Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Watchtower Sentinel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

[edit] User:Watchtower Sentinel

Suspected sockpuppeteer

NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Suspected sockpuppets

82.15.17.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Terminator III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
Juan dela Cruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Akal Purakh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Report submission by

Hamsacharya dan 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Similarity in Diffs:

Comments

User Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs) is a very new editor who jumps into harrassing me, naming me by my personal identity, wikistalking. All behaviors very similar to previously confirmed sockpuppets, most of which have been connected with eachother, and all of which have been indefinitely blocked. His language is very similar between all the sockpuppets: use of the words "cult", "cult leader" "ordained preacher", "bogus", "fanatical", and generally degrading and libelous speech. Taken together, this has been going on for over a year now.

RFCU didn't work because it was more than 30 days between edits from the last sock, and I didn't provide the requested evidence (I didn't understand what they wanted...)

comment by uninterested party

I agree with Hmsacharya Dan that the similarities in editing are similar, and the fact that the user would jump to criticizing his edits and initiating a COI filing is suspicious to say the least. There is a case here, since this is an ongoing problem, with the aforementioned sockpuppets making disruptive edits, being banned, creating new accounts and starting again, ad infinitum. A simple checkuser will clear the issue once and for all. If Watchtower Sentinel has nothing to hide - why then so much fuss over a request for checkuser? I therefore second Hamsacharya Dan's request that this matter be clarified in the interest of both the articles and the editor's peace of mind. Sfacets 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: According to User:Sfacets, another COI editor on a different article with an impressive history of being blocked 3 times for 3RR and disruption, I am making "so much fuss over a checkuser." This is simply not true and I am going to prove it here. The irreversible and undeniable fact is that the checkuser case filed by User:Hamsacharya dan has long been over. It was declined (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Watchtower_Sentinel). What is there to make "so much fuss over"? This part of User:Sfacets's comment is complete nonsense. My edit history proves that throughout the checkuser process I never wrote a single word of opposition. This is a point of clarification, I do not and will never oppose anything as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Please note that User:Hamsacharya dan and User:Sfacets has been collaborating with this harrassment from the very beginning (evidence [20]). Note also that User:Sfacets' coming here and making a comment was not of his direct initiative but solicited by User:Hamsacharya dan (evidence [21]). These makes his comment one coming from an interested party and most certainly not from an uninterested party. Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

I would think banning is in order at this point.


Refutation
  • He accuses me of addressing him by his real name, which I never did. In fact if you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath you will discover that it was User:Tearlach and not I who provided his real name in a message he posted in the Noticeboard on 12:31, 23 March 2007. This naming was repeated at User:Hamsacharya_dan's talk page on 02:10, 24 March 2007. But even though I was not the one who did it I can confidently say that what User:Tearlach did was not against WP policy because User:Hamsacharya dan's name is neither confidential nor private. In fact not only his real name but also his telephone number and personal photograph are published for the public at the Hamsa Yoga Sangh List of Authorized Teachers webpage (please scroll down and look for Hamsacharya dan).
  • The entire case does not even make sense because according to how he tagged me I am being accused of being a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Watchtower Sentinel. I am Watchtower Sentinel for goodness sake, how can I be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Watchtower Sentinel? It seems that the accuser is very confused about the situation.
Upon examining this refutation User:Hamsacharya dan has changed the tagging mentioned above to "sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of NoToFrauds." According to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets before creating a report the complainant must make sure that "there is a current problem", in fact it clearly states that "cases older than one week are useless." NoToFrauds' last edit was on 22:19, 20 March 2006 making this entire report useless. - Watchtower Sentinel 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I humbly request the speedy dismissal of this case due to complete lack of merit. - Watchtower Sentinel 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment: the above is probably valid, but should be viewed in context of the edit war between Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs) and Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs). The former appears to have been extensively involved in sockpuppetry and block evasion; but the latter is in major and long-running breach of WP:COI [22]. I advise treating both with extreme suspicion. Tearlach 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:I never really knew about the COI policy until this year. I think I deserve WP:AGF here considering that I've never tried to hide behind any sockpuppets. Feel free to investigate my editing activities, but let's stay to the point of this page. Tearlach, I know you're not intending on Poisoning_the_well here, but I think it's fair to bring that up here, since you did the same previously. We already have a page for COI investigations. I've been a very forthright editor here despite what you want to say. --Hamsacharya dan 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Poisoning_the_well
Certainly not my intention. I definitely support the investigation of sockpuppetry on this topic. But the issue is being worsened by a mess of canvassing and forum-shopping on both sides. Tearlach 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Possible but not conclusive. Most accounts listed have already been blocked after causing disruption or being confirmed by Checkuser. Watchtower Sentinel, the exception, doesn't display a lot of the behaviors of the others. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)