Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bksimonb

User:Bksimonb

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

--AWachowski 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence

Looking through the history of the topic on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, there seems to be a distinct theme of ownership WP:OWN being exhibited by not just active members of the religious movement but even dedicated organizational IT PR Team members. Over the last few days, I attempted to add a number of citations, quotations to citation and make neutral typographic and tagging correction only for them to be identically reverted under the guise of "Vandalism". by the BKWSU team members.

'''Although I am sure that these are separate individuals, I suggest that this is clear as possible an example of dedicated meatpuppetry. WP:SOCK states that in such cases, such individuals should be treat the same as sockpuppets.'''

User:Bksimonb states that he is an official BKWSU IT PR team member. In a previous Arbcom decision, and user page,  it was disclosed that User:Riveros11 was also part of the team and confirmed puppeteer. I suspected that single user account User:Appledell is also. Both exhibit a trend of following the leadership of User:Bksimonb. In the arbcom case, it was stated that there was "clear evidence of article ownership".

reverts back to Bksimonb version
 * User:Bksimonb
 * user:Riveros11, ,
 * User:Reneeholle
 * user:Appledell
 * User:IPSOS

Both User:Bksimonb, User:Riveros11 and User:IPSOS have filed disproportionate report of vandalism, personal attacks, checkusers, sockpuppetry complaints regarding the BKWSU page, included some while logged out so they do not appear in the contribution history of the named account, apparently to intimdate any user contradiction the organization's position, even those well known not to be socks by other editors.

Even when I have placed extensive documentation and justification of change I see no where else, it is dismissed by IPSOS by a oneliner say it is not "discussion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWachowski (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With all independent contributors intimidated off, the discuss and article remains virtual fallow, e.g. 3 edits in two months;

(To avoid any counter-accusation, I recently required to change my user name due to a lost password but have reported this).

My response from the talk page of the article User:AWachowski seems to be having a problem with:
 * Comments
 * Please read Consensus, which clearly describes the situation you find yourself in and explains how to get out of it. It even has a flowchart. If what you are doing isn't working, try following the clearly described process. In particular, if your change is reverted, you are supposed to discuss your changes on the talk page. Your previous attempt at "discussion" was disasterous, because you insisted on trying to discuss all your changes at one. The linear format of the talk page dictates that this leads to confusion. Pick one proposed change, discuss it, achieve consensus, then lather, rinse and repeat. I'm sorry that you don't "get" that I am trying help you, and that you persist in using means that don't work on Wikipedia, and that you project opposition where you are simply using the wrong methods. That formula doesn't lead anywhere. I've been here long enough to see it repeated over and over. The problem is not with the "other editors". It's with your behaviour. It's not adaptive to the environment, and you and not listening to others trying to explain this. IPSOS (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AWachowski, the description above seems much closer to a description of your own conduct than anyone else's, especially with regards to personal attacks and sockpuppetry. I would hope this is obvious to anyone who looks at the article history and discussion. Bksimonb 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How could I possibly be IPSOS or Reneeholle? They are active on other articles, with in-depth knowledge of those subjects, and for me to impersonate them would take a huge investment of time and effort and impeccable acting skills that Don Juan would be proud of!

Appledell and Riveros11 have also declared that they are BKs. Me and these two accounts were involved in the arbitration case last December and so any necessary check-users have already been performed. I know that you know who I am and who Riveros11 is and you also know that we are different people who live on different continents. What we both have in common is that we have suffered a flagrant disregard for our privacy shown by editors opposing the BKWSU with whom you share a similar approach of constantly broadcasting our (already declared) affiliation, presumably in an attempt to discredit us.

Since some editors are BKs, it is possible that one or more of us have logged on from a computer at the various main centres in London or Madhuban on rare occations. However I always try and avoid this and use either my home PC or work PC that both have fixed IP addresses.

This sockpuppet report seems to me to be an attempt to game the system and/or cause disruption.

Regards Bksimonb 07:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have stated clearly that I know these individuals are separate but that I can substantiate in detail a collusion between the BKWSU IT PR Team (currently, , over the control of this topic. This is meatpuppetry and it has gone on for too long. Unfortunately, I do not know of where else to report meatpuppets.


 * I consider that has been brought into this out of goodwill but is aping the main team. It would appear that  is very skilled in the use of Wikipedia accusation and attacks to manipulation. Perhaps he just enjoys provoking other editors.


 * Additional note, use of dishonest summaries to make reversion. User:IPSOS has been editing my user page and knows I am not new . Unfortunately, I have consider the persistent use of "consensus" argument; ignoring or erasing discussion to be contrivances to block further development of the article by the BKWSU IT Team, even if copied by others. --AWachowski 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes on this. These contribs should say enough about the situation.


 * Regards Bksimonb 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for arbcom input here as that arb case is central to this SSP case. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Would also appreciate taking this report into account. Although the checkuser was inconclusive, I believe the contrib evidence is still useful. Note that AWachowski is a reincarnation of Lwachowski by his own admission.


 * I would also like to bring to attention that the constant taunts that editors identified as BKs are subjected to by AWatchowski, Lwatchowski, Green108, 244 and the various sockpuppets that appeared between Jan07 and Green108's return, the constant highlighting of their affiliation and gross misrepresentation of the subject both in talk page comments, misuse of references and POV editing, is very likely to polarise the involved editors into a "them and us" situation. I have always welcomed outside input into the article from neutral editors and used Rfcs to establish consensus on key issues. If the editors suspected in this report were actually dealing with civil, neutral editors acting in good faith would we really still look like meatpuppets?


 * Perhaps it's time of an arbcom review of the case.


 * Regards Bksimonb 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous RFCU show Riveros11 and Appledell are not the same. There does seem to be meatpuppeting and WP:OWN issues going on here, but it's beyond the scope of a SSP case. I suggest this case be filed at arbcom if anyone is interested in pursuing it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions