Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski (2nd)

User:Lwachowski (2nd)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Bksimonb (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the BKWSU article and trolling in exactly the same fashion, with exactly the same type of edit comments and talk page comments, as previous socks. The contribs of this editor show a brief history of normal editing unrelated articles until it suddenly turns nasty on the BKWSU article. This exact same pattern was observed in a previous disruptive account centred around the same article. In particular, note some of the similarity in edit comments.
 * Evidence

Evidence of reverting

Evidence of trolling

Evidence of similar edit comment by Some People


 * Comments


 * Before jumping to a conclusion, it should be made clear that is the lead Internet PR man for the organization in the question, the BKWSU.

The BKWSU Internet PR team has been involved in considerable edit-warring on this topic for sometime. Simon has been shown to invest considerable effort and energy in construing such threats, accusations, blocks and attacks as these on any independent editor contributing to the topic in collusion with other BKWSU followers in a very skillful fashion.

Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, user:76.79.146.8; Bksimonb requests an early unprotection. reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.

Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;


 * the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
 * the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
 * the removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making entirely neutral and beneficial formatting etc.

What is being pursued here is a specific policy by the new religious movement in question to block any other informed, independent contributor.

None of the proceeding user accounts the BKWSU seeks or sought to block edited at the same time acting as sockpuppets. was changed to due to a loss of password and this was clearly noted. These names were blocked on a technicality (too similar or same as living individuals), not sockpuppetry. No checkuser took place.

Simon has been intent and successful in blocking out other contributors in order to progress the organization's own PR agenda. This is all that this is all about.

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite obvious now that you are the same editor with yet another account. I hope we can find a long term solution for the disruption you have been causing for so long because the rest of us have lives we would like to get on with. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is becoming, frankly, desperate and dishonest. My browser logs me out as I leave it for while during writing a reply to you and the other members of your organization's Internet PR team on a talk page ... Then you then attempt to misconstrue to a third party it as sockpuppetry.


 * I rest my case and hope the admins finally wake up to what you are doing. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it's quite significant that the IP is Japan-based since we had a barrage of Japan-based IP addresses causing disruption last year . So now you are linked to Some People and the Japan IP proxies. I know you are not in Japan, or at least you aren't usually. You are either one of two people I know of, one of whom has been banned. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think it should not be up to an active party in a dispute to push the point on a page like this. WP:NPA is proceeding to desperate levels here, whether or not the user is in fact a sockpuppet. Orderinchaos 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Case of using the process to further one's side in a dispute. Take it to dispute resolution.
 * Conclusions