Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kala Bethere/Archive

Evidence submitted by Keithbob
This SPI filing procedure was recommended to me by ArbCom member: Risker

Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976 appear to be disruptive sockpuppets of a single person. Possibly the person who was previously permanently blocked for sock puppetry ie User: The7thdr who created Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) and ClaireReal as sockpuppets. Both Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976 are single purpose accounts whose very first edits were on the Transcendental Meditation article. Both accounts exhibit the same language, editing patterns, personal interests, bias and agenda as banned user The7thdr and his puppets: Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) and ClaireReal. Please note that User:The7thdr has had other sock puppets including Majical Camal, Mozart's Left Ankle and Meyouandhim.

Background and Timeline
 * Aug 8 2009 The7thdr was banned for “personal attacks using sock account User: Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) ”


 * Aug 9 2009 ClaireReal on the first day of registration made edits to the TM article. The User was found to be yet another sockpuppet of The7thdr  and was blocked


 * Dec 31 2009 Kala Bethere very first edit is the TM talk page re: the article lead.


 * Feb 6 2010 User:  Keithbob implies Kala Bethere is a sockpuppet on the TM-Sidhi talk page


 * Feb 7 2010 User: Tuckerj1976 very first edit is to the TM talk page regarding the lead.


 * BettyBrahman is another account that could also be part of this series of sock puppets created by the same person. It is an inactive account at the present but it is a single purpose account that follows the same editing patterns as Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976 as described above and below. A check user should also look into that User account as well.

1. Single purpose accounts
 * The7thdr
 * Kala
 * Tuckerj1976

2. Critical of research on TM
 * The7thdr......“other factors of the Tm organization do indeed need discussion; however, to me the most important is the research”….. “the research that supports such findings is blatant nonsense and no such agreement exits within the scientific community. This needs to be highlighted I am afraid. However the TM organization will try anything to deny this.


 * Kala Bethere...... “Many pieces of junk-science get by peer review and publication. Many, like recent TM publications, are published in "junk journals" devoted to paranormal research, UFO's, etc. Please keep in mind the the TM Org is an org deeply engrossed in maintaining a scientific veneer at all costs, so you have people who spend their lives literally pushing articles to journals, newspapers, various media outlets and the web.”


 * Tuckerj1976.....  From this Arb Com page: “Much, if not nearly all of the "positive" (should that term even be used in scientific research?) is funded by the TM movement, conducted by TM movement researchers or considered of low research quality by independent researchers. The general scientific or medical community does not share it's viewpoints

3. Citing WP:MEDRS to make deletions of secondarily sourced text on scientific research.


 * The7thdr/Lotus Blossom


 * Kala [
 * Tuckerj1976

4. Citing WP:FRINGE
 * Kala Bethere


 * Tuckerj1976

5. Showing interest or knowledge of Bhuddist meditation practices. Note: Bhuddist meditation practices include: Shambala, Vippassana and Mindfullness


 * The7thdr


 * Kala Bethere "Tibetan literature, meditation"


 * Tuckerj1976

6. Accusing Littleolive Oil and Timid Guy of COI
 * The7thdr


 * Kala Bethere


 * Tuckerj1976

7. Usage of the terms “intellectual dishonesty” and “omission by silence”
 * The7thdr/Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)


 * Kala Bethere

8. Expressing interest and knowledge of mantras
 * The7thdr


 * Kala

9. Interest in the lyrics of the Sexy Sadie song
 * The7thdr


 * Kala Bethere

10. Pretending to be new to Wiki but editing like a veteran
 * Kala Bethere

11. Creating artificial consensus on the talk page

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. I will refer all paranoid (and what appear to be desperate parties) to my earlier reply to this []:

Well, if I am Kala Bethere, or indeed anyone else, this should prove interesting. I am sure a checkuser would quickly prove otherwise. I have attempted to be civil, and shall remain so, but the desperation (and paranoia it would seem) been shown by users who login from TM movement IPs is proving tiring. I will not enter into this level of childish behavior, but I am sure that a reliable admin can check. This is all I have to say on the matter although Kala has my sympathy, it must be deeply disturbing to be accused of having the same level of grammar and spilling (or should that be spelling?) as me. Have a good day Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit: This must have taken sometime (and resources)[] However, the level of detail that has gone into this,the resources required, together with the notion that one person is really 3 or 4 might be argued to be like the statements made in this "leaked" document form the TM movement [] But I am sure this is just my paranoia developing. Nevertheless, it does seem to once again support the evidence that this article and it's editors need close scrutiny. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to share Kala Bethere suggestion that this might be to simply distract from this evidence here: [] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit: With ref to *Feb 7 2010 User:Tuckerj1976 very first edit is to the TM page adding criticism and citations to the lead.  (Or are you now suggesting I am also User:Will Beback?


 * @KBob (or any of his sockpuppets cited here []I think I have added material (although much has been on the talk pages) But had not added to the lead. Dear KBob (and/or aliases), if you are going to make accusations at least make them correctly and attempt at least to ref them correctly. If you need help on reading the history of a page, who has edited where and how you can then correctly edit links as support please let me know on my talk page and I will endevor to help you.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Kbob: ref: Critical of research on TM I am afraid this is not singular to me (or any of the others you are accusing) but to independent research. Please see here:, here: , here , here , here: , here: , here , here: , etc. It is clear from this that to assume someone challenges the validity of TM research is a sockpuppet is an error in logic and highly suspicious of a positive POV Tuckerj1976 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kbob: Showing interest or knowledge of Bhuddist meditation practices. is [] evidence of knowledge of Buddhist Meditation Practices? I always that that Buddhism was more "rational" then this with no interest in "magic" (or is this incorrect?). I was actually referring to the "mana" cited in Christianity (Old Testament), Judaism (Torah), Islam (Koran) and Greek Myth (Homer, etc) This might be stretching the facts to make a point a little to far perhaps or is it simply that people now lack a classical education? Perhaps Disputandi pruritus ecclesiarum scabies? But let us not adversus solem ne loquitor. Or does this now make me (or the others cited) a sockpuppet of anyone editing the wiki entry on Latin? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kbob: "Accusing Littleolive Oil and Timid Guy of COI" True and to that you might want to add (together with Kbob) proven sockpuppetry as already found here: [] It might be considered somewhat ironic that a proven sockpuppet is accusing others of the same thing. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I grow weary now, but I think a picture has been generated. I await with interest the checkuser results. I suspect the possibility of



all having the same IP range or living in the same geographical location to be highly unlikely and would require immediate action. I would not expect any of these 3 users to use the feeble arguments being used here: [] and would be very disappointed if they were.

Comments by other users
Should it be helpful, The7thdr made edits while logged-out using these IPs: OTOH, I should note that some of the traits ascribed to the accounts are too common to be identifiers, at least individually. Among those are: "Critical of research on TM", "Citing WP:FRINGE", "Accusing Littleolive Oil and Timid Guy of COI", "Expressing interest and knowledge of mantras", and "Interest in the lyrics of the Sexy Sadie song".  Will Beback   talk    10:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 
 * 


 * To Will's observation, I'd add that accusing TimidGuy, olive and KBob of "intellectual dishonesty" is hardly confined to a single user. Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  — Kbob • Talk  • 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

relisted for a double check by another checkuser, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll want this verified by another checkuser, since this is an arbitration-related case, but based on technical evidence, I'd say very clearly ❌ for Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976; BettyBrahman is stale. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jpgordon, was there any correlation between the IP's for The7thdr and Kala Bethere and Tucker1976?-- — Kbob • Talk  • 03:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Stale. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of socks belonging to The7thdr in case that this helpful. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is that list? Note regarding the IPs added above: 80.2.0.0/16 is NTL, and that's a pretty wide net for IP matches. (In other words, if two editors used 80.2.x.x, there's not much to be said about it.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, here is the list of confirmed socks for The7thdr.-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They're all stale. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the users are unquestionably ❌.Brandon (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)