Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbrahmana/Archive

12 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets






 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility


 * At 11 & 12 june Mbrahmana's edit to Gautama Buddha, including the use of , written by M. Brahmana, has been reverted three times diff diff diff, and discussed at Talk:Gautama Buddha.
 * At 12 june 12.44 Mbrahmana filed a mediation request.
 * At 12 june 13.50 User:Vimutti made his first edit, at 12 june 15.32 adding the same source to the Theravada article, and at 12 june 17.48 using this same source in the article itself.
 * That's quite a coincidence, isn't it?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At 13 june 06.02 User:111.223.132.1 reinserted the same source to the Theravada article, after it had been removed three times diff diff diff  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Joshua Jonathan just said immediately above reinsertion at Theravada, except for User:103.247.49.160 at 13:35, 13 June 2013, in this edit. Note that other 103.247.49.xxx addresses have been responsible for adding long discussions of the self-published (analyzed here) Why God Became a Buddha book and another self-published Brahmana work to God in Buddhism diff and Aggañña Sutta‎ diff in February, March, and April of this year (removed here and here, respectively). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Add comment diff by User:103.247.49.184 at Talk:Theravada.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 151-174: edit warring at Bodu Bala Sena.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Mbrahmana and User:103.247.49.184 are indeed the same diff.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

User:Vimutti is obviously a sockpuppet of User:Mbrahmana &mdash; the POV, writing style, and arguments given are the same for both users, and adding references to the same self-published books and primary sources. He has continued to aggressively push edits that go against Wikipedia policies, and the sockpuppets are part of this pattern of behavior. Tengu800 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of people in Buddhist Studies circles that share the same POV as Mbrahmana that Buddhist scholarship should not be controlled by a small group of self-proclaimed 'experts', particularly when their expertise is primarily Mahayana Buddhism and and not based on first-hand experience engaging the teachings of the Buddha. There is also an effort by this same small group of scholars to 'secularize' Buddhism and equating such secularization with serious scholarship.  These scholars are certainly entitled to cling to this POV, but other POVs that include the Theravada and Early Buddhist perspective and practice based on the Pali Nikayas must be included as well.  This early Buddhist perspective and practice is just as well sourced as any other Buddhist perspective, and therefore failing to include it on Wikipedia does a disservice to the Wiki reader.  Mbrahmana may have errored in not realizing that self-published sources were being denigrated on Wiki based on outdated criteria that does not reflect current book publishing reality, but this is no reason to 'go after' Mbrahmana and defaming him and his extraordinary contribution to Buddhist thought and practice in his new book.  At a minimum, you should read the 'Why God Became a Buddha' book first before dismissing it as 'spam', as the book is well researched and the arguments well supported from primary sources, and page after page is highly relevant to the Buddhist content described in Wiki from a fresh perspective that is sorely missing from today's Buddhist scholarship. Anyone can regurgitate what Buddhist commentators have said in the past, but how many can dig up the foundation upon which these commentaries are based and present original insights that are just as valid as any other as Mbrahmana has done in his new book? Read before you defame!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimutti (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "... defaming him and his extraordinary contribution to Buddhist thought and practice in his new book." Oh man... Mbrahmana, isn't it time to stop praising yourself in the third person? In the Ten Precepts, isn't precept #4 against lying? Tengu800 14:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to READ the book before commenting or falsely claiming that Mbrahmana is 'lying'. When you make such reckless comments without even reading Mbrahmana's book you look like you could benefit from the well-established Buddhist teachings on 'mudita' that guard against envy and the desire to see others fail.  And also you might want to contact your Wiki lawyer friend on this page about what constitutes 'defamation'.  It really is a serious tort that could set you back quite a bit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimutti (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need to read your book, and I have little interest in doing so. My comment about you lying is because you are engaging in deception by using sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia in order to promote your book. Even now that we know about it, you are trying to avoid the issue rather than being forthright about the matter. Tengu800 13:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop now. The ultimate issue on this page is whether or not the users and IP's being accused of sockpuppetry are or are not the same person. That will be determined by a SPI clerk or administrator. The spam allegation is only relevant in two ways: First, it provides a motive for the alleged socking. Second, if it is established that some or all of the alleged socks are, indeed, socks, an administrator may decide that sanctions beyond merely blocking the socks and warning the sockmaster may be appropriate, such as also blocking the sockmaster. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that the book is somehow intrinsically spam, but only that it appears that it is being introduced into Wikipedia for self-promotional, that is, spammy, reasons. Finally, @Vimutti, if you are not the same person as Mbrahmana it would behoove you to say so and offer some proof of that fact, otherwise your silence on that primary point may be taken as something of an admission. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiki spam is a form of link spam on wiki pages. The spammer uses the open editability of wiki systems to place links from the wiki site to the spam site. The subject of the spam site is often unrelated to the wiki page where the link is added. In early 2005, Wikipedia implemented a default "nofollow" value for the "rel" HTML attribute. Links with this attribute are ignored by Google's PageRank algorithm. Forum and Wiki admins can use these to discourage Wiki spam.

Based on the foregoing definition, Mbrahmana's "Why God Became a Buddha" book can NOT possibly be spam, as the content is directly related and relevant to the discussion on the Wiki pages that it is being cited as a reference. Also, the 2005 "nofollow" rule takes away any 'promotional' benefit of linking to cited books. Associating 'spam' in a reckless way to a particular user without considering its definition on Wiki tends to defame and injure a user's reputation with false information.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - -  and  by the two named editors show a similarity.  It could be meatpuppetry or something else, but a CU would be helpful here. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ that the name accounts are related. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked named accounts and protected several articles. A range block for 103.247.48.0/22 can be considered if protection isn't enough but I would rather do that as a last resort. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)