Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NarSakSasLee/Archive

19 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The user has a similar editing pattern to at least two IP addresses for example [] reverted by []

and recently IP editor reverted my edit[] and NarSakSasLee reverted []

while it may not be considered strong evidence, I note the IP editors have very specific editing patterns on similar subjects as NarSakSasLee, using the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows further proof of specific editing patterns between NarSakSasLee and at least the 3 IPs I have posted, and are from a similar IP block, the two reverts if proven would be an abusive use of sockpuppets, I urge you to investigate this and my apologies if this was accusation was made in error Coasttrip (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I'm quite surprised I'm being listed here for sock puppetry given that I haven't abused multiple accounts for vote rigging or whatnot, but then again I'm not surprised given that the user accusing me has persistant problems with removing academically,sourced and referenced content on religious issues pertaining to conspiracy theories. The author also has been manipulative in editing scholarly sourced content to try and make it seem unreliable. He has changed academic study to "essay" and removed entirely the scholars opinion in her specialist field. The nominator clearly has problems with the scholars inclusion and findings from the study she conducted.
 * See this ANI discussion for background information regarding nominator.
 * This investigation has only been posted by the user out of emotion and a lack of following proper policy resulting in frustration from the said user. The IPs have edited subject topics that are too narrow given my edit history and they are only to do with some edits, and reversion, but never discussion. The edit analyser tool for example only reveals the only thing common between me and the IP's is the Love Jihad article. And even then I haven't added significant edits to the article like one of the IP's have, merely discussed if whether or not the contents inclusion is relevant or not.


 * The user who has nominated this forward is thus being disingenous, emotive, and quite manipulative. Notice how it is claimed that the "Editor Interaction Analyzer shows furhter proof of specific editing patterns between NarSakSasLee and at least the 3 IPs" when no such specifics exist.


 * Most importantly you'll note that I have rollback rights and I partrol pages for vandalism and have done for a long time. The IPs according to the editing analyser tool were the first to edit the page I'm accused of editing (highlighted in blue according to the tool). I then made very minor edits to them and discussed whether or not they should be included in the talk page. This isn't certainly unusual with those who have rollback rights and patrol vandalism pages.


 * In conclusion the only article me and one of the IPs has in common with is the Love Jihad article. But the IP was the one to add significant content, whereas I only discussed the merits of such inclusion in the talk page. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no history editing the articles those IPs have . I've only ever rollbacked or reverted removal of sourced content.


 * None of them have ever overlapped with mine. It's always been the IP who made the edit and then I came along to check the edit reversions between the IP and said user - they're not even that close, roughly only one has been about 15 minutes apart and the rest hours apart


 * please refrain from personal insults, which are not relevant to the sockpuppet request, the editing pattern in the 'editor interaction analyzer' I alluded to is as follows


 * both NarSakSasLee and 92.22.3.208 and 92.22.4.96 made a number of edits to Sikhism in England


 * both NarSakSasLee and 92.22.4.96 made a number of edits to Forced conversion


 * both NarSakSasLee and 92.40.254.146 and 92.22.3.208 made a number of edits to Love Jihad


 * both NarSakSasLee and 92.22.3.208 made a number of edits to Islam in the United Kingdom


 * both NarSakSasLee and 92.22.4.96 and 92.22.3.208 made a number of edits to Sikhism in the United Kingdom


 * Both you and the IP editors edit the same subjects on wikipedia (mostly Islam related) and no other subjects, this is not a personal insult to state a fact, your other claims regarding my intentions are unfounded Coasttrip (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop being disingenuous, there is no such pattern . One or two edits to the same article does not suggest remotely that we are the same person. Also you're being very manipulative here (you've done it twice now). A "number of edits" equates does not equal a couple of edits. You're attempting to link me to the IPs as if we both have mounds of edits. Further I made no personal attack. You're repeated removal of sourced content is what I only reverted - and yes you are in the wrong and are purely doing this for emotive reasons as described above. My edit history has ranged from editing the Donkey Kong Country 2 articles to Japanese periods to Islam related articles. Have the IP's made such edits to the those articles? There is no such "pattern". NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While you have a somewhat broader (and longer) editing history, the IPs specific editing patterns overlap with yours, also two of those IPs participated in an edit conflict in which one reverted an edit in your favor and the other incident in which your reverted in favor of the IP editor


 * "doing this for emotive reasons" really? surely you have some proof of this? Why is your speculation regarding my motives even relevant to the sockpuppet case? Coasttrip (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) None of them have ever overlapped with mine. It's always been the IP who made the edit and then I came along to check the edit reversions between you two - they're not even that close, only one has been about 15 minutes apart and the rest hours apart . There is more than one editor to each page and more than one article on my watch page. As soon as an IP starts to edit the article and then you started reverting, you expect me not to check with what's going on? Especially if I have rollback rights?
 * 2) Yes I've listed proof for your emotive actions (just how many times did I list you removing well published and reliable sourced content with you claiming, rather ridiculously, it's NPOV and biased when scholars are not biased in any way?) NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * according to Sockpuppet_investigations it gives advice to the accused "Keep it calm, brief, evidence based, focused on evidence about the accounts" and yet rather than focus on responding to claims of your possible sockpuppet abuse you try to derail the discussion here by repeatedly referring to irrelevant issues of my editing, for someone boasting about possessing rollback rights, you do not seem to be able to follow wiki policies very well at all here unfortunately


 * many of your edits were also hours apart for example when OrangesRyellow reverted the IP user hours later, you reverted OrangesRyellow hours later, so your comments about the time difference do not actually disprove a link, some of your edits were also minutes apart, it is disingenuous for you to claim you and the IP editors editing behavior is unrelated to yours since you obviously edited many of the same articles... that doesn't prove they are your sockpuppets but it is strong circumstantial evidence  Coasttrip (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to admin and other interested users NarSakSasLee linked to the ANI thread above, I was tempted to revert him since he is clearly not following the SPI guidelines, the ANI thread was on an unrelated issue and most importantly, I didn't even read the message that prompted that ANI discussion until after starting this sockpuppet investigation. most of what NarSakSasLee has posted is not even evidence that he did not engage in sockpuppetry, rather he seems desperate to discredit me (perhaps because he lacks evidence to refute evidence pointing to possible sockpuppetry on his part) Coasttrip (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You opened up both the sockpuppetry case, the ANI case all the whilst you were engaged in a mass edit war and removal of reliable sources because you didn't like what scholars had to say about something you didn't like, all in the space of several hours. So yes you are are being disingenuous and I have every right to discredit you. Evidence against sockpuppetry has also been applied (see above). NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that NarSakSasLee continues to violate official policy for the the SPI page per Sockpuppet_investigations If accused, follow the same advice. Keep it calm, brief, evidence based, focused on evidence about the accounts, and let the evidence speak for itself. NarSakSasLee has repeatedly violated the policy by flooding the page with a minor and unrelated editing dispute


 * NarSakSasLee claims I removed "reliable sources" because I didn't like it as can be seen from the following diffs I reworded the section without removing inline references     (note that the actual inline reference is the source any sensible editor would agree that is the definition of source) also I am open to discussion about my edits and have not continued to reword that section without gathering a consensus on the relevant talk pages (something NarSakSasLee did not do)
 * NarSakSasLee if you want to discredit me, being honest about the removal of references may help, (if you even know what a reference is as shown above) Coasttrip (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You discredit yourself. As one admin has already stated, you're edits are attempting to promote a particular view at the expense of neutrality because you are inept at researching stuff you know nothing about . Further the evidence above points out your desperate attempts at it. I didn't even write the section you so zealously want removed (and for that matter neither did the IPs from the look at their history) - another administrator wrote it; User:Moonriddengirl. I've been reverting you're disruptive edits yet I'm reported as a sock. You're clearly dragging the project down and wasting everybody's time, including over here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closed. Insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry. Merely agreeing with another editor is not always a sign of sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)