Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikisunn

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sbs108 (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 23 May 2011 (→‎Comments by other users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

– This SPI case is open.

Wikisunn

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

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 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]

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 years ago. It was part of the article for years. I will look in the history to show you proofs of who added that statement originally.
Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn&oldid=430543483"