorably on Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS) and associated entities, and remove information unfavorable to them. They've done this while working against a rival anti-BAPS sockfarm that they've managed to get banned (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swamiblue); the other sockmaster has tried to return the favor, but Moksha & co. have helpfully removed such accusations.

A brief note on scope here: The master account here was registered in 2006, and the evidence shows socking dating back to 2015. The accounts have over 6,000 edits between them; Apollo has PCR rights. And throughout these years of socking, these accounts have relentlessly worked together to skew talkpage discussions in their favor. If this sockpuppetry is confirmed, a thorough review will be needed of the damage they've caused in this topic area.

The five other than Moksha caught my eye when they all !voted to delete at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 26 § 2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy, all citing rationales that were sort of uncanny-valley similar to normal RFD rationales. I checked their projectspace contributions and found that none of the five had ever !voted at RFD before; in fact, Hexcodes and Golfer had never edited projectspace at all before.

Interactions

All but Golfers and Hexcodes have heavily edited the same core set of BAPS articles. Golders and Hexcodes, meanwhile, have only shown passing interest in the topic, making their participation in the RFD all the more intriguing. And the six of them sure do tend to agree on things. The following is drawn just from Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya, and is just a cherry-picked list, not exhaustive.

• Moksha88 agreeing with Apollo1203 ([1] (supporting an RM) [2] [3] (also notes mistake Apollo made) [4]), with Harshmellow ([5] (also notes mistake Harshmellow made) [6]), and with Skubydoo
• Apollo agreeing with Harshmellow, with Moksha (first edit to page), and with both Harshmellow and Moksha
• Harshmellow agreeing with Skubydoo ([7] [8])
• Skubydoo agreeing with Harshmellow, with Apollo ([9] [10] [11]), with Moksha, and with both Moksha and Apollo

They get along very well. They disagree sometimes, but never on anything important:

• Moksha reverts Apollo and asks them to justify their reasoning. Apollo does. Moksha decides they agree.
• Moksha asks Harshmellow and Apollo their opinion
• Harshmellow notes a mistake by Skuby and Moksha. Moksha apologies.
• Harshmellow thanks Skubydoo and Apollo, then asks if Apollo can make an edit they're having trouble with technically.
• Moksha tells Harshmellow to keep talk on the page they're on, and then suggests a slight tweak to Harshmellow's idea

Meanwhile Golfer and Hexcodes have joined the other four to remove negative content from Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America). Hexcodes thanks Skubydoo for their edits.

Messages back and forth: Harshmellow to Skubydoo, several from Moksha to Apollo including a barnstar, Apollo to Moksha.

Similarities

I think all of that establishes pretty well that these accounts are working together. But are they the same person? Well, to start with a small thing, the main four almost always use curly quotes/apostrophes in talkpage comments: Moksha ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16]), Apollo, Harshmellow ([17] [18]), Skubydoo ([19] [20] [21] [22]). (Golfer has never edited talkspace. Hexcodes has rarely, and has only used quotation marks once, using straight quotes in that case; the others do use straight quotes occasionally too, though.) More damningly, though, we have a very particular tendency: parenthetical policy-shortcut references, often unlinked, e.g. don't engage in sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK). And the main four all share that for sure: Moksha ([23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]), Apollo ([29] [30] [31]), Harshmellow ([32] [33] [34]), Skubydoo ([35] [36])

Futhermore, Moksha, Apollo, and Harshmellow have used their sandboxen to share proposed edits to an article.

All six editors' timecards show a bedtime of around 5PM-6PMAM UTC, although with varying amounts of nighttime activity. All write in clear, fluent English. And all six really don't want Wikipedia to discuss the human trafficking allegations against BAPS in New Jersey.

I've discussed this a fair bit with Blablubbs, who noticed several other similarities, which he'll post about when he has the chance. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just to clarify: English fluency is relevant because, if you were to take six random editors who edit in the topic area of Hinduism, it's fairly unlikely for all six to speak fluent English (in a dialect that reads North American at first blush) and keep a sleep schedule that suggests being based in North America. Furthermore, even of six randomly selected Americans or Canadians who speak English as a first language, it's fairly unlikely for all six to use the same speech register. There's no moral judgment involved there, just a statistical observation. It's not like there's anything wrong with people who speak less-than-fluent English editing the English Wikipedia—we have a top-notch admins and valued content creators who fall into that category—nor with people editing articles about topics from different corners of the globe; it's just that we can use the overall statistical trends here as evidence when looking for behavioral similarities. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Skubydoo: Oh come on. I initially wrote 5PM-6PM, then realized my mistake and amended to 5PM-6AM, accidentally failing to correct the first "PM" as well. I think that's pretty obvious.

  I have no way of knowing if any of you is a person of color. Your userpage, at least, does not indicate that you are. My statement is only offensive if you view it as an insult to say that someone doesn't speak fluent English. I do not view it that way. This is no different from observing that a cohort of editors all use British spelling or something like that. I do find it amusing for you to level this critique in the same thread where you've nitpicked the word "pharmacy" versus the word "pharmaceutical" with an editor who does not speak English as his first language. Meanwhile, I struggle to believe that your good-faith reading of my last comment is that I think that non-fluent English speakers can only be admins or edit in the topic area of Hinduism... especially when I said top-notch admins and valued content creators. Y'know, gaslighting isn't very effective when the original statements are right here on the same page for everyone to view.

  Now, if you'd like to call me a racist again, WP:ANI is thataway. Sure would help speed up this SPI, so be my guest. Otherwise, I'd kindly ask that you not cast such aspersions, and simply do what I'm doing and wait for the CUs/admins to get back to us. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm thinking further about Hexcodes and Golfer. It's tough, because the main behavioral evidence we've used for the other five has been talk-page contributions, and neither has much of them. If we look back to the RfD, Hexcodes went along with Skubydoo's rather perplexing argument that having a redirect titled "2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy" would somehow make it harder for people to find content about the Akshardham Temple attack. I will grant that Golfer was the only one to advance a deletion rationale that made sense. To me the main thing is the shift in behavior in the context of the forced labor controversy: the first edit Golfer ever made outside of mainspace or their own userspace was to ask why the controversy was even being discussed on talk; their second such edit was to the RfD; and their third was to this SPI. That's it. Likewise, Hexcodes' first participation in any on-wiki discussion was flagging the plagiarism they mentioned and agreeing with Skubydoo about not mentioning the controversy; other than the RfD and this SPI, they have participated in a discussion only once since then.
  If there's no CU evidence, and no one can find better behavioral evidence than what we have, then my thinking is there probably isn't grounds to block as sock/meatpuppets. However, I do think it's extremely likely that these accounts have a COI here. I can assume coincidence to a degree, but it's just so unlikely for that to be the first thing that these accounts ever decide to engage in discussion on. If they aren't blocked, they should be aware that any future editing in the BAPS topic area will likely be met with serious scrutiny. It's neither editor's primary focus, so if this really is all a horrible misunderstanding, it seems like the best thing they could do for themselves is just voluntarily abstain from that topic area. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at Sacredsea (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), with a focus on their non-mainspace contribs. We've got:

  • Lots of pov-pushing (see... basically all of it)
  • Agreeing with others listed here [37] [38] [39] etc.
  • Working on a draft with Moksha
  • Proposing changes drafted in sandbox
  • Unlinked policy shortcuts in basically every post. Only saw one with the telltale (WP:SHORTCUT) phrasing, but I didn't check all of them.

  I can gather more diffs if desired, but with the patterns we've worked out, I think a lot of these edits speak for themselves. Good looking out, User:Kbhatt22. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• I have not shared accounts or information on or offline with anyone.

With regard to my use of Wikipedia, when I made my account in 2020, I found The Wikipedia Adventure (TWA) under "learn to edit" (it is called "A training adventure game" there).

With regard to my interactions with the editors listed on this page, I have not interacted with Moksha88, Apollo1203, Harshmellow717, and Golfer1223. I have thanked not only Skubydoo but also another user in the post linked by Tamzin, and I have thanked other editors whose edits I have appreciated: [40]. I have been editing articles relating to my interests in art, architecture, the environment, and literature. But I’m not very interested in medical topics or biology in general, and I have not edited the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page.

With regard to my edits to the Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America) article, I heard about the allegations outside of Wikipedia. I think it is an interesting court case, [41] so I looked it up here. I removed plagiarized text from the article [42] [43] and I posted on the talk page to clarify my approach and intent. Two weeks later, when I searched Wikipedia for updates, I came across the RfD page we are discussing and read about relevant policies before voting to delete the redirect pages. Nobody asked me to make these edits, and I have not discussed the contents of these pages with anyone offline.

Tamzin, I appreciate that you consider my English to be "clear" and "fluent." My language and bedtime reflect my nationality, which will be reflected by my IP address. Hexcodes (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I joined Wikipedia in March of 2019, therefore it is impossible for me to have worked with any Wikipedia user for 6 years as is being alleged. I do not know any of the users mentioned in this SPI outside of Wikipedia and I am not a user of any of the accounts listed in this investigation or of any other account except for Apollo1203.

Regarding a sockpuppet case with Swamiblue, after user Applebutter221 was proven to be a sockpuppet of Swamiblue, I, individually, removed his edits from articles as per Wikipedia guidance.

I requested pending changes review privileges in response to the disruptive editing and vandalism that was on the Vachanamrut article. An article I had spent significant time researching, reviewing, and improving. I was granted such rights October 2020 but I am unaware how applying and receiving these rights (by an admin) implicates me to other users? I posted my intent to revamp the Vachanamrut article on the Swaminarayan Wikiproject. Users Harshmellow and Moksha88 are 2 of 31 users in the project, so it is not a coincidence or a conspiracy that they also edit and engage on similar articles related to the Swaminarayan Wikiproject as myself.

Regarding the use of my sandbox: the purpose of the sandbox is to experiment with edits, templates, and other Wikipedia functions. I would assume all Wikipedia editors utilize this function to avoid errors in article edits or talk page posts. Tamzin, please see [44] for more information on sandbox use.

Investigating my syntax in talk pages seems farfetched. I typically copy the mentions or shortcuts based on what is available in the source code prior to me. I don’t think this is a Wikipedia violation or indication of ‘sockpuppeting.’

Blablubbs I am not a pharmacist as you have falsely stated. If you read my user page, I explain that my uncle, a professor of pharmacy, introduced me to the study of religion.

I checked the edit history between Blablubbs and Tamzin and I can’t seem to find where this particular SPI was discussed ‘a fair bit.’ Both users acknowledge discussing yet there is no record of it on Wikipedia. If it was done offline, I’m curious what was said that could not be discussed on talk pages? Maybe these two users know each other outside of Wikipedia? Apollo1203 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Woah I'm not a sockpuppet and I don't know any of these people. I am a pharmacist but I don't see why I'm being called a sockpuppet. I have been learning how to use Wikipedia just by looking around and reading about the Wiki world. I guess I'm being investigated for contributing my opinion! I won't let that stop me from chiming in on other discussions.Golfer1223 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• As my edit history reflects, I briefly edited in 2006-2007 before taking a hiatus until 2019. In this time, I have edited broadly. I started with articles related to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and expanded to other interests, like COVID-19, multiple myeloma, palliative care [1]. As I am part of the Swaminarayan Wikiproject, I have I interacted with a number of other editors who are part of that Wikiproject including Apollo and Harshmellow [2]. Outside of this capacity, I do not personally know any of the users in the Swaminarayan Wikiproject nor do I know the other 3 editors.

Tamzin cites the barnstar I gave to Apollo for improving the Vachanamrut article as evidence that I get along well with others. Parts of the previous version of the article was plagiarized from a BAPS essay, and Apollo improved this article significantly. Typically, socks give barnstars to establish their credibility in conversations (WP:OVERBARN). I would encourage Tamzin and Blablubbs to find an edit where the lone barnstar I ever gave was ever cited to establish credibility in a conversation. And when others overlook core policy, I have pointed it out in a civil way.

To my knowledge, the only “socking dating back to 2015” highlighted by Tamzin is that of Swamiblue, which actually dates back to 2013. Swamiblue reemerged as 2 socks [1][2] following the retirement of Bbb23, the admin who had previously blocked Swamiblue. In July 2020, I filed the initial SPI against Applebutter, and it took 15 days before the case was closed. Had it not been for our collective efforts over this interval, this user’s battleground behavior [1][2] and the degradation of existing articles with the removal of reliable sources and BLP violations would have gone uncorrected. Tamzin seems to have overlooked these edits in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article and others in highlighting how we “relentlessly worked together to skew talkpage discussions in [our] favor.”

Finally, I would encourage those accusing me to identify any edits I made related to the allegations raised against Akshardham in the last 2 weeks or colluded with others to remove any “negative content.*”[1][2] In fact, I have been incorporating information related to the COVID-19 response on each of the BAPS North America mandir articles, where coverage is better represented. [1][2][3][4][5] It’s unclear to me how I was votestacking in the absence of “selectively notifiying” others or tagteaming with them about the RfD discussion.

Altogether, Tamzin and Blablubbs have raised allegations against me which are unsubstantiated and circumstantial. It’s unfortunate they confuse stewardship with tag teaming, and I would encourage them to review their evidence more closely the next time they go through the trouble to lodge these complaints. Moksha88 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• To answer the query by L235 (talk · contribs) I do not know any of the users listed in the SPI outside of Wikipedia. I came across Moksha88 (talk · contribs), Apollo1203 (talk · contribs), and Skubydoo (talk · contribs) when editing the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article. I do not recall directly interacting with Hexcodes (talk · contribs) and Golfer1223 (talk · contribs).

With regards to Tamzin (talk · contribs) and Blablubbs (talk · contribs) points about similarities between users. There are more than 41 million registered users on the English Wikipedia. I’d imagine there is significant overlap between users in their choice of templates, wiki formatting, and editing style. I have picked up template and formatting preferences by emulating what other editors are doing. I live and work in NYC and my editing times are based on my availability.

I do attempt to work with other users in a collaborative manner to avoid hostility and maintain civility. Outside of Swaminarayan related articles I mostly make edits fixing grammar and adding/verifying citations. I became involved in the discussion about the Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy when I edited a few BAPS related articles as per (WP:RSBREAKING and WP:OR). I then reached out to the editor who created the 2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy page (see diff) and got involved in the RFD after receiving no response from the editor.

Blablubbs (talk · contribs) I am a Molecular Biologist not a Microbiologist, and NOT a sockpuppet. The assertation that two editors who have both expressed interest in Indian music is indicative of sockpuppetry is just silly. I highly suggest that Tamzin (talk · contribs) and Blablubbs (talk · contribs) read WP:NOASSUMESOCK and WP:WORLDVIEW. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi all,

The discussions pertaining to me and my edits have been addressed below: First, I noticed that the reasons cited on the RfD page to support that this redirect page should not be kept are from WP:RFD#KEEP. Rather than engaging in the ongoing discussion on the RfD page, it appears that Tamzin filed an SPI. It should be noted that WP:CHECK says that Checkuser should not be used in order to threaten editors into compliance.

Second, I did not remove anything from the Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America) article.

And all six really don't want Wikipedia to discuss

I’ll quickly recap my participation. Another user had removed the allegations, and I agreed with leaving it off for the time being, per WP:SUSPECT. When an editor clarified this sub-policy on the talk page, I helped integrate it more thoroughly into the article instead. “Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear “true” and “undisputed”, whereas other, segregated material is deemed “controversial”, and therefore more likely to be false” -- WP:STRUCTURE. Further, I clarified the article through copy edits. Perhaps Tamzin mistook my participation in the talk page discussion for my edits. Third, I edit articles about human rights, like UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Convention on Consent to Marriage, Murder of Laquan McDonald, and Chicago Police Department as well as articles about animal rights, hence my pharmaceutical-related not

pharmacy-related

edits on Animal products in pharmaceuticals.

Fourth, I noticed that others have given remarks on English fluency. Could you explain why it is notable that articles related to South Asian religious traditions are edited by English speakers, and particularly ‘’’fluent’’’ English speakers?

Lastly, if the use of the phrase "New to Wikipedia." is indeed uncommon, then why is it being noted? In any case, “New to Wikipedia” was my response to the ubiquitous new user welcome message “New to Wikipedia?” Proud to have made over 600 contributions since then and looking forward to making more in the future. Will be sure to link policies and essays from now on. Thank you for reviewing this information.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin,  

While others may find comments about English fluency flattering, that is not how it comes across to me and this can be perceived as a personal attack. Many people of color find such comments to be racist. Please see some examples and explanations of this phenomenon of racial microagression at the following links for reference:  [45]  [46]  [47]  [48] 

First, to me, Tamzin’s assertion that for editors of Hinduism-related topics to have "clear, fluent English" is so surprising that it is indicative of fraud evokes the racist trope explained in the links I have posted. The reason I am not exploring further action on this point, but merely hoping to educate the editor who is making this offensive implication , is that it is not clear whether the racism here is purposeful or merely inadvertent.   

Second, if it is true that editors on Hinduism-related topics "statistically" do not have clear, fluent English, then Wikipedia articles on Hinduism-related topics should be systemically riddled with poor English, grammatical errors, etc. While this is the implication of Tamzin’s argument, I have found to the contrary, that the majority of Wikipedia articles on Hinduism-related topics have been written in clear, fluent English by editors who would have to have clear, fluent English.  

Moreover, Tamzin writes that they’re making a "statistical observation." The idea of considering "six random editors" of Hinduism-related topics does not apply to this situation, since edit history shows that Golfer1223 and Hexcodes have not previously edited "in the topic area of Hinduism." When considering "overall statistical trends," randomness cannot be the first six elements which are chosen, particularly when there is no chance involved and when the total population has not been considered at all. That’s a "cherry-picked list." 

Third, it’s unclear, without any examples given, what Tamzin considers similarities in "speech register." The article which is linked by Tamzin correctly explains that register is determined by two factors, namely, the use and the user. On Wikipedia, the use of language is the same for everyone. WP:EQ says politeness, civility, and clear and accessible explanations are important, so it is no wonder that most users would invoke a similar speech register. Further, the use of language is even more similar among editors who edit in South Asian religious traditions. I personally am accustomed to practicing sensitivity and clarity in my posting as the result of past experiences. Similarities in users indeed exist; as do differences. 

Fourth, I did not say anything relating language fluency to "moral judgement." Since Tamzin brought it up, though, here is the "judgement" more explicitly explained: Tamzin’s initial statement "people who speak less-than-fluent English... we have a few top-notch admins who fall into that category." implies that "less-than-fluent" speakers can either be "top-notch admins" or users who edit articles "in the topic area of Hinduism" without drawing suspicion from Tamzin.  

Fifth, Tamzin asserts that "All six editors' timecards show a bedtime of around 5PM-6PMAM UTC, although with varying amounts of nighttime activity." I fail to see how a 13-hour span of time as a bedtime is indicative of six editors being a single user.  Taken together, an unquantified statistical analysis, an unsubstantiated reference to linguistic patterns, and an amended statement about a valued minority don't show "behavioral similarities." Despite these frustrating allegations, Checkuser will show that I am not any of these other accounts.  

A note for admins: if Tamzin’s conclusions based on "clear, fluent English" and "sleep schedule" point to a shared geographic location and presumably justify Checkuser, why also explicitly infer "North America" as a common location? I don’t think that posting about the presumed location of other editors is a productive use for a public forum.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin,

I am not saying that you are racist. What I am saying is that the argument made presuming lack of English fluency of editors of Hinduism-related topics can be seen as such. I think it is important to be conscious of such potential biases and seek to correct them when such occasions do arise. If we do so, we then don’t need to worry about what we do and do not know about each other's identities based on a limited amount of information available. I apologize if I caused offense, but I do hope you can re-read my comments and take them seriously.

My fourth point above is not gaslighting as it quotes directly from the edit history of this page, which is why I called it your “initial statement.”

Thank you for clarifying your point that all users have a bedtime of 5AM-6AM. Looking at the timecard post made by Blablubbs, the 5AM-6AM bedtime only applies to two users Golfer1223 and Apollo1203, and not to any of the others, so even the corrected statement is not accurate. There would be millions of people who share that bedtime, so to have two editors share it out of the six accused of sockpuppetry is not very convincing.

I think a useful explanatory supplement here is WP:COMPETENCE. In it, we see that the first thing one may presume in editing English Wikipedia is for users to have “the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.” I am not commenting on anyone’s language proficiency or whether they speak English as a first language. I am suggesting, however, that competence should be and is a safe assumption on Wikipedia, and demonstration of language competence cannot be an indication of sockpuppetry.

I feel the articles I sent will help illuminate the point I am making, and I do hope you read them. Thank you.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Other accounts

More accounts are probably involved; see, for example Talk:Criticism of Swaminarayan sect: Revision history, User:ThaNDNman224 and User:Actionjackson09. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been kind of watching from the sidelines and want to thank the admins for their due diligence in sussing out this meat/sock puppetry. I have had my doubts for a while by following the history of this user group and how heavily they gang up on anyone trying to make edits that don't fit their pro-baps narrative. User:Peaceray had given me some guidance on how to combat this and I had tried to create an NPOV request against Moksha and Apollo to get a fresh opinion on a change to which Skubydoo responded as the supposed "neutral" entity. They completely lop sided consensus in a dispute resolution request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_193#Swaminarayan_Sampradaya. They even made me cry at one point because of how they would attack from every angle about previous edits made and current ones and endless circular discussions. There is another account that I came across with something like "SacredSea" in the name that was doing reverts for them where they would trap other users in 3RRs but avoid it themselves by using that account. I will try to find the exact account. Thanks to the admins here for all their hard work. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk endorsed - I've indeed discussed this with Tamzin, and I think there's grounds for a check here. My operating assumption is that we're probably looking at two sockmasters who are coordinating somehow. Some notes:
  • There are similarities in their pings, namely that all of them use templates inconsistently and that they change over time; many use long-form templates ({{reply to}} or {{user}} as opposed to the more commonly used shortcuts; ApolloHarshmellowMoksha, though apollo uses {{u}} elsewhere, as does Skubydoo). Previously (and importantly before the reply tool was a thing), many accounts used piped links ([[user:$1|$1]]) to ping: [49]; [50]; [51]; [52][53].
  • I also note userpage similarities: Apollo and Golfer both describe themselves as pharmacists, Harshmellow professes to be a microbiologist, and Apollo and Harshmellow both profess interest in Indian music.
  • There is a distinct and unusual timecard pattern for Harshmellow and Golfer ([54][55]) with clusters of activity in the same narrow time range (0100-0500 UTC). Apollo also has a strong cluster there ([56]), and the others are broadly similar as well ([57][58]).
  • There is topical overlap outside of BAPS; Golfer and Skubydoo both edit pharmacy-related articles ([59][60][61])
  • There are similar edit summaries, though they're not entirely consistent across all accounts – one distinct behaviour is referring to policies in edit/revert summaries without linking them, and sometimes leaving a space after WP:: [62][63][64][65][66][67][68]. I also note that Apollo and Moksha both use the present participle in most of theirs [69][70].
  • Golfer and Hexcodes both started out on Wikipedia doing TWA, which Harshmellow also completed following a return from hibernation in 2019. Moksha was also reactivated in 2019 (albeit a few months apart), after having slept for 10 years. Skubydoo's first edit was to create their talk page with the phrase "New to Wikipedia.", which is something that is fairly uncommon among people who are indeed new to Wikipedia.
• Combined with the suspected votestacking at RFD, the topical overlap, POV, tag teaming on talk pages and substantial overlap between some of them, I think CU is warranted to sort out what exactly is going on here and to look for others. I'm aware that Apollo has been checked in the past, but I think it is worth revisiting this and comparing all the accounts here to each other. Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 12:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Putting this on hold awaiting responses from the users. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Apollo1203: Sorry about the professor confusion. Tamzin asked me for advice on Discord, and I offered some – it's not unusual for people to ask for second opinions off-wiki if they're not sure about something. --Blablubbs|talk 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• I just want to mention that I haven't forgotten about this – I was away from internet for about a week and am catching up; this is just a more complicated case than normal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• When I last checked some weeks ago, the result was  Unrelated.
• Nonetheless, the behavioral evidence is so convincing that I am compelled to block, for now, Moksha88, Apollo1203, Skubydoo, and Harshmellow717. No comment as to whether they're technically-proficient socks or WP:MEAT. I am still considering Hexcodes and Golfer1223. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• The best available behavioral evidence indeed suggests that Actionjackson09 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is part of the Moksha88 group. Blocked. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

---