Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon Kidd/Archive

Evidence submitted by Wikiusertalk
Simon Kidd used the alternate account of "The Communicator". Under this edit, Simon Kidd provided two links to a website and a blog critical of Kevin R. D. Shepherd at. By looking at those links, Simon Kidd was outted as "The Communicator" on them. I pointed out Simon Kidd's alternate account on the Upasni Maharaj page and Simon Kidd did not deny it  (look after 'point 4'). Despite this admission from Simon Kidd, he has yet to make any edit (that I am aware of) where he specifically stated he is "The Communicator". For reasons unknown, Simon Kidd makes every attempt to keep the name "The Communicator" out of his admissions. His edits under "The Communicator" are relevant to his current edits and "obsessive promotion" of Kevin R. D. Shepherd on Wikipedia. As such, Simon Kidd should divulge his alternate account on his Simon Kidd account (and vice versa) as required by Wikipedia because his edits are controversial and may be relevant to future discussion regarding his edits. Wiki User  Talk  07:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Simon Kidd's excuse about using an alternate account, his original edits were all about adding links and information about Kevin Shepherd, Kate Thomas, and Stephen Castro who are all involved in some controversy regarding various people, new age beliefs and spiritual communities. A view of "The Communicator's" edits regarding "vandalism" seem to be referring to the Ananda Marga page, which is the only page where "The Communicator" implied vandalism . Since those edits are his later edits and not his first edits, his alternate account does not seem to have been created for privacy reasons. It would seem that Simon Kidd is attempting to use his later edits as a way to justify his alternate account although that is not what that account was originally created for. That is my opinion anyway. Wiki  User  Talk  05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

As I said in reply to WikiUserTalk on the Upasni Maharaj Talk Page, my use of an alternate account for reasons of family privacy is entirely legitimate. Under my original account, I edited an article that refers to a member of my family (not by name). This article has nothing remotely to do with Shepherd. My changes to the article have been vandalized several times, and I am keeping my old account so that I can continue to edit that article (including repairing the vandalism), without compromising privacy. I understand that it is not necessary for me to divulge my alternate account on my user page. In fact, to do so would defeat the purpose of having the alternate account for privacy reasons. This is clearly stated in the sock-puppet guidelines.

For ArbCom purposes, these are the details of my disclosure. On 7 December 2009, I received an email from Vassyana asking about my links with The Communicator. I replied to him promptly on the same day, fully disclosing my alternate account use and giving my reasons. Vassyana responded immediately, thanking me for my 'prompt and thorough reply'. He also advised me to disclose my alternate account use to ArbCom, indicating that all that was required was 'a statement that you have begun editing under your real name and that you are maintaining The Communicator for a few controversial areas'. He also said that my 'full reasons are not necessary for this purpose. ArbCom maintains a private list of disclosed alternate accounts to ensure if something comes up that it can be appropriately waved off without compromising the editors' privacy'. I disclosed my alternate account use by email (to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) on 8 December. On 9 December, I received a reply from Roger Davies, stating that my 'accounts have been registered'. Simon Kidd (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Responding to 'evidence' submitted by WikiUserTalk at 05:35 today, I never said that I 'created' the account for privacy reasons. I did not create it for privacy reasons. I originally created it to improve the Holotropic Breathwork article, which was very partisan and lacking in a critical perspective. I created a 'criticism' section, using information from the authors that WikiUserTalk mentions, as well as other information at my disposal (including newspaper articles). I also created a 'reactions and contraindications' section using Grof's own texts (also in my possession). My edits produced strong reactions from some of the partisan editors, and one of them referred to a controversy concerning a citation of Shepherd on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page (of which I had been completely unaware). The objection there involved SSS108, who was subsequently banned by ArbCom from editing the Sathya Sai Baba article and related pages, and appears to be indefinitely blocked at the time of writing.


 * Returning to the Holotropic Breathwork article, one pro-Grof editor was more objective than the others, and he sensitively re-wrote the criticism section, which was too long according to the consensus. I accepted his much-pared-down version, and largely left it at that. Both the 'criticism' and the 'reactions and contraindications' sections appear to have stood the test of time.


 * Privacy was not the original motive, but it became a motive once I decided to edit under my own name, because I had edited another article subsequent to the Holotropic Breathwork one, where privacy was an issue. Simon Kidd (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
So has only been here for a couple of weeks and already is filing an SPI report? Clearly not a novice. Given the subject matter, I wonder if there's any connection to ? Rhomb (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Rhomb. The Wikipedia page for sockpuppetry is fairly easy to follow. I would suggest you review the development of this issue and how Simon Kidd immediately attacked me at great length for suggesting the removal of a link to Kevin Shepherd's website . That's how all this began. As it turns out, Wikipedia administrator DGG agreed with the removal of the link and removed it himself . All of this prompted me to research the issue. Due to Simon Kidd's controversial edits on the Sai Baba of Shirdi page and the Upasani Maharaj page, I think his former edits are relevant to his current edits and other editors need to know about this. Even Fences&Windows raised questions about Simon Kidd's possible sockpuppetry . Wikipedia administrator DGG even gave Simon Kidd a warning about his guesses to my identity . When someone extensively attacks others (as Simon Kidd has done against me), I think it is natural that the one attacked will conduct research about the person doing the attacking, which I have done.  Wiki  User  Talk  03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, is your first and only username, or have you previously edited under some other name, or are you currently editing under some other name?  Or did you really get here after two weeks?  After all, as you say, "former edits are relevant to [...] current edits and other editors need to know about this"?  Rhomb (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rhomb, yes, this is my first and only username. Regarding my comment about "former edits", that pertained to Simon Kidd and not to me. And it is important to say that when I created my account, I made perhaps a hundred edits but realized I did not have to save each and every one of them. A "preview" of the edits was enough for me to see the results. This page is about Simon Kidd and his alternate account. If you want to raise a separate page me, feel free to do so. Wiki  User  Talk  06:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence of abuse, deception or disruption by SK even if these two accounts are the same person. Rhomb (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rhomb, I am not saying that Simon Kidd used the account for abuse or disruption. Due to Simon Kidd's "obsessive promotion" of Kevin Shepherd (as seen by his contribs), I think his prior editing history is relevant to his current editing history and other editors need to know about this. Wiki  User  Talk  09:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SOCK, sockpuppetry is abuse of multiple accounts. If you're not alleging abuse, there's no point in this case.  Rhomb (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe there is deception involved, which is why this complaint was made. Wiki  User  Talk  14:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have evidence for this deception? Rhomb (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhomb, I believe I already provided it above. My "evidence" of Simon Kidd's deception is just as strong as your "evidence" of my being SSS108. Simon Kidd did not create his alternate account for privacy reasons. He created it to anonymously promote Kevin Shepherd, Kate Thomas (Shepherd's mother) and Stephen Castro on Wikipedia. From what I understand, Wikipedia does not allow users to edit articles that deal with themselves or their family members. Simon Kidd admitted several times that he edited an article that deals with his family member and that is why he wants to keep his alternate account private. Simon Kidd's edits under his alternate account show that he has an agenda on Wikipedia. In my view, his edits show what that agenda is. Other editors have pointed out Kidd's promotion of Kevin Shepherd and raised suspicions about possible sockpuppetry. Kidd's secrecy and attempt to withhold the fact that he is "The Communicator" indicates deception. Whether my view is justified or not is for those investigating this issue to decide. Wiki User  Talk  07:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * These are assertions, not evidence. Do you have diffs?  There is no absolute prohibition on editing articles on family members, although WP:COI has strong recommendations on the subject.  Incidentally, those guidelines also state that when investigating COI cases, the identity of other editor must not be revealed.  In the absence of any real evidence this case is looking increasingly like an attempt to harass the subject.  Rhomb (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional. In light of the fact that  is essentially an SPA for this case, clearly not a new user and very possibly a sockpuppet, the discussion is attempting to violate privacy and that there is admittedly no evidence of disruption or abuse -- surely this case should be dismissed and the complainant blocked?  Rhomb (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Rhomb is demanding me to provide evidence and does not provide a shred of evidence that I am a sockpuppet. Rhomb cannot provide the proof it asks me to provide. Once again, this whole issue was brought about by Simon Kidd's repeated attacks against me and his attempt to add controversial material on the Upasni Maharaj and Sai Baba of Shirdi pages. And the issue of privacy is ridiculous because Simon Kidd is using his real name by his own choice and by his own admission. Rhomb's complaints should be dismissed and it should be blocked for making accusations without evidence or providing diffs. Wiki  User  Talk  14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Due to potential privacy issues, the Arbitration Committee has been notified. –MuZemike 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which means this is going to sit here for ever with no action. I assume that unless ArbCom comments here that they don't have any interest in stepping in? Unless you got a reply from them MuZemike? Tiptoety  talk 10:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am taking the liberty to archive this case. There's no apparent policy being violated or deception occurring here. The editing periods never overlapped except for 1 article – apparently this has been fully disclosed to ArbCom, and I'm taking Simon's good faith explanation. ArbCom has apparently not replied regarding this case, and there is no action we, at SPI, need to take.  Jamie S93 ❤ 14:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been waiting for an arbitrator to respond. They never did, at least not to me. –MuZemike 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitrator comment: Apologies for the delay in responding, MuZemike; I have taken the responsibility for reviewing this. There is no evidence of sockpuppetry in this SPI. Alternate accounts are permitted under certain very narrow parameters. Simon Kidd has an alternate account, acknowledged to the Arbitration Committee, that meets those parameters, and the edits of his main and alternate account do not breach the requirements of WP:SOCK. This SPI can be closed.  Risker (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)