Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swamiblue/Archive

27 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

An individual is using multiple IP addresses and the recently created name Swamifraud to post libelous edits about the religious organization BAPS on its page and related pages. He/she has engaged in several edit wars on several pages with me and is using different IP addresses/Swamifraud log-in to do so. I believe 1-2 of his/her log ins have been temporarily blocked due to such vandalism already. I have called out this individual in multiple talk posts and he/she has even attempted to delete one such talk post of mine. It is evident to me that all above posted IP's and username are the same based on: 1. pattern of reverting my edits for particular articles in same pattern at particular times, 2. Similar if not identical talk page posts and cross editing of talk page posts, 3. referral to self but sometimes to "colleagues" in said talk page posts. All supporting diffs posted here:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)
 * 21)
 * 22)
 * 23)
 * 24)
 * 25)
 * 26)
 * 27)
 * 28)
 * 29)
 * 30)

Please help! Also, please advise me on what to do in future if this happens because I am new to this. Is it possible to get the affected pages protected for longer periods of time or indefinitely to avoid this in the future? Anastomoses (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that 141.217.232.53 appears to be the primary private IP address used by the individual. There are a few other IP addresses that were used years ago for other edits, but all of the ones I posted have only been used in the recent vandalism attempts and do not appear to have been used by others. Anastomoses (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I just found this page and I would like to defend myself and refute that I am a sock puppet. I am working on research with my partner on the swaminarayan faction of Hinduism. We found out through research the off shoot branch of swaminarayan was embroiled in some controversy so I went ahead and made the edit. Also my partner, who is also is involved in my project, who is from Southfield, MI (hence the LTU IP) informed me that the baps version of the devotional prayer wording is different from the original group. I believed that this in important information to note on baps and for both edits, I included documented links that affirmed this information. Now the problem is that Anastomoses is a member of baps who keeps reverting any changing to these edits because for some reason, he believe that this information is not meant to be public. There is a underlying issue that baps has changed not only this main prayer song but a few other writings that are considered scriptures in both sects. Anastomoses keeps altering these writing parallel to his sect's belief's and he is going out of his way to keep this information hidden. You can see is biased when he realizes that I am not going to let him keep undoing good faith edits. He tries to minimalize the edit on the prayer song after I made the last edit by stating that the song is different only by two words. Whether it is ten works or one word, it is altered none the less and he did not want this information to be made public. This manipulation of words in recent years further details the schism between the original cult and new cult. The altering of words by baps also needs to be noted in the controversy section eventually and once more writings can be confirmed as altered, I will add it looking for support from Wikipedia's editors then. Anastomoses may have good intentions but cannot accept that the a cult or any organization has it's pluses and minuses. We are fairly new to Wikipedia but since being here we have already learned some good advise from a contributor and it is "Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations ...These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki." -goethean

Anastomoses, you do not control any articles. These factual edits are here to stay.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * 141.217.0.0/16 geolocates to Wayne State University, 198.111.39.32 to nearby Lawrence Technological University, and 50.203.3.249 all the way to Comcast in New Jersey. The New Jersey IP doesn't appear to be a proxy, so I don't see how they can all be the same user. Even if they were based in New Jersey and editing on a Wayne State VPN, that still wouldn't hold water since usually a person only has access to the VPN at one university. CU can't connect accounts to IPs, so given that this is a hodgepodge of socks, meats, and unrelated users, I don't see much that can be done here. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked the 50.203.3.249 address using multiple tools/websites and I always get a Detroit area community college that pops up as the location. Is the New Jersey result using one of Wikipedia's special tools? Anastomoses (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

11 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:6Duarf.imaws appeared as soon as sockpuppeteer was blocked. Similar name. Similar edits at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha  Neil N   talk to me  04:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bbb23's comment made me realize something. Duarfimaws is the reverse of Swamifraud. -- Neil N   talk to me  14:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However both Swamifraud accounts were blocked because of user name violations so technically the editor was free to create another account. Duarfimaws was blocked because of disruption and 6Duarf.imaws was then created as a sockpuppet. All four accounts should remain blocked because of user name violations but I suppose the editor is free to create another account after the one week block against Duarfimaws has expired (inless it's extended because of the sockpuppet disruption). -- Neil N   talk to me  14:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All four are blocked indefinitely. After the first user name block, everything from that point on became socking/block evasion (in addition to anything else).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Support: User created account User:Swamifraud which got indefinitely blocked (for blatant user name) - the user was warned again BLP-attacks. User created second account User:Swamioffraud which also got indefinitely blocked (for blatant user name)in a short time. Third account created User:Duarfimaws which got blocked for 1 week for BLP-attacks. User prompted to by-pass sanction by creating fourth account: User:6Duarf.imaws. Thus, in total three accounts got created and blocked. Kapil.xerox (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
It wasn't hard to determine that Swamioffraud is a puppet of Swamifraud. Similarly, 6Duarf.imaws is obviously the same person as Duarfimaws. The more important question is the connection between the fraud accounts and the imaws accounts. I concluded they were connected as the same individual or as two individual meat puppets. Therefore, I treated all accounts as related to the oldest, Swamifraud. I've now blocked the two imaws accounts indefinitely and tagged all four accounts consistent with my conclusion. The accounts took similar positions related to these articles. However, the imaws accounts seemed to write better than the fraud accounts. Sometimes, that's stylistic evidence that the accounts are meat puppets; other times, it's cleverness on the part of one individual. I couldn't be sure. There's a mountain of diffs and issues, so it's hard to sort through, but the most telling connection between the fraud and the imaws account that I found (I didn't look at every edit) are two edits to Jay Sadguru Swami. In April, Swamifraud made this edit, which susbstantively is very similar to part of this most recent edit by 6Duarf.imaws.

I'll leave it up to the folk here to decide whether a CU is needed, but even if a CU demonstrated no technical connection between the two sets of accounts, I think the blocks are justified. Also, if you agree with my conclusion, the report's sock master should be changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed there is already an archived report on Swamifraud at Sockpuppet investigations/Swamifraud from back in April, attempting to connect a list of IP addresses to the registered account.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neil's clever palindrome discovery makes it far more likely this is sock not meat puppetry. BTW, is that a common device used by socks?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen it before, for a RBI case though. NativeForeigner Talk 18:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Duarfimaws. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

24 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User created an account as soon as news about false allegations came out about the non-profit religious organization BAPS. The following reasons serve as evidence for sock-puppetry: 1. User makes an offensive post on the talk page and states: "I added this to the controversy section. Please add more information as it develops. We nee the references to priyadarshan swami added as this was brought up in the past" His referral to "this was brought up in the past" clearly indicates he is one the sock-puppet. Since this content was removed for BLP-violations. Here is the diff: (See at the very bottom) 2. User is targeting Swaminarayan related articles. Specifically BAPS 3. Has habit of reverting edits and not engaging in constructive discussion and neglecting editorial consensus. 4. Should be straight-away blocked for violating BLP-polices. 5. For removing another editors edits in the talk page post 6. Violating WP:3RR All supporting diffs posted here:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

The following edits violate three-revert rule WP:3RR
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  Kapil.xerox (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I blocked User:Priyadswami indefinitely and User:141.217.233.132 for one week as socks. The agenda intersection among the accounts is obvious. The IP, as other IPs before, geolocates to Wayne State University. In addition, there are some obvious style similarities. Here are two diffs: --Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . This shows previous sock User:Duarfimaws saying: "I have some information on this and am going to forward it to Times of India and the Indian Express but needed some more details."
 * . This shows Priyadswami saying: "I will forward this to American and Canadian News sources to have them consider reporting this in North America."
 * I've declined an unblock request since the relationship between the newer and older accounts is largely ✅. . Closing this since everybody is now blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

29 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Reporting additional sock: Bluespeakers, 35.16.75.250, 35.16.28.177 (both IP addresses geolocate to Wayne State University/Detroit area)

History of numerous sockpuppets (Swamifraud, Swamioffraud, Duarfimaws, 6Duarf.imaws, Sageorsun, Breadinglover, Priyadaswami) and associated ips geolocating to Wayne State University or Detroit area (141.217.233.69 and others). All of these socks have been banned and have regularly engaged in edit warring, BLP policy violations, blatant user name, violating WP:3RR, agenda-centric edits, etc...

See archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swamifraud/Archive

Contrived story of Bluespeakers knowing original sock:
 * 1)

Bluespeakers reaching out to same editors in similar ways as Sageorsun (banned):
 * 1)
 * 2)

Same proposed/forced edits for Swaminarayan article: Breadinglover (banned), Swamifraud (banned), and Bluespeakers
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Same proposed Edits on BAPS despite the fact that the argument of the past sock (priyadaswami) had been deleted from the existing talk page: priyadaswami (banned) and bluespeakers:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Same editing history as with address that geolocates to Wayne State University, as before with the IP socks of Swamifraud: 35.16.75.250 and Bluespeakers
 * 1)
 * 2)

Same editing history as with address that geolocates to Wayne State University, as before with the IP socks of Swamifraud: 35.16.75.250 and Bluespeakers
 * 1)
 * 2)

Identical editing history as with address that geolocates to Wayne State University, as before with the IP socks of Swamifraud: 35.16.28.177 and Bluespeakers
 * 1)
 * 2)

Same editing history as with address that geolocates to Wayne State University, as before with the IP socks of Swamifraud: 141.217.233.132 and Bluespeakers
 * 1)
 * 2)  Kapil.xerox (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On same pages, inserting wrong information, with wrong sources. So far only this user has carried out such conflict in this page, so it can be checked if he's sock puppet or not. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I saw that you reported me. I believe that you really do not like any criticism towards swaminarayan stuff. You blocked my friends and now you are trying to block me. I did not want to get involved with this and I did as a favor and slight interest because I was astounded by the allegations and the way your team gangs up on people to remove topics. I have not done anything malicious, posted any wrong information. I noticed that you even watched the debate rage on between Bladesmulti and I that occurred on the swaminarayan page.

You were so quick to remove the BAPS rape allegations from the wiki article and report User:priyadswami as offensive but this you just watched and then quietly reported everything. That is fine with me. There are endless forums on the internet were things can be reported unbiased but that is not why I am here. Your team wants to portray BAPS and swaminarayan related articles in a certain way and that is the way this site works. I hope that moderators take a deep look at the debates I had and how much information that you try to block from being on here for swaminarayan related articles. On 22 Oct 2013, Pramukh swami was accused of rape along with others and baps responded on their site. User:priyadswami put this information on wikipedia including the denial. You instantly reverted this article. I am not even going to post the times because a moderator will check that out.

There are three-four users that are part of Swaminarayan BAPS group and you guys attacked that user and blocked him systematically. That what you have been doing for a while now. Any one with critical information towards these topics will be removed. Since then no one has posted anything regarding these allegation. BAPS is a global organization and over a dozen media sources reported the allegation. I should not say this online but for the sake of integrety I will. I personally know all the people that have been involved with posting any critical information. Some are my friends and some just joined along. I never got involved until they explained to me how you are controlling this pages. I am going to stand up for my rights. I investigated this further and I have found that BAPS has a e-communications team and that there are members on their that deal with online postings. I am nearly 100% positive that is your role to do for "seva."

Since then not one user was allowed to post about the Rape allegation and you got a friend to remove most of the postings in the talk page regarding that. Then today, another user tried to removed the criticism of swaminarayan and I discussed this for hours until I called my friend to find out how to contact administrators to report this and I ultimately got the page protected but not once did you try and resolve the issue. You were watching and when things got calm you reported me. That is a snake thing to do. We all attended WSU and I know all three of the people that are involved in researching Swaminarayan Hinduism. They started finding the information through research and wanted a neutral place to put this information because modern man made religions try to cover up as much as information as possible.

I did not do anything malicious or use any language that was not civil. All I did was post facts. You did nothing to help about on facts when there is something negative or critical and you waited to report me rather than help. I am going to talk to User:priyadswami and see if they can get their account blocked. They socked because they didn't know what to do when they were being constantly reverted and blocked. They went off but I have not. I have remained civil and only posted factual information based on their work and my own research. I hope a true moderator takes a look at this whole back log and sees that the articles are being controlled by a certain group on members who have no intention of keeping Wikipedia unbiased. They just want to show that their religious group is clean and untarnished which is not the case. Please see the Swaminarayan talk page for my posts about the criticism and and please see it that the rape allegations are added under a controversy header under BAPS and Pramukh Swami and he and other swami's were accused of sodomizing and the fact that baps responded to the allegations. Maybe he didn't rape anybody but it needs to be known on wikipedia that these allegations occurred. The Swami Dayanand criticism of Swaminarayn also needs to be kept as there a 6 sources on the talk page showing this.

People around the world who are reading Wikipedia should have access to this. I am going to make sure I follow up as this the craziest thing I have had to deal with online in a long time. The people who constantly keep removing and controlling the articles belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Swaminarayan. I want to also apologize to any moderators that have to deal with this. I think there are way more important things to do with this site but User:Kapil.xerox and Bladesmulti really tried ruining my day. Bluespeakers (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another item of mention that I wanted to add was that I am educated on these subjects. We all are. I genuinely care and did not before. When my partners got upset and started socking rather than cooling off, posting real information became a problem because IP’s are blocked. I am willing to confirm my account with an administrator if that is needed. I do not know what else to do. I have done nothing hateful or spiteful even though I can see how easy it is to get upset over a topic that you are fervent about. Please to all reviewing my account, I apologize again for any time that you have to use regarding this. I like using Wikipedia. I used it throughout years before University to make simple edits without caring and once I got involved, I just thought it is not right that people can control the web and censor things because they belong to a group that does not want anything tarnishing their reputation even though the facts exist.

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

These accusations against me are outrageous and wrong. I tried to work with this user, ask questions and reach out to other users. I was under the impression that you have discuss before you delete so I have not. I have not done anything malicious. I personally know the user who was we all attended WSU and that person is still trying to fight their case. This was a large university and we had discussions about religions and that's where this all started. I just picked up the place after that user left me the notes on this group. For what it's worth, I am not sure if it is worth this much debate. If someone who does not have attachment to this can take a look. It would be very helpful. Apologies for taking up time. I asked users for help but instead Bluespeakers attacked me. So I sought out others help. I provided many sources and other users agreed with me. I can see why people get blocked because no one fights for themselves. They think they own the articles. I quoted that I was not clear what they mean. They are the one making the changes, they are the one with the burden of proof, they are the one that needs to discuss. I am merely enforcing policy by keeping the article at a stable version while the issues are discussed.” Another user protected the article. Please consider blocking this user as they constantly are guarding articles and trolling me and changing anything I do. Please see my history and discussions. Thank you Bluespeakers (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

35.16.75.250 recent posts are my account when I forget to sign in. That is a public computer.

Bluespeakers (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * These are the users that have gone out of their way to make sure the Articles are portrayed only in a certain way:

Bladesmulti and Kapil.xerox, Anastomoses

They are reporting to administrators and accusing me of sock puppetry based on the topics that I choose to speak about rather than the quality of the work. They are patrolling certain articles like police man to make sure that the group that they are affiliated with are only portrayed on a clean way when all sources from all research has proven that this is simply not the case. They have made a personal agenda to make sure that these articles have nothing that they do not approve. Two of the them belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Swaminarayan. They have patrolled my friends in the past. If you look at their history, they group together to convince people that their way of presenting an article is the only correct way. I do not understand why this is allowed. Only for criticism and controversy do they respond and only for BAPS related topics do they do this. Otherwise they do not care about Wikipedia. I conducted an investigation of my own and I found out recently that BAP has an e-communications team and they are required to monitor the internet to make sure that no negative press is associate with the sect. I believe that from my friends history and my own with dealing with Kapil.xerox, Anastomoses they are some level "paid users" (Physical payment or "spiritual payment") to make sure that they control these articles. I believe many more people are apart of this. This was partially my groups research project at WSU. I am going to fight for my rights here. This is absurd and I feel like just quitting but I have not done anything wrong.


 * After reading plenty of literature and e-mailing some long term users and getting help I have issued a complaint of Conflict of interest Noticeboard titled Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Please review it along with my case to ensure a fair opportunity is given to defend myself. I would like to know from an administrator who is considering making a decision to let me know should I repost what I said there here to also serve as proof that I am being attacked not on all my posts but the critical content that is pertaining to BAPS related topics. I believe that anyone who engages in discussion or simply posts a controversial subject regarding this group will be systematically removed as the they will group up, report them, get the blocked and then revert all the changes. This in turn will never allow any user to make appropriate change due their their mob patrolling.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I requested cancelling of the block on User talk:Bbb23. I also protest against this flimsy procedure for blocking. Andries (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I have indefinitely blocked Bluespeakers without waiting for a CU. Regardless of whether they are in fact a sock or a meat puppet (as they acknowledge), the amount of disruption they are doing to articles, noticeboards, and user talk pages is enormous. I'll let someone else decide whether to still endorse a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked, and he's definitely ✅ to be a sock puppet, not a canvassed user. Of course, . Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone else archive this, but I wanted to note that concurrently with it being closed I blocked the two IP addresses for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

28 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Vandalizing same page, just like he did before, with many other accounts, made hardly 3 days after he made his last attempt to get his ban removed from the account Bluespeakers. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This user has a long history of block evasion with numerous sockpuppets (Swamifraud, Swamioffraud, Duarfimaws, 6Duarf.imaws, Sageorsun, Breadinglover, Priyadaswami, Bluespeakers) and associated ips geolocating to Wayne State University or Detroit area (141.217.233.69 and others). All of these socks have been banned and have regularly engaged in edit warring, BLP policy violations, blatant user name, violating WP:3RR, agenda-centric edits, misquoting sources, etc...


 * This user continues to make similar edits on Swaminarayan, Shastriji Maharaj, Gunatitanand Swami, and Sai Baba articles as prior socks did.
 * Similar edit fixations with Wayne State Area IP's previously reported in Swamifraud SPI:
 * For Swaminarayan Article:
 * Burpedworm: #
 * Swamifraud (banned): #
 * 141.217.233.69: (banned IP): #
 * Breadinglover: (banned): #


 * For Gunatitanand Swami Article:
 * Burpedworm: #
 * 141.217.203.131: #
 * 141.217.232.53: #

Kapil.xerox (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Under what circumstances did I vandalize an account? So if anyone make an edit to these pages, you report them and they get blocked? There are hundreds of people that you will have to block then. Please show any vandalism I have committed.

Burpedworm (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I love Wiki, I cannot believe that this paragraph existed:

If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed.

Burpedworm (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've indeffed User:Burpedworm and blocked User:141.217.232.164 for one year. In addition to the other obvious evidence, the IP, who is from Wayne State University (again), posted this to 's talk page. That was followed by this edit by Burpedworm changing the IP's signature block to his.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

All taken care of; closing now. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

21 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A new sock of Swamifraud appears to have popped up and started making the same posts on noticeboard as prior banned socks. This user continues to evade his/her numerous blocks. He/she attempts to repeatedly disrupt the pages on BAPS and Pramukh Swami Maharaj. See archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swamifraud/Archive) for history of many, many sock accounts and abuse of Wayne State University or Detroit area IPs--all banned for a ton of violations. This time, the "new" user went straight to posting on the BLP noticeboard (with custom signature) and has not edited the main article pages or talk pages yet (likely attempt to avoid being detected). Same chronology and editing style.

Posts by Iambarky789 on BLP noticeboard:


 * 

Similar disruptive posting on noticeboards (including BLP noticeboard) before by banned user Bluespeakers:


 * 

Iambarky789 continues to fixate on same points in same articles as prior banned socks:


 * Talk page posts by banned sock Bluespeakers on the Pramukh Swami Maharaj article:


 * 


 * Talk page posts by banned sock Priyadaswami on the Pramukh Swami Maharaj article:


 * 


 * BAPS talk page post by banned sock Bluespeakers:


 * 


 * BAPS talk page post by banned sock Priyadaswami:


 * 


 * Anastomoses (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * We will soon see him vandalizing Swaminarayan page too. The reporter has already provided diffs. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've indeffed and tagged Iambarky789 based on WP:DUCK. I've therefore declined the CU as unnecessary. If they create a stink, as Bluespeakers did, a CU can always be performed at the discretion of a checkuser. I'll leave this open in case someone has a different view.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bbb23, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)




 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Swamifraud has a history of tendentious editing, vandalism, and BLP violations on articles related to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, including BAPS and Pramukh Swami Maharaj, which culminated in an indefinite block on 5 May 2016 1. Most recently, multiple unregistered users with similar IP addresses made disruptive edits, resulting in a temporary ban by and semi-protection of several articles. Besides originating from the Detroit area which has been suspected for the puppeteer in past investigations, the editing patterns of these users resemble one another. Beginning 27 July, Applebutter221 started editing the exact same articles.
 * Applebutter expects to interact with User:Sacredsea 12 despite never interacting with this individual whereas the master has interacted with Sacredsea multiple times 1.
 * I stated why that user's name came up in the response to you here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Swaminarayan_Sampraday%2C_BAPS%2C_Morari_Bapu%2C_Vachanamrut. I am not a sock and you seriously need to disclose your COI. Applebutter221 (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Users justify removing or editing matter related to BAPS with similar reasoning.123456
 * User believes there is a group of editors affiliated with BAPS editing in opposition to them,12,34 like the suspected puppeteer, 123, 4, 5. At times, user has accused an administrator of aiding this group. 6
 * User started talk page thread to insert sexual abuse allegations in this article 1, which the suspected puppeteer also attempted several years ago in violation of BLP 2. This user also reinserted parts of a talk page thread related to these allegations that was originally deleted for not adhering to BLP. 3 Of note, the suspected puppeteer was involved in this thread previously, and now Applebutter is resurfacing the same reasoning 4.
 * Users makes disruptive edits without offering clear edit summaries and do not engage in discussion 1234
 * Users collectively demonstrate more knowledge than the average unregistered user as demonstrated by the use of warning templates 1, knowledge of the NPOV noticeboard 2 and seeking editor assistance 3, and accusing others of edit warring 456.
 * When engaged in disputes with other editors, users often state, “Knock it off.” 1234 Moksha88 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The use of pronouns implies previous edits were done by the same user. 12 Moksha88 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Edits are timed closely and pick up on the same talk page threads. 123 Moksha88 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Probably him, but page protections would be better since he has too many IPs. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that page protection could only be requested if there has been a recent uptick in vandalism or disruptive editing. I agree, there should be a stronger intervention warranted given the history of this behavior. Do you have any recommendations? Moksha88 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It is ironic that Moksha88 is accusing all the IP's of being a socks but then he himself has been accused of the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive. Also it is notable that this user has a biased towards baps and this statement from his accusation still stand true: "Most importantly, all of them are removing contents from Criticism of Swaminarayan sect, nothing constructive and opening unnecessary talks on the talk page and supporting each other. This makes single user to be very occupied for editing. Perhaps, a try not to add any criticism about one particular sect." 136.2.32.181 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement to make an account and per this article it is encouraged to make edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_not_create_an_account%3F I made an account and sometimes I forget to log in. Not all of those IP's are mine. Is that against the rules? Applebutter221 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Users Apollo1203 and Moksha88 have a history of trying to dominate users forcing editors into not making any negative or critical appearing edits to BAPS and related articles. My theory is that they are members of the group and are constantly working together to constantly remove items and have been accused in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive and this is partially true. Further more, I investigated the users history further and I found that Moksha88 is a member of BAPS and discloses this fact in a earlier edit as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344. This editor has an extremely NPOV view point. The article and edits in question are heavily sources with biased BAPS materials. How so I report this conflict of interest and how to report this to get him banned from editing more swaminarayan articles? Applebutter221 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the question of COI here. Moksha88 (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have responded to the blatant lies also there. This user is unable to be neutral and make edits that are biased towards his group. All his early edits are pro BAPS and constantly fights with anyone that attempts to make cited edits to BAPS and related topics since 2006. Applebutter221 (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I dug deepter into moksha88's history In his edits during his early years, he stated to other users with the greeting "Jay Swaminarayan" multiple times. This is a common way of a satsangi, member of the swaminarayn faith to began conversations. Next he states "as the representatives of the two largest groups with in the faith, we should try to present'.....The swaminarayan sampraday and baps are the two largest groups thus he is clearly is apart of baps. They need to disclose there conflict of interest. They only talk about baps, add baps links and have been constantly been accused by multiple users that they distort swaminarayan articles to BAPS ideology.Applebutter221 (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Evidence:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93262540
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93668637
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93668863
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hanuman_Das&diff=prev&oldid=93710087
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vachanamrut&diff=prev&oldid=100605254
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shikshapatri&diff=prev&oldid=100606437
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfacets&diff=prev&oldid=100022515
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfacets&diff=prev&oldid=100952094

Applebutter221 (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I have addressed your concerns here.Moksha88 (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

And I hope you have gotten to read mine too at the same place bud. Also you might as well save the moderator time and link me to the editor you guys warred with on the Morari Bapu talk page, user harshill I believe, I have been using their edits that you guys ganged up on so keep trying to link me to that while avoiding answering how a BAPS representative is able to change the meaning of multiple pages? Applebutter221 (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CUs will not connect IPs to named accounts. Salvio 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is too much collateral on and  to block them completely from editing but I've done a partial block from some of the key articles. It's likely that page protection is going to be the only truly effective option unfortunately. I've also blocked and tagged Applebutter221 as a fairly obvious sock. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Swamiblue was blocked indefinitly on 5 May 2016 by [1]. This editor has previously engaged in tendentious editing and vandalism on articles related to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, such as BAPS and Pramukh Swami Maharaj. This editor then resurfaced in July 2020, first as multiple unregistered users and then as Applebutter221, which led to another indefinite block by [2] This editor has resurfaced again on Wikipedia as demonstrated by recent edits. Please see below the similarities between this new editor and Applebutter221 who was the most recent sock of Swamiblue.

The editor references details that only someone editing for the past year would know.
 * 1. “I found the material looking at the previous versions under the history tab on Wikipedia because I distinctly remember in the past, there was more information.” [3]


 * 2. DRN Discussion
 * Applebutter221: 2a
 * Kevpopz: 2b

Within the first day of editing, the user returns to the same article. Applebutter221: see diff Kevpopz: see diff

The editor resurfaces arguments made by a sock of Swamiblue.


 * 1.
 * Applebutter221: 1a


 * Kevpopz: 1b


 * 2.
 * Applebutter221: 2a


 * Kevpopz: “Then what do you suggest we put to let readers know that BAPS is in fact a legally separate institution from the Original Sampraday?” (2b)


 * 3.
 * Applebutter221: 3a


 * Kevpopz: Swamini Vato is not a core scripture of the Swaminarayan Sampraday or from Swaminarayan's time. (3b)


 * 4.
 * Applebutter221: 4a


 * Kevpopz: 4b


 * 5.
 * Applebutter221: 5a


 * Kevpopz: 5b


 * 6.
 * Applebutter221: 6a


 * Kevpopz:6b Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - I agree that there is significant shared POV, but I'd feel better with a CU check here since this is one of those topic areas where people do independently show up with strong POVs without actively working together. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ to plus . They are, btw in the same location as Swamiblue and  to the named master..
 * Think we're done here. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As demonstrated before, Swamiblue has a history of tendentious editing, vandalism, and BLP violations on articles related to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, which concluded with an indefinite block on 5 May 2016 issued by Bbb23 1. Beginning July, multiple sockpuppets have been identified 12. Within days of the most recent block, two additional users have resurfaced on the same article with precisely the same points to dispute.
 * Gottiyu's first and only edit 1 was made on a talk page in which the prior sock, Kevpopz, participated extensively 123.
 * GunatitSamaj1966 points out the same content 123 disputed by Applebutter221 12. Moksha88 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

- Thank you and  for reviewing the evidence. When I filed the earlier [SPI] which was reviewed by, several IP addresses had made similar edits within the same time frame that seemed more than coincidence. Based on your experience, if this user has access to some kind of software like a VPN that can circumvent Wikipedia, how would this affect how we weight the technical evidence with the behavioral evidence?

Just to clarify, GunatitSamaj1966 made several edits before this one that also resemble the prior sock Applebutter221 123. It just seemed too much of a coincidence for that user and Gottiyu both to make an edit right within days after Kevpopz was blocked on the very same article. Moksha88 (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Agreed that Gottiyu has similar interests and opinions to past socks, but same as last time I'd like checkuser evidence to be sure. GunatitSamaj certainly looks similar as well, but hard to be sure with just one edit. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can give you a step up a three-step ladder with Gottiyu (the single edit and account creation). GunatitSamaj1966 ❌. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To provide clarity with Gottiyu : I can put them in a very large geographic area and the archive also moves around the geographic area. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If there was use of a VPN, I would be aware of it as they come from webhost platforms which we routinely block. I am acutely aware of the VPNs in the country that the two users are in also. I saw no VPN usage, and the only way something could get past me is by the use of a Zombie computer. When it comes to that though, I can count on one hand the amount of people I know both on and off Wikipedia who likely have that skill level. You may wish to look to further behavoiral explanations like WP:MEAT to explain the coincidence, because the technical evidence won't provide it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Given AmandaNP's findings, I'm not willing to block at this time - it certainly is suspicious, but this seems like one of those areas where lots of people with strong opinions show up independently. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Back-filling tag on master (based on User:Bluespeakers being cu-confirmed sock). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This user seems to be back under a new account. Gaybaps edits articles in the same area as Swamiblue, including Swaminarayan Sampraday[a] and BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Chino Hills. Additionally, the user seems to have been created to promote inclusion of information about same-sex marriages. In the past, confirmed sockpuppets have posted such material to the same talk page and others. The user also made exactly 12 edits before editing the Swaminarayan page, which is uder WP:SEMI. Thus, I think this is a sockpuppet. Hexcodes (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is an update to my original post.
 * This account removes a specific section from the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article . The same edit has been made from an IP address similar to previously partially blocked IP addresses.


 * There is a new user who also resembles the sockpuppet based on this edit . The blocked user AppleButter221 has made similar posts . Hexcodes (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * GeneralNotability (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, Gaybaps is directly ✅ to long-blocked.
 * I also have the following accounts ✅ to Gaybaps:
 * all. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * all. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * all. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * all. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)