Lucyintheskywithdada

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date May 18 2009, 13:16 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Bksimonb


Evidence of indef block evasion and disruptive agenda-driven editing


The two edits are on the same section of the same article. Lucy is known to use NTT IP addresses while editing logged out [3]. I suggest that it is not likely that there is another user in Japan using the same ISP with such good command of the English language, similar article interest and POV.



Soulslearn's first edit was to the BKWSU article and was a lot more extensive than the editing summary, "Fixed Devangari font at top", suggested indicating a prior familiarity with the subject [4]

Soulslearn continues to edit [5] an article started by Lucy [6]

Other subjects both Lucy and Soulslearn have both edited are List_of_Brahma_Kumaris, Dada_Lekhraj, Cults_and_governments



In [7] edit the statement is made,

"In india, and internationally, the millenarianist, [1][2] mediumistic [3][4]sect called the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University has successful sought and profited from extensive contact and influence within regional, national governments and the United Nations [5]".

No one source is saying this. It is a syntheses of several sources to say what Soulslearn wants them to say, most of which is outside the scope of the article and a blatant loaded word driven POV-push i.e. "millenarianist, mediumistic, sect". None of the sources say that the BK are seeking to profit or influence governments and the United Nations. The reference for this statement just points to a BK published blog. It is interesting that Lucy also inserted text that makes the same accusation [8] with an equally inappropriate source.



"Are you a BK yourself? If you are, you might consider that some of the claims do not match the general PR materials that the BKWSU is putting out now. This is correct. Such materials would not be considered "reliable sources" for an encyclopedia and should be check against independent, academic and original sources before using them." [9].



Lucy made a statement when he posted after being blocked on Jimmy Wales's talk page that he had been editing,

'After 4 years or more involvement, and having "cut my teeth" working on a topic about a cultic religion which wished to engage in concerted media control, I have encountered in the broadest manner how the system can be abuse by "skilled" individuals or small "tag teams", how content can be easily manipulated and, ultimately, not just how powerless the system is against such dedicated efforts but how probably over stressed admins actually support it.'[10].

This is most likely to refer to the BKWSU page which Lucy and Soulslearn edited extensively. The admission of being involved for 4 years lends weight to Thatcher's observation of lucy that,

"There are also some people committed to "exposing the truth" about BK. Interestingly, brand new editor Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) is making exactly the same arguments as a number of previous editors, including the editor who used 195.82.106.244 and was banned for making personal attacks."[11].

In the evidence presented in the BKWSU arbitration case [12], the IP editor, 195.82.106.244, was linked to the website, http://www.brahmakumaris.info by his IP address on an email he sent to all BK centres and an FTP site he operated from the same IP address. Soulslearn uses a forum post on this website as a source for the statement,

"Critical ex-members of the sect believe it is being used as a front or cover for the strictly millenarianist religion in order to gain respectability and used to access target groups or geographies it would otherwise not be able to."[13].

Also, a reference is used to push the loaded word ,"millenarianist".



Lucy was blocked for conflict with other editors. Soulslearns discussions with User:PelleSmith on Talk:The_Family_Survival_Trust show a familiar pattern that led to Lucy being blocked of accusing the other side of having an agenda [14] and PelleSmith observes Soulslearn misusing references to advance a POV [15].

References

  1. ^ Robbins, Thomas (1997). Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415916486.
  2. ^ Babb, Lawrence A. (1987). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0706925637.
  3. ^ Klimo, Jon (1998). Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources. North Atlantic Books. p. 100. ISBN 978-1556432484.
  4. ^ Wilson, Bryan (1999). Bryan Wilson (ed.). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415200493. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ http://blog.bkun.org/

Signed Bksimonb (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. — Jake Wartenberg 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

-- Avi (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date August 14 2009, 09:58 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb


What I suspect is another account in a long line of re-incarnations and pre-incarnations of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). This account appeared less than one month after the previous incarnation, Soulslearn (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), got blocked after a positive check-user result. The chosen username, "Just another End of the World cult" and comments on his userpage such as,

I have no desire to engage in disputes over the use of the term "cult", especially with adherents or apologists who, again quite reasonably, might be seen to have a strong conflict of interest

, indicate this new account shares the same distain for the article subject as his other incarnations. The new account shows an immediate familiarity with the article subject and the references included in it.


If it's any help, Lucy discusses his previous experiences of checkuser here [24].

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Likely. A more experienced CU should review this case. Brandon (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Per need for second CU opinion. — Jake Wartenberg 17:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Brandon's findings. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date September 9 2009, 11:04 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

A new SPA behaving exactly as previous SPAs related to Lucy. Similar claims includes

  1. ) A PR team is trying to control the article in a way he considers similar to Scientology related articles. The article content and history shows a different story. He made almost identical claims as User:Soulslearn here [25].
  2. ) Tagging an article discredits it. An almost identical claim was made by a previous disruptive account, User:Green108 here [26].

Bksimonb (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Wasn't entirely sure at first, but looking at the claims, it's too much to be a coincidence. Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date September 10 2009, 07:28 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

This account has sprung up less than a day after Emperor of the Golden Age‎‎ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked. This is an obvious trolling & retaliation account. He has only made a few conribs and they are blatantly disruptive.

Bksimonb (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Clerk note: Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 20 2009, 10:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

This is the next in a succession of recent socks targeting the BKWSU article and using user names which are either familiar expressions to BK followers or are intended to taunt BK followers by misrepresenting and mocking their beliefs :- Just another End of the World cult, Emperor of the Golden Age, The End of the World is imminent and now One of the Eight.

The latest incarnation has added more negative material to the article [27], which is not very constructive considering how negatively biased it is already, using questionable references such as the French Parliamentary report, some French anti-cult website [28], and a tabloid news article from the Daily Mail.

Like the previous incarnations, he shows an immediate familiarity with the article. Again, contentious edits are made to the article without any constructive discussion or attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page. This is disruptive.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 30 2009, 16:49 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Another account in a rapid series of accounts used recently to disrupt the BKWSU article and make a WP:POINT. This account is also wiki-stalking me and posting diatribe on user talk pages that I previously visited. The name is very similar to the last two incarnations User:Baba says, be accurate and User:Dadi says, be accurate too.

As recommended by User:NuclearWarfare, when I flagged up the last incarnation, perhaps we can run a check-user on the recent incarnations to see if there is any mechanical way to block the offending IP addresses or ranges.

Bksimonb (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Confirmed J.delanoygabsadds 04:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Clerk note: Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 20 2009, 13:48 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Faithinhumanity is a single purpose account that exclusively edits the BKWSU article. The account was last active in August 2007 and has just come alive again. I believe this to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Lucyintheskywithdada.

The account has the following traits in common with Lucy:

  1. Focuses on the BKWSU article, in fact, has only ever edited the BKWSU article
  2. Self-justifation for contentious edits, never seeking consensus
  3. Conspiracy theory about editors he suspects are BKs
  4. Misuse of cherry-picked references to justify non-NPOV and unduly negatively weighted content
  5. Strong negative bias against article subject
  6. Never concedes to consensus views

The account differs from Lucy in the following ways:

  1. Doesn't launch into lengthy diatribes against the BKWSU and other editors
  2. Talk posts tend to be quite brief
  3. Claims to have a Christian background

Previous sock puppet investigation [29]


Evidence of sock/meat-puppetry

Green108 uploaded some posters at a resolution of 1200 x 1706 with a fair-use rational that they were low resolution. When challenged he claimed they were low resolution because the scanner was only set to 75dpi . This is, of course, technical nonsense. However two other editors argued exactly the same point.

  1. Green108[30]
  2. Lwachowski (a sock of Lucy)[31]
  3. Faithinhumanity[32]


  1. The End of the World is imminent (confirmed sock of Lucy)[33]
  2. Faithinhumanity[34]


  1. Faithinhumanity [35][36]
  2. Lwachowski (confirmed sock of Lucy) [37]


Disruptive editing




Bksimonb (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked for disruptive editing. I'm pretty sure this is a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, due to some behavioural differences. But the editing matches Lucyinthesky quite well. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date December 30 2009, 05:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Obvious sleeper account of Lucy [44] used to bypass the auto-confirmed page protection. Similar edit comment to other recent socks of Lucy on that article. Previous edits are on Japan-related subjects [45], another area of interest for Lucy.

I have requested CU in case we can find any other sleeper accounts. I have included two IP accounts which I can see are dead ringers for Lucy by the type of POV they express towards me, the BKWSU and other editors [46][47].

Another reason for CU is that Lucy has already started raging using another IP account and user account I have just added so a range block would be useful to stop further account creations and disruption if that's possible.

Bksimonb (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

Please do not believe that Brahma Kumar Simon B has any other intention.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Bksimonb (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Prickily_catcus (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and An Absolute Nobody (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are definitely the same person. I don't know if they are related to Lucy, though. J.delanoygabsadds 00:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 10 2010, 08:00 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Another account repeating exactly the same edit and making the same type of comments as other recent incarnations of Lucy. The difference this time is that the account has been active since 2005.

Also the general behaviour is similar to Lucy in that Mitsu seems to assume bad faith and make accusations of the other party being "dishonest" or using "trickery" [59].

It appears Lucy is using sleeper accounts now to bypass the "edit=autoconfirmed" page protection on the BKWSU page. Is there anything else we can do to can this disruption?

Comments by accused parties

I have been listed here by a Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University cult follower who is doing nothing but persistently attempting to control his cult's topic page.

It is correct to say that all they are doing is attempting to discredit it with multiple tags as stated, see BKWSU.

Can someone actually take a look at the topic (and the lack of any other activity on it), and decide what his intentions are and what is actually the "disruption"?

Thank you. --Fear based teachings (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is almost exactly the same as the defence as was offered by the previous incarnation of Lucy, [60] User:Prickily catcus.
Bksimonb (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Their edits not only fit the MO of the abovementioned socks, but also a couple of other previous socks. Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Bksimonb (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 16 2010, 09:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Another account sprung up to continue the edit war on the BKWSU page as soon as the previous one was blocked with very similar edit comment [61]. As per WP:DUCK.

I have requested CU since this user seems to have a number of sleeper accounts ready to use to continue the disruption.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I have to agree with BKSimonb here. It's just too coincidental that the instant the other sock gets blocked (yesterday) this new sleeper account pops up doing exactly the same thing. Furthermore, this person obviously has a history with the BK page although they pretend not to given this post where he attacks me. However, the last time I was on the BK page was July 2009 where I made one post; before that I had not been on the BK page since Nov 2007. S/he goes pretty far back, huh? Finally, I looked at his total history and besides posts on a bunch of pages July 2008 he has no other posts and no BK posts until today, yet he has an inordinate familiarity with the page.Renee (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Bksimonb (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed, no doubt related to the last couple of socks I recently blocked. Check for underlying IP and sleepers. –MuZemike 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Edits are also too similar in proximity to the recent socks. –MuZemike 02:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 26 2010, 09:09 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Obvious sock of Lucy as per contribs including accusations of WP:OWN on WP:ANI [62], promotion of his own website on the Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University page and claims of deep familiarity with the article subject [63] and adjustment of article tag again [64].

FYI, I will flag on WP:ANI to refer to this page.

Bksimonb (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed Sweep for sleepers and IP blocks, please. Tim Song (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral cues look pretty solid; from the technical side, The Golden Circle‎ is a  Likely match for previously blocked socks in the archive. Don't think I'll have anything significant to report past that. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 03:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 21 2010, 04:57 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Used three accounts to disrupt an article for deletion. I became more convinced that it was Lucy when he started saying stuff like, "Bksimonb is attacking this article because BKs are trained to do such things to people who do not follow their guidance and instructions," [67] which quite typical of his POV. Also typical is the continuation of a thread using more than one account, in this case from LingKri to Karentansu.

Bksimonb (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing report
It turns out that the three accounts most likely meat puppets that came to support User:Brahma Kumari Pari regarding an article for deletion [68]. Some of their comments sounded similar to Lucy because I know they have participated in forums he runs off-wiki and are therefore somewhat influenced by his POV regarding me and somewhat misguided expectations of Wikipedia. My personal oppinion is that since they are all probably new editors there is no benefit in clobbering them. Bksimonb (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 11 2010, 08:41 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Obvious sock of Lucy as per WP:DUCK

Bksimonb (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
14 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

New account re-asserting the edits made by the previous sock, Gbkvictory (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) with the usual edit comments such as, "Undid revision by cult follower attempting persistent POV whitewash of cult's related topics"[73]. Also posting diatribe on my talk page and the BKWSU article talk page [74] and on WP:ANI [75].

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


16 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Contribs speak for themselves. He has just continued to disrupt the articles his previous incarnation disrupted, continued a thread on WP:ANI and also disrupted the archive of this page.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comment by Jeff G.

The alleged puppet also neglected to respond to this query.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 01:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
23 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Similar username as previous incarnation, The Same Every 5000 Years (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and first actions were to revert all his previous edits and make personal accusations especially in edit comments.

Comments by accused parties

If you go right back to the actions of the Brahma Kumari adherents, you will see I was not banned, nor even blocked. You are being played.

The solution is to topic ban Brahma Kumari adherents from all Brahma Kumari related topics

Bingo ... you will discover this corner of the Wikipedia becomes as silent as they would like to believe their meditation centers are.


To be honest, I do not see much problem with the article the way it was a few Brahma Kumari edits ago. It is all highly accurate and well referenced.

I think non-involved parties really have to take onboard what the Brahma Kumaris are trying to do here, e.g. the current gambit of calling on "trusted" or "independent" editors. They have a long record of historical revisionism and media control, even reaching into academia.

What the BKs are trying to do is water the topic down, reintroducing factual inaccuracies and vagueness inline with their corporate PR. His trying to involve other editors is really just trying to invoke individuals who are not expert in the subject, allowing him to attempt a whitewashing under the guise of a "reasonableness".

These following examples may seem petty and pedantic. They are petty and pedantic. But I offer them as examples of the principles at play here.

For example;

the alteration of the requirement of "daily" meditation and class at 4 am and 6 am to "regular";
the removal of the academic reference regarding them not eating their mothers and family's food to some 'unreferenced' guff about only eating food cooked by "soul aware" individuals. Their religion, and the references, says "only other adherents". They do not accept any other religions are "soul conscious", as they call it.

This is exactly what was going on before. --Every 5000 Years (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

It's a case of WP:DUCK (it's clear that it is the same person), but I'd like to see if we can resolve the issue on the talk page first (it's more complicated than it first appears). In part, I'm concerned that this is an Arbcom-probation page where only one side - a representative of the organisation - is represented, and this editor does seem to have some legitimate concerns.

I've entered the scene to try and find out precisely what can be done, and have been clear that this editor if they are to get anywhere must address content rather than resorting to personal attacks. This has been a recurring problem for over 2 years and I'm working from the theory the editor may feel aggrieved from all the previous administrative action. My hope is that we can resolve the matter and there won't be a need for a block. If it fails (and I'd say we'd know within a few days) then we can come back here and sort it out this way at that point. Orderinchaos 10:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the reason for the previous blocks was unsound, I suggest that it is entirely appropriate to reinforce the block until Lucy successfully convinces admins using an unblock request on his own original talk page. I suggest that creating new accounts and behaving aggressively is something we can do without on Wikipedia. A quick look at this accounts contribs reveals that the account is clearly an attack account that has done nothing but to revert to his own preferred versions of several articles and make personal attacks. Do we really want more of this?
Yes, two years is a long time but I don't see how caving in solves anything. I propose that it would be more helpful if we make it clear that this behaviour is no longer an option by quickly applying Revert, block, ignore and not feed the trolls.
Best Bksimonb (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't exactly worked thus far... Orderinchaos 13:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It works well enough, that's the price of being an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy for novel experiments in trying to reform editors who display ongoing patterns of abusive disruption. Bksimonb (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People are generally motivated to do things for a reason. Without getting into the psychology of it too much, if the reason can be addressed, the problem may desist (or at least be more readily dealt with). This person's accusation is that the article is too biased in your favour. At a first look, it indeed appears to be. The opposite version they want appears to be too biased in their favour. So it's a matter of getting them to tell a neutral person what the actual issues are - basically, they can't get away with "That person has a cultist POV!" or "This is biased!" or whatever, it needs to be - this section is problematic, here's proof that it's problematic, here's what I want, here's proof that what I want can be supported. Then it gets debated, and some record is retained of what occurs as a result. (Note: my suggestion takes place while the article remains under full protection.) It may well not be supportable at all - I don't know, there's no way at all to tell without them doing this. But by doing that one makes it not a personal issue but a content dispute. Wikipedia's normally fairly good at managing the latter. Orderinchaos 01:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note "caving in" would simply be reverting to their version, which I am not at all proposing. Give them a chance to be reasonable. If they blow it, well, they've got only themselves to blame. If they use it, then the article may improve as a result. And, just maybe, their motivation for continually coming back and making the same claim will have been ameliorated so the problems will decrease or subside, which would make your life and mine a lot easier (hell, I may even be able to un-watchlist the page one day.). I fully realise I may prove to be incorrect but the only consequence would then be that nothing has been gained or lost. Orderinchaos 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would agree with a need to work on and improve the article. However I don't think you know Lucy like I know Lucy. Since what you are proposing involves unblocking him I suggest we take the matter to the Administrator's Noticeboard. I guess this is more appropriate than WP:ANI since this isn't an "incident" as such, I just think that it's a controversial and unusual proposal that I would like some more admins to comment and decide on and also express my concerns to.
To improve the article I would prefer enlisting help from trusted editors, if they are willing and available, who either have access to the off-web references or can spot and resolve and bias based on their experience with NRMs and/or access to the on-web references. As examples of admins I know of with suitable editing experience are User:Utcursch who has access to a wide selection of references and User:Cirt who I am sure won't let any pro-NRM bias go unchallenged.
Can we agree to seek more consensus on how to proceed? Bksimonb (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually involves leaving the current incarnation unblocked on a temporary basis rather than unblocking the original account. Any additional scrutiny at a venue like AN means your own edits and actions on the topic will also be subjected to scrutiny, and there'd be a case to answer that as a representative of the organisation you should really be stepping back from enforcement stuff, given that you seem to have taken the role of lead prosecutor against this person. I am similarly careful in articles related to Australian politics, especially with reporting and admin stuff, because of the perception of a COI and my known views in that arena. I would be happy as you suggest to bring in admins who are familiar with the area to help with content / referencing - have seen Cirt's work in the Australian field I edit and it's good stuff. Orderinchaos 12:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for checkuser attention as this user has no intention on stopping. –MuZemike 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. A couple other socks had been previously blocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note IP blocked for 2 weeks. Named accounts were already indef blocked. All accounts tagged. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
27 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

More accounts with names on the "5000 years" theme continuing disruption pattern as per the recently blocked socks.

Note: I just noticed both accounts are already blocked but not tagged. So this report is redundant and the accounts just need to be tagged as being blocked by an admin. Bksimonb (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: tagged. SpitfireTally-ho! 14:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
05 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by TFOWR

Per WP:DUCK, contribs pretty much identical to Lucy's last four incarnations. First two edits typical, followed by posts to other editors. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tag updated. Elockid (Talk) 00:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


06 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by TFOWR
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already indefed per WP:DUCK by Maunus (talk · contribs). Amalthea 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


07 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by TFOWR

Per Special:Contributions/Patience_and_Persistence and this revert to yesterday's sock's edit. TFOWRidle vapourings 15:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

WP:DUCK, indefed. Amalthea 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
10 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by TFOWR

Per this edit and WP:DUCK. Lucy seems to have something of a fixation with this editor... TFOWRidle vapourings 15:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Blocked by PMDrive1061. Elockid (Talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


11 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Usual "Reverted Brahma Kumaris adherent Bksimonb's" type edit comments as per WP:DUCK. Bksimonb (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Three admins at AN agreed with the block. We're done here. Tim Song (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
10 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bksimonb

Obvious sock of Lucy. Continuing to disruptively edit the same articles as previous socks with similar edit comments such as, "BK Simon B is a Brahma Kumari cult adherent and is involved in a long term and persistent Wikipedia campaign to gain control of any topic relating to the BKWSU". [76]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tag updated. Elockid (Talk) 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

A mock account and "strawman sock" pretending to be a naive over-enthusiastic member of the BKWSU or AIVV who is peppering a number of articles with unreferenced POV that just so happens to misrepresent BK beliefs in a somewhat unflattering way [77].

From experience I am reasonably certain this is a sock of Lucy since I know Lucy does sometimes play funny games such as the recent spate of creating accounts pretending he just wanted a word with me (see SPI archive and sock draw). I am also certain this is not a new user, as claimed, since his first edit to an article shows an immediate understanding of Wiki-linking [78] and accusation of "fanaticals"(sic) made in his first post and familiar assertion that he can't see any problem with problematic content, "...I can be seeing no problems in the edits and the article. Too much diservices has been done on this homepage by fanaticals..." [79].

The problematic content was inserted [80] by LevenBoy which I am presently treating as a good faith edit although I do find it somewhat strange that an account that has been dormant for several months suddenly comes alive just to blank his somewhat chequered talk page and re-assert Lucy's content, in an article area in which he has never previously shown an interest, calling it "well referenced" even though it clearly contains many broken links, synthesis, misused and weak references.

The Januarythe18th account is certainly being used disruptively and creating problems for a number of articles. In some articles editors have already repaired the damage [81] and he has already reverted [82] back to his preferred version. Unfortunately a number of other affected articles are not so well monitored.

He has left a comment on a users talk page claiming to be a new editor and spelling Wikipeidia with a capital A at the end, presumably in an attempt to appear naive, "Informations is all on Brahma Kumaris homepage. This is new knowledge brother, not Bhakti. Many people report it. I am just learning WikipediA. Please help me put up correct informations not remove." [83]. Also the assertion that "Many people report it" his way is a familiar theme with Lucy's accounts.

Further evidence as of 7th March. Our "new" user is now showing an impressive understanding of references [84] whilst appearing to be naive on user's talk pages [85]. Also a new user would be unlikely to stubbornly ignore warnings and revert more than once on an article. In this case the God the father, Shiva and Bhakti articles.

Evidence of "strawman sock" tactics: [86] [87] [88]

On 8th March he makes an edit to the BKWSU article. No surprise that it adds a really negative spin, misrepresents the Wallis reference and then uses a primary source [89]. It seems a bit strange that he would insert such text after making the following invitation to an editor, "If you want to take Knowledge, say where you live and I give you nearest branch of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University to take basic knowledge".[90]

The way the the Wallis reference has been misused is exactly the same as has been done by previous socks of Lucy. Here you can see AWachowski (see "Added Lucyintheskywithdada" at top of sock page [91]) misusing the quote in exactly the same way [92]. Wallis is quoting what the AIVV told him but both AWachowski and Januarythe18th make it look as if Wallis himself is making the claim. This is a common theme to most Lucy socks.

Bksimonb (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I do not know all the history of who Lucy was, but from what I have seen, the sum of the edits from this January18th account just "does not compute" to a positive edit item and would have to be listed in the deficit column of Wikipedia. I would support blocking it in any case, as I said on the talk page there. It has already wasted enough time from multiple users, with spam edits. And these edits show an "amazing speed" in learning about Wikipedia. At first totally lost, then suddenly really familiar with edits. Go figure... History2007 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the claim is not relevant. I am certified engineer. What is so difficult about adding brackets, isn't it? I am making copy and paste.

History2007 is not knowing anything about Godly Knowledge as taught by Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, that is problem. Perhaps he is Christian soul and this is new Knowledge causing him upset but I am not understanding all this BK brother is saying. Too confusing.

BK means basic Godly Knowledge. PBK means Advanced Godly Knowledge. Post-graduate level. There are no errors even by basic Knowledge.

I challenge him now to show me one!

In fact I don't write Mr Wallis said this and that and that but Mr Wallis write about troubles caused by Brahma Kumaris in Mount Abu. The troubles are always same. BK souls have anger inside them towards PBKs, like Hindus and Muslims. (Januarythe18th (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I am glad you educated me that they offer free courses at more than 8,500 centers in your last edit. Is there a 1-800 number that needs to be added somewhere on these pages so everyone can join these courses more effectively? If this is not spam, then I do not know what is. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of themes in Januarythe18th's statements that are similar to previous socks of Lucy.
  • Use of name-calling, negative stereotyping and conspiracy theories as in, "BrahmKumari Christian fanaticals" [93]
  • Discrediting the input of other editors on the grounds that they don't know the subject matter as in, "History2007 is not knowing anything about Godly Knowledge"
  • Asserting his own authority of the subject to self-validate his edits
  • Portraying BKWSU members as being crazy, dumb, evangelical and dangerous, if not by repeated assertion as with previous socks then in this case by impersonation
  • Not taking "no" for an answer as evidenced by the number of reverts and re-insertions of content this account has performed over the affected articles
  • References are misrepresented in order to appear more damning
The edit to the BKWSU article [94] changes the text, "...and also quotes the claims made by the Advance Party of alleged re-editing of revelatory messages", to "He reports about the re-writing of the revelatory messages...". Why change it from what it was? It is actually quite important in this instance to specify that he is reporting "claims" of another party and not necessarily supporting the claims himself.
Finally, the contradiction of both complaining of BKWSU victimisation and aggression and also at the same time promoting the same by offering editors to go and take courses at their centres almost beggars belief. Bksimonb (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First students must take basic Knowledge at Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Then must take Advance Knowledge from PBKs (ADHYATMIK ISHWARIYA VISHWA VIDYALAYA (A.I.V.V)). History2007 soul has not taken Godly Knowledge (Gyan), isnt it? He can come to any centre and study for free.

I challenge the BK soul again to tell me one thing I have written wrong! What I write wrong? Name one thing. Mr John Walliss expert, not BK soul. Writes the truth. The BK soul knows it. Problem between BKs and PBKs same. Books the same. Who ever writes it, the same thing. The same thing happens every Cycle.

Please leave any message on my own homepage if you have questions about the Knowledge. (Januarythe18th (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I won't pretend to know exactly what is going on here, or whether there is sockpuppetry going on, but it is pretty clear that we have an editor here who is not behaving in accordance with the objectives of the project and is more interested in banging on in an incoherent and non-neutral manner about a single subject they seem to be obsessed with. Sockpuppet or not, this has to stop.--DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to doubt that it is a puppet. Too long to explain, but probably even on a different continent. In any case, the edits are not edits, they are PR type preachings and invitations to take "free" classes. History2007 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
24 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar Articles of Interest between Januarythe18th and previous socks of Lucyintheskywithdada
  1. Shankar: 195.82.106.244[95], Januarythe18th[96]
  2. Rāja yoga: 195.82.106.244[97], Januarythe18th[98], Lucyintheskywithdada[99]
  3. Mount Abu: 195.82.106.244[100], Januarythe18th[101]
  4. Kali Yuga: 195.82.106.244[102], Januarythe18th[103]
  5. End time: 195.82.106.244[104], Every 5000 Years[105], Januarythe18th[106], Lucyintheskywithdada[107], Lwachowski[108], The Wiki Undead[109], Time served[110]
  6. Dada Lekhraj: Every 5000 Years[111], Gbkvictory[112], Januarythe18th[113], Lucyintheskywithdada[114], Soulslearn[115], Taking stock[116], The Same Every 5000 Years[117], The Wiki Undead[118], Time served[119], Sick to the backteeth[120]
  7. Brahmacharya: 195.82.106.244[121], Januarythe18th[122]
  8. Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya: 195.82.106.244[123], Januarythe18th[124], Lwachowski[125], Soulslearn[126]
Matching phrases said by different socks of Lucyintheskywithdada
Claiming others want to control a topic
  1. 195.82.106.244 - "This whole chapter has merely been the BKWSU attempt to control the article by the misapplication of guidelines and to the ignorance of policy." [127]
  2. Lucyintheskywithdada - "An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization." [128]
  3. Lucyintheskywithdada - "...and others, appear to have problems accepting the development of Japanese-Korean topics. He, and a few others, are going to great efforts to control topics at a propagandistic level and censor any wikipedian that threaten that." [129]
  4. Januarythe18th - "Fine, if the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University wants to control this topic..." [130]
  5. Januarythe18th - "There is also off Wikipedia evidence to suggest that Brahma Kumari adherents are coordinating (or looking to coordinate) in order to take control of the topic directly..." [131]
Defending his own version of the article using almost the same words
  1. Lucyintheskywithdada - "# Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - notable new religious movement, very well referenced topic." [132]
  2. Lucyintheskywithdada - "The article is well referenced." [133] (Please also note that the context of the words are intimidation to silence another user, which is one of the most usual patterns of his socks.)
  3. 195.82.106.244 - "a very broad, detailed and well referenced article. I cannot see any factual errors." [134]
  4. Every 5000 years - "The solution is to topic ban Brahma Kumari adherents from all Brahma Kumari related topics... I do not see much problem with the article the way it was a few Brahma Kumari edits ago. It is all highly accurate and well referenced." [135]
  5. Exoneatf - " All he is doing here is attempting to discredit a topic which is accurate, as he knows, and perfectly well referenced." [136]
  6. Soulslearn - "The topic is well referenced, do you have any more to add?" [137]
  7. Fear based teachings - "There is nothing factually wrong with the topic. It is very well referenced." [138]
  8. Emperor of the Golden Age - "The fact remains, the topic is one of the most heavily and well referenced articles on the Wikipedia... The topic is also highly accurate." [139]
  9. Lwachovski - "It is neither productive nor does not create well referenced articles." [140]
  10. Januarythe18th - " I think the reason the article has stabilised is that it is very accurate, complete and well referenced." [141]
  11. Januarythe18th - " I have to correct your euphemism. The article is not "under repair". The article is highly accurate, comprehensive and well referenced. It has been reviewed and accepted as being of a suitable standard for the Release Version." [142]
  12. Januarythe18th - " However, overall, it is actually highly accurate and well referenced." [143]
  13. Januarythe18th - " the article is fair, highly accurate representational, and well referenced... The main topic is comprehensive and complete. Any more work on it is merely going to reintroduce inaccuracies." [144]
  14. Januarythe18th - "This page is a mature, stable and very well referenced topic. It has reached this point through the collaboration of many individuals."[145] (please note that what he refers to as "collaboration of many individuals", is actually collaboration of his many past sockpuppets to make the page exactly as he wants it to be).

There are many further examples of the same kind of discourse, used mainly to intimidate any other user into not interfering with "his" articles at all.

Accusing other editors of being part of a conspiracy to turn the article into advertising
  1. Lucyintheskywithdada - "A wikipedia article is not meant to be an uncritical advert for the subject of each topic." [146]
  2. 195.82.106.244 - "Beware, this is not an advert for Brahma Kumari Raja Yoga. This is an objective definition of you and your religion." [147]
  3. 195.82.106.244 - "the Wiki is not an advert for your sect." [148]
  4. 195.82.106.244 - "Friend, the Wikipedia is not an advert or P.R. for your religion." [149]
  5. Ex oneatf - "their initially attempt being to maintain as an advert for their religion." [150]
  6. Soulslearn - "A Wikipedia article is not an advert.Thank you." [151]
  7. Januarythe18th - "Perhaps your time and efforts would be better spent getting your own religion to correct its own facts rather than attempting to whitewashing the topic and turn it into a better advert for your religion?" [152]
  8. Januarythe18th - "the lede on Wikipedia is a summary of the topic which highlights the outstanding characteristics. It's not an advert for the organization. " [153]
Accusing any consensus of being conspiracy against him
  1. Lucyintheskywithdada - "All this talk of "previously agreed" and "consensus" is entirely misleading. What we have are BKWSU followers ... "agreeing" with each other the organization's current PR agenda." [154]
  2. Januarythe18th - "what the Brahma Kumaris are doing is trying to use you, and that, to their advantage." [155]
  3. Januarythe18th - "your knowledge of the religion is limited and they're deliberately using that, and you" [156]
Evidence of impersonation and strawman sock to bypass ban sanction
  1. Januarythe18th - "I cannot be editing this article yet but I can be seeing no problems in the edits and the article. Too much diservices has been done on this homepage by fanaticals and we should be accepting how the world see us and using the language of the world to explain our beliefs. I am Baba's child." [157]
  2. Janaurythe18th - "We are not splinter group we are all original children and part of same family. BrahmKumari Christian fanaticals attack us and remove from this homepage that is clear message. I am Baba's child. (my talk)" [158]
  3. Januarythe18th - "History2007 is not knowing anything about Godly Knowledge as taught by Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, that is problem. Perhaps he is Christian soul and this is new Knowledge causing him upset but I am not understanding all this BK brother is saying. Too confusing." [159]
  1. Januarythe18th - "I'm sorry, we've have a chain of one BK adherent after another come forward and do everything from deleting the page, to making a mess of it's formatting, to continuing on their bitter dispute with the PBK splinter group, and so on. Generally they show no commitment whatsoever to bettering the Wikipedia as a whole or contributing anything to any other topic, and yet they consume vast amounts of time and energy. In my opinion, they are merely intent on turning this topic into an advert for their religion. In Wikipedian terms, we would call this Meatpuppetry or a tag team approach. I apologise if I presumed you were yet another. Many even employ a fair poor standard of Indian English. " [160]
Intimidation to frighten any other user away from his articles of interest
  1. 195.82.106.244 - "B.K.s beware ! This is a polite warning to followers of Brahma Kumari Raja Yoga ...Beware, this is not an advert for Brahma Kumari Raja Yoga. This is an objective definition of you and your religion. If you are new to Raja Yoga and unsure of what is being written here, please check with your senior sister for accuracy before removing or editing facts. Thank you." [161]
  2. Lucyintheskywithdada - "Beware, if you think you have a sense of humour, don't try and use it on the Wikipedia. Everything you write can and will be used against you." [162]
  3. 125.203.206.45 - "you are making a mistake getting involved on the BKWSU page." [163]
  4. Januarythe18th - "Note to new users. This page is a mature, stable and very well referenced topic. It has reached this point through the collaboration of many individuals... Some basic advice. Please discuss changes first." [164]
  5. Januarythe18th - "If you have one with the Brahma Kumaris, you are likely to make things worse" [165]
  6. Januarythe18th to a new user - "don't waste people's time. We are all volunteers and could be doing better things with it." [166]
Evidence of Non-Neutral POV

GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC) GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Having been interacting with Januarythe18th for the past 8 months, it would also be my conclusion that the account is being operated by the same individual who has been harassing this article through LucyintheskywithDada and all the subsequent blocked socks – the attitudes, posts and fixed position around the article are just so similar, if not identical, as per the evidence above.

This editors primary strategy, through all his different accounts, is to try and blow dust into the eyes of Wikipedia administration by raising a conspiracy theory about the BKWSU and casting aspersions on other editors to deflect attention away from himself, his conduct on Wikipedia and his own extremely conflicted relationship with BKWSU. In his response he doesn’t even bother to deny or address any of the concerns raised. The same behavioral tendency can be seen from his comments in the following unblock requests. His one strategy, like the past accounts, is to remain constantly on the offensive. At the very least there should be some explanation given about:

Why did Januarythe18th felt the need to pretend to be “Pro-BK” for his first 2 months of editing. Then in December 2011, he just decided to turn “anti-BK”, and at the same time, became a Wikipedia editing pro over night (not to mention the rapid English language improvement). I would submit the motivation behind this was to try and avoid being detected as a sock for as long as possible.

Januarythe18th makes significant allegations against other editors but provides no evidence to support the allegations. If Januarythe18th sincerely believes the page is being swarmed by BK editors etc etc, why is he the one removing the article tags?? Not only that, but like previous accounts, he is acting against consensus. As per Vecrumba's edit comment on the talk page (my bold): 19:05, 26 August 2013‎ Vecrumba (talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,043 bytes) (+215)‎ . . (→‎History of the article: One of those article where if you don't completely agree with someone you eventually become labeled as part of the opposing conspiracy) (undo | thank)

Januarythe18th demonstrates the same "under siege" mentality that the different socks had - even his defence to this sock below is so extremely similar to the unblock requests - the tone, conspiracy, and accusations. I actually consider being repeatedly labelled a BK adherent etc fairly offensive and uncivil, but have really given up trying to reason with this editor because he is so fixated about it. Evidence of this fixation has already been presented in the report above.

He has not allowed me to make even one edit to the page and repeatedly asserts that the content is ‘accurate and well referenced’(as evidenced above), even though: 1. The article claims that the founder of the group had "intimate and immoral" behaviour with young women, a fairly serious allegation, but without any supporting reference. The only support comes later in the paragraph from a primary resource document that includes/relies on affidavit material (i.e. all primary) for a Court case that was actually lost. The editor tries to draw me into some sort of edit war by immediately reverting me when I delete this. Interesting to ask what would be the response if this kind of content was put on the page about the prophet Muhummad?! In this vein, there may be a few random SPA pro-BKWSU editors who get upset by the content. The easiest solution to this is to have reasonable content.

One possible reason for the posting of such biased and poorly supported content is that the present sock is also a disgruntled litigant, and is simply using Wikipedia as a vehicle to seek retribution against the BKWSU for the "legal action" that is misrepresented in the article as something much more glamorous than it really was. The evidence for this emerged when Januarythe18th responded to the naming of the respondent in the arbitration dispute, labeling it as a personal attack. In what possible way could it be personal, except through this editors personal connection to it.

Other problems with the supposedly 'well referenced and accurate article': 2. WP: BOL issue 4. Complete lack of broader encyclopedic content e.g. the significant role and prominence of women in the movement, the significant environmental policies and commitment to renewable energy with current construction or world’s largest solar power plant and substantial solar cooking facilities, attendance and all major COP environmental conferences, relationship with United Nations, Substantial work in providing free health care to some of India’s most vulnerable and needy, etc. etc etc Like the previous socks, the motive is to make the article lopsided and reflect poorly on the Brahma Kumaris.

Januarythe18th also refers to his own time on Wikipedia “It's funny but even after years, I don't even know how and where to report meatpuppetry and tagteam”. I would submit this statement is consistent with someone who has been editing long before the user account "Januarythe18th" was created.

Like many of the past accounts, this account is creatively named, in this instance, named after the most significant date in the BK calendar (Januarythe18th – the founders date of passing).

This sock is becoming harder and harder to identify because the repeated bans are effectively training this individual to become better and better at avoiding detection. He is extremely careful not to give himself away, and a pro at deflecting attention from himself by repeatedly making unevidenced accusations against others.Danh108 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 to September 2013, I understand that to be "years" and I have made efforts to work on other pages when you are not wasting my time.
On the talk page, we documented some of the Brahma Kumaris meatpuppet team. Here only some I have seen in my time, [171]. You none of you show any other interest or commitment to Wikipedia.
Rather I think you don't want to collaborate. Instead you complain and accuse. As new user, you've be requested many times to develop a Sandbox version to gain experience and show us what you want. [172] You have ignore this time and time again. It's likely with your lack of experience you will break all kinds of formatting and references.
Why not just show us what you want and get help to make it? Then we can discuss changes. I said this many times now and you ignore it. --Januarythe18th (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Januarythe18th. I know this has been a huge part of your life for such a long time. You still have your website to express yourself. The editors were prepared to try and work with you inspite of your previous bans, but then you kept ignoring Vecrumba's suggestions on the way forward and then just perseverated about the whole sandbox thing - over 10 times you posted the same suggestion.
I can't help but smile that your pigeon English came back just now, after so many erudite posts - you even corrected my use of the apostrophe!
I explained my edits on the talk page. You know you had pushed the limits of what you could get away with - come on mate, the sexual allegations without any reference....but still you reverted even that - either without explanation, or with very lame reasons. It's too late to wave your white flag here now Lucy. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the accused

How strange that a "brand new editor" GreyWinterOwl (talk · contribs), without any other contributions, can compile such a complex accusation with such historical detail so soon. Perhaps they could tell us how they did so or even knew where to find this page?

More evidence of coordinated bad faith from members of the Brahma Kumari religion (WP:MEAT and WP:TAGTEAM) attempting to gain control over what they see as their topic, none of whom contribute anything else to the Wikipedia.

See Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being new to Wikipedia doesn't mean I was born or learned how to use a keyboard yesterday. It really didn't take much effort to learn how to link diffs or how to compile a sock report, unless I was mentally retarded. Regarding contributions, I think reporting a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada is a very good contribution to Wikipedia in many aspects to start with, regarding the amount of disruption it has caused through dozens of socks which got him indefinite ban.

Lucy's socks always respond to sockpuppet investigations by stating that it is a conspiracy against him by Brahma Kumaris. Now he is repeating exactly the same thing which adds to the evidence that he is a sock of Lucy. Admins can see that accusing a conspiracy of wanting to control the topic is what Lucy's socks have been repeating for years and now here we have the same puppetmaster repeating it again. All that his socks do is basically revert the article to the version edited by the sockmaster and revert any edit by anyone else, even experienced users.

Contributing to Wikipedia is the opposite of what Lucy has ever done, because by the history of reports, it can be seen that complaints about his behavior come from many different articles, in which he has caused disruption. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence

utcursch | talk 18:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

26 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Continuing birth date argument on Talk:Dada Lekhraj following the block of 79.64.208.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). clpo13(talk) 23:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm not blocking the person myself because that might be seen as WP:INVOLVED. Here are the relevant diffs in support:

The person just keeps jumping IPs, so I'm not sure what can be a long-term solution here. utcursch | talk 02:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Done per request. Mkdwtalk 18:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Same person continuing the same disputes regarding Brahma Kumaris. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 15:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije:

A core conflict in Brahma Kumaris and Dada Lekhraj is the question: was Dada Lekhraj born in 1876 or was he born in 1884?

I have in my 20k article talk page comment quoted 30 sources that support 1876. I have shown that there is currently zero reliable sources supporting 1884 as the birth year.

Blocked sockpuppets of Lucyintheskywithdada changing to 1884:

  1. Januarythe18th in Diff of Dada Lekhraj
  2. Time served in Diff of Dada Lekhraj
  3. Taking stock in Diff of Dada Lekhraj
  4. The Wiki Undead in Diff of Dada Lekhraj

Latest IP changing to 1884: 79.64.208.41 in Diff of Brahma Kumaris, and in Diff of Brahma Kumaris, and in Diff of Dada Lekhraj.

Exactly what 79.64.211.166 does in Diff of Brahma Kumaris.

Both articles are now semi-protected for a while reducing this filing to a formality. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Is this business still current, or it is already over?

It seems to me that the problem we have on any Wikpedia pages relating to the Brahma Kumaris is that Brahma Kumari adhernets seek to exercise control over their religion's topic pages in every bit the same way as Scientology adherents did pages relating to Scientology.

The dynamics are the same. It's about time that Wikipedia admins looked below the surface and realized what is going on.

Relating to their founder's date of birth. The BK adherents know that 1884 is the accurate date of birth. Unfortunately, it's awkward for them as they have spent decades promoting a false date of birth to fit in with various claims and predictions the cult's leaders have made. That date being 1876.

In this case, the Brahma Kumaria adherents are merely using the controversy over the date of birth to filter out any non-conformist voices, and manipulate the Wikipedian community and admins by a skilful abuse of Wikipedia policies, and the community's ignorance and disinterest in a factual understanding of Brahma Kumarism.

This is going on in order to control all topic pages relating to Brahma Kumarism so that they remain flattering to them and inline with their current publicity. Consequently, objectivity and accuracy are suffering.

This is a bigger problem for the Wikipedia community as non-cult adherents simply do not have the same fanatical motivation to defend an accurate and objective view as cult adherents believing in a millenarianist religion do, and it places an unreasonable burden upon them.

In short, I think we need a little less kneejerking going on, and a little more investigation into what is really going on here.

You are being deliberately lied to and manipulated by the BKs. That is what they do. --79.64.210.79 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


03 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

IP jumper is back, and as usual editing exclusively regarding Brahma Kumaris, an article that is under probation. Diff can be provided, but behavioral evidence should be quite obvious from the latest IPs in the same range. Blocks are necessary here. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


I am sorry but this is an artificially established accusation which started here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Utcursch#SPI_for_block-evading_IP

with a Brahma Kumari adherent appealing to an admin on their behalf.

It's just more evidence of how precisely the Brahma Kumaris are gaming the Wikipedia.

I have, or at least had, no blocks outstanding on me until they started to do so here. It's all just about their gaining and maintaining their control over topics relating to their religion.

Can you ask Sam to stop kneejerking over perfectly valid contributions and discuss this?

As for the derogatory "IP jumper" accusation, I have no control over the IP address I am given. There is no intention behind this. I am happy to make up a user account as long as I am not going to suffer further accusations of using "sock puppets" if I do. --79.64.210.79 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Same rants as before regarding was Dada Lekhraj born in 1876 or was he born in 1884? Could we have some blocks here? Sam Sailor Talk! 00:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please skip the insults, re: "rants" etc. I think we have to look at what is going on here a little deeper.

I appreciate that you all probably think you are going something good and are presumably motivated by earning your adminship or supporting the great good of the Wikipedia.

However, what is really going on here is a repeat of the Scientology episode with adherents of the religion, doing absolutely no good for the rest of the Wikipedia, fighting to control topic issues relating to their religion and consuming others time and energy to do so. Their aim is to ensure the topics are not objective or comprehensive, but rather matching their current whitewashed PR version of themselves.

This is not right. They are playing your good intentions to serve their aim. It does not serve the Wikipedia or the Wikipedia's readers.

Can you understand that?

They are counting on the probably that you will kneejerk unquestioningly to well phrased accusations and using others to do their work for them. --88.144.241.175 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Sock(s) already blocked by NeilN. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma filing, sock already blocked for a week on 6 November by NeilN. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


A new user appears on the Brahma Kumaris and Rāja yoga article who behaves similar to previous incarnations of Lucyintheskywithdada. His first action is to apply a COI and Advert tag to an article that has been virtually untouched for a few years. [187]

Bksimonb (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Suggest closure

This report has gone stale. Since the the account in question was only ever active for one hour in one day in January I propose that there is no point in pursuing it further. I guess blocking an account that is no longer active would be redundant.

Bksimonb (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

More