Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardeeph

Sardeeph

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

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

12 May 2018

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• JosephusOfJerusalem (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.

Today JosephusOfJerusalem filed two reports on WP:ARE against long-term established editors,[1][2] the style of reporting multiple users to ARE is strongly reminiscent of Sardeeph who also had filed similar spurious reports against me and Kautilya3 on the same day at ARE, not too long ago.[3][4]

Sardeeph was eventually blocked by Boing! said Zebedee and Black Kite for WP:NOTHERE after a long WP:ANI thread[5] that he had himself started and cited same type of evidence that JosephusOfJerusalem has cited on ARE, as well as attempted to canvass dozens of editors just like JosephusOfJerusalem is doing on WP:ARE at this moment.

Sardeeph was indeffed on 20 October 2017. JosephusOfJerusalem registered on 18 October but made his first article space edit on 31 October.[6] It's also worth mentioning that Sardeeph had made only 35 edits.

• Sardeeph filed two ARE reports against me and Kautilya3 on 30 July 2017.[7][8]
• And today, JosephusOfJerusalem filed two ARE reports against Capitals00 and D4iNa4.[9][10]
• The notification left by JosephusOfJerusalem and Sardeeph are also same:

There is a discussion about your behaviour at WP:AE.[11]

Please see WP:AE for discussion about your behavior.[12]

• Also note that they both mention socking history of editors in their reports:

Sardeeph: User has an extensive block history over edit wars and socking.[13]

JosephusOfJerusalem: A history of sockpuppetry.[14]

• Both cites WP:CHERRYPICKED.[15][16]
• Both filed frivolous complaints against Kautilya3 for getting him blocked.[17][18][19]
• Both shares the same feuds with Kautilya3.[20][21][22][23]
• Same WikiLawyering on edit summaries.[24][25]

Same style of composing sentences:

• "message there needs to be a more solid reason"[26]

"pulls there needs to be a paragraph"[27]

• "reach a conclusion not stated in either"[28]

"implying a conclusion not supported in any"[29]

• "stick to policy based arguments rather" [30]

"also have more policy based arguments" [31]

• "It strengthens my view" [32]

"strengthens my case against" [33]

• "It does not matter how many"[34]

"it does not matter what"[35]

• "I am afraid there is" [36]

"I am afraid these prejudices" [37]

• "been here for a long time and requires"[38]

"observer for a long time nevertheless" [39]

• "fit into the article"[40]

"add them into the article" [41]

• "this comment is opinion" [42]

"this comment is particularly telling" [43]

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 15:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Except the convincing evidence above, I have found some more similarities that cannot be found in anyone else:

• After seeing opposition, he alleges the involved established editors of being "close" to each other:-

• JOJ: "MBlaze Lightning as I said is very close to Capitals00" [44]
• Sardeeph: " these users to each other (Vanamode and Joshua and Kautilya). Their talk page histories reveal a great deal of closeness to each other" [45]

• Canvasses admins he believes handled a "similar" case before:-

• JOJ: "I am going to invite administrator Sandstein who dealt with a similar case with similar users to take a survey of these cases."
• Sardeeph: "I am pinging Spartaz and Salvio Giuliano who have experience with blocking a similar India POV pusher Mrt3366."[46]

• Tries to boast that opposition against Kautilya3 apparently exist:-

• JOJ "shows is that many people have disputes with Kautilya3" [47]
• Sardeeph: "other editors have found the same problems with Kautilya3" [48]

• Claims other editors are engaging in "tendentious editing" while filing report against them.[49][50]

• And usual claims of others engaging in "tendentious editing" around.[51][52]

This is a clear case of WP:DUCK. Capitals00 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This is a spurious report, a weaponisation, if I may say so, of SPI to derail the WP:AE threads I have opened about the rude language and behaviour of Capitals00 and D4iNa4, users who are close to the filer. The reason I opened two threads is because the behavioural problems of both Capitals00 and D4iNa4 are identical. It is also worth mentioning here that D4iNa4 has even been under the radar as a potential sock of Capitals00. The SPI found them technically 'unlikely', yet the evidence of coordination was noted by the users.

MBlaze Lightning as I said is very close to Capitals00 and there is plenty in the way of evidence of their WP:TAGTEAM. As a small example I will cite these diffs of both Capitals00[53] and MBlaze Lightning[54] reverting text on Mridu Rai against WP:STATUSQUO, with deeply patronising edit summaries by both. A survey of the history of Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus shows that neither of the two users had much participation in the discussions except for fleeting statements. Yet both coordinated in the removal of the same content with a similar behaviour.

I also had warned Capitals00 that I would take him to WP:AE because of his behaviour. I did not take him there straight away, as this Sardeeph appears to have done, but gave an ample number of warnings over time.[55][56]. So you cannot use my simple filing of AE threads about Capitals00 as proof.

You also bring up Kautilya3's history to make your case. Kautilya3 has disputes with many users, this thread being a recent example. Interesting to read is that user's own admission of "Yes, Fowler and I have argued many times, and will probably continue to argue. But that is my battle and it doesn't concern you." A search through records also reveal that other users have filed SPI claiming a link between Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning. Of course I do not endorse this but what all this shows is that many people have disputes with Kautilya3 so just because 2 people have disputes with Kautilya3 does not mean they are the same persons.

The rest of the case is based on linguistic analysis but I do not see language similarities. Different language structures have been shown and are being passed off as "similar." These phrases ("there needs to be", "policy based", "strengthens my argument") are commonly used in the English language and across the encyclopedia. This SPI, covering MBlaze Lightning's linguistic match with Spartucus, is far more convincing and precise, yet was ignored.

Going through Sardeeph's ANI thread I found significant differences between me and Sardeeph.

Sardeeph uses ' ' or a single ', but I use " for my speech marks. Sardeeph puts 2 brackets for internal wiki links, I use one bracket and prefer to incorporate diffs into my texts.

It is also worth noting that closer to October MBlaze Lightning supported a frivolous SPI against me, here. He seems unable to decide whose so-called "sock" I am. MBlaze Lightning filed another frivolous report, based on alleged behavioural similarities, against KA$HMIR, here. The frivolity of these constant reports calls for a WP:BOOMERANG.

I would recommend an immediate closure of this purely retaliatory SPI. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Note to adminitrators compare this SPI to the one the filer filed against me. Each of these look like ducks to him. Aside from that he trails my edits. Would recommend he be put on restriction when filing SPIs.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Because if he was wrong once, he will certainly be wrong every other time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Judging from his editing habits, his intentions and ambitions become apparent, so yes. Even if a CU is run, it's quite clear he's trying to blackmail anyone he's in disagreement with.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

PS he wasn't wrong "once".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The ″evidence″ pasted by Capitals00 is called ″catching at straws.″ The sentences he is citing are very different. I am not the only editor to claim other editors like you are making ″tendentious″ edits, see POV charges against your group of editors in this AE. I am also not the only editor to call a spade a spade and say that Kautilya3 is opposed by many editors as a non neutral editor, see this for example. Pinging involved administrators is a common practice, see this for example.

Now lets take a look at the similarities of your (Capitals00) sentences with MapSGV which were considered ″unconvincing″ by the administrators in the recent SPI about you and MapSGV. Not only did you and MapSGV restore the same content on obscure pages in edit wars with the same user, here [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] and here [65][66][67], revert with the same rationale (″copyvio″)[68][69] but you also had similar language. These are only some examples from a big sea.

1. ″I haven't come across any editors with this much incompetence that they can't even understand simple English″
2. ″but given your incompetence and WP:IDHT issues you just can't understand a thing″
3. ″Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed″
4. ″you have clearly singled out MapSGV despite he is the biggest victim here″
5. ″why are you buying into frivolous tagging... You can't edit war over such frivolous tagging... before such frivolous tagging you have to raise them here″
6. ″I didn't even saw your frivolous warning I just went ahead to write a note on your talk page, highlighting your history of mass disruption″

Now I am not arguing that you and MapSGV are related. But given that the evidence you have posted here is even weaker than the evidence in the SPI concerning you which was rejected for ″unconvincing″ evidence, why should the so-called ″similarities″ you are citing in this case be any different? The language that you have presented looks different to me. My suggestion to you is to worry about the AE report you are involved in. I also ask the administrators to close this frivolous SPI which has been filed as retaliation for these AE reports. [70][71]. This is just a witchhunt. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• These guys are filibustering and obfuscating as usual. Let me just point out the MBlaze Lightning–Spartcus match wasn't "ignored". It was checked.

MBlaze's evidence is plausible and warrants a CU check. I would also like to add that Josephus has been playing games from the beginning, e.g., donning a Jewish historian garb and quickly coming around to help Danish.mehraj26 and KA$HMIR in their botched attempts to blank the 1947 Poonch Rebellion article. Things are never what they seem, with this editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the clerk note from the MBlaze Lightning-Spartucus case: "I've spent considerable time weighing this case's evidence over the past two days. On one hand, the behavioural evidence is non-negligible and, on the face of it, appears to demonstrate clear similarities between MBlaze Lightning and Spartacus! (ArghyaIndian). On the other hand, the clear CU result would tend to show they are unrelated...Because I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that Spartacus! is a sockpuppet, I am closing this report with no action." So please don't misrepresent that case here to make your argument. Other editors have also pointed out that you don't have much credibility for SPI as you had misrepresented sock policy to defend your friend Ms Sarah Welch, with whom you have off-wiki contact, who had been caught socking.

I was cleared by CU back in December, closer to the October date when records for Sardeeph were still available. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Here are the points I noted by going through this SPI and evaluating other circumstances

• They have made quite constructive edits across different topics, their first substantial edit as mentioned by Drmies in their comment looks to me a very constructive edit as they were adding a reference, it might not look like a new user's edit but their might be truth in their claim that they have been learning about Wikipedia during "holes" in their schedule, no body can say with surety that they might be lying, we should take them at their face value unless we have a very good proof otherwise. Some folks are programmers in real life, it is very easy for them to learn referencing.
• The evidence presented in this SPI is very poor, the linguistic similarities presented as similarities are not similarities at all, they are quite different to the naked eye. There was a lot more and a lot better evidence presented in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25/Archive#01 July 2016 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive#30 April 2018 but those were rejected and I am not contesting that those were closed wrong but compared to those, this does not have much evidence and I request the admins to close this the same way they closed those.
• Most importantly they were already checked in December 2017 when Sardeeph was not stale, this is the most powerful evidence which goes in their favor. This SPI was opened for sock puppetry investigations and their check in December 2017 proves that at least until December 2017 they were not socking. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Drmies:, there are two things to consider:

1) The filers and their restless SPI cases, you might want to review those as well and add them in your comments. It looks like WP:WITCHUNT to me. 2) The user has made some useful edits according to editing history [72][73]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I don't know what good CU can do; I don't know if Sardeeph has a habit of making sleeper accounts. I do think that this account is extraordinarily fishy. This is their first substantial edit in article space. 5% of their edits are to arbitration pages. Their defense in this SPI is a lengthy diatribe against the editor who filed it, displaying in-depth knowledge and institutional memory. Yes, CU has been run on them before and was inconclusive--but there is no way this is or ever was a new editor, So they're not here with clean hands, and their agenda isn't one of contribution to our beautiful project either. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

---