This issue is now closed and a record of the discussion has been archived for posterity. See the original record at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekantik.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Gaurasundara edit
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Gaurasundara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Ekantik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
SSS108 talk-email 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence
Gaurasundara changed his name from Ekantik to Gaurasundara twice: Refs: 01 02
Asked about deleting his profile: [1]
Gaurasundara's first edit on his userpage came from Ekantik's page [2], Ekantik was the very first person to greet him [3].
"Gaurasundara" is a well known internet critic of Sathya Sai Baba and under the name of "Ekantik", he is attempting to argue that he is not a POV editor or pusher [4][5][6] although all of his edits pertain solely to the controversy sections.
Ekantik secretly attempted to get Freelanceresearch (a Sathya Sai Baba proponent) blocked on Wikipedia: [7][8][9][10][11]. When one considers that Freelanceresearch is a public critic of Gaurasundara (he also uses this name outside Wikipedia), then the attempt to get her blocked is understood. SSS108 talk-email 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comments
"Ekantik" is my original account. I opened a new account ("Gaurasundara") to make separate contributions to pages connected with Hindu religion and changed my listing on connected project pages, before finding out that sockpuppetry is forbidden by Wikipedia. After finding out that sockpuppetry is frowned upon, I attempted to delete my account with no success, hence my query at WP:HD.
After a thorough reading of WP:SOCK, I discovered that sockpuppetry has legitimate use that coincided with my original motivation in opening another account:
| “ | A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. | ” |
and
| “ | Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects. | ” |
After reading how these legitimate uses of sockpuppets was consistent with my original motivations in opening the account, I no longer needed to worry about it and continue to use both accounts for separate purposes legitimately. Hence I replaced my Ekantik membership of certain Wikipedia projects with my Gaurasundara account although I have not yet removed the relevant userboxes on my userpage. See contributions of Gaurasundara account on articles connected with Hindu religion.
Freelanceresearch is a follower of Sathya Sai Baba who violated WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and behaved disruptively on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba (example). After being asked by Pjacobi to step aside and refrain from continuing off-Wiki arguments, Freelanceresearch refused to do so. JzG (Wikipedia Administrator) strongly chastised Freelanceresearch for being a single purpose account and thus a POV-pusher (in relation to Sathya Sai Baba article) and warned her with a block. This argument continued at User_talk:Freelanceresearch (example) where Freelanceresearch received a second block warning.
A cursory look at Freelanceresearch's contributions and talk page reveals WP:SPA and POV-pushing in relation to critics of Sathya Sai Baba. For her disruptiveness on Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive6 I filed an incident report at WP:AN/I as SSS108 has exampled above. There is nothing "secret" about it as my contributions and edit history can be viewed by all.
SSS108 is a well known internet proponent and advocate of Sathya Sai Baba (examples of this are too many to list here) and is a friend and colleague of Freelanceresearch in numerous off-Wiki projects related to Sathya Sai Baba. This is the reason for his bringing up of my incident report at WP:AN/I that is completely unrelated to his allegations of (legitimate) sockpuppetry, and which I regard as somewhat frivolous. My contributions show my involvement with many different pages related and unrelated to WP:INCINE, some of which are contentious. As such I will have no hesitation in filing complaints against anybody if I witness disruptive conduct, vandalism and other negative behavior from any editors.
SSS108 alleges that I am not a neutral editor on the basis of "all" my edits to Sathya Sai Baba. I made one edit (diff) that consisted of rewriting sentences to remove POV references, correcting bad grammar and removing a defunct sentence. This edit was reverted by SSS108 twice (diff1) (diff2) with unsatisfactory explanations. The edit in question revolved around a controversy where SSS108 removed a quote by Sacha Kester that was also disputed by other editors (see talk page). SSS108 continued to level allegations of POV-pushing and questioning my neutrality in violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc. on the basis of one cleanup edit.
I believe that I have adequately represented my position. Please inform me if clarifications are necessary. Ekantik 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for admitting that you are Gaurasundara. This effectively quashes your claims that you are a neutral editor who does not have a POV to push on the Sathya Sai Baba article. Your effusive, prevalent and wholly critical stance against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet effectively invalidates the claims you made on the talk page about being neutral, not being biased and not being a POV pusher. In light of your deprecatory agenda against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, your intention to edit the article under a secret username is reprehensible. Your admission also shows that you engaged in a secretive and vindictive attempt to have a Sai Proponent blocked on Wikipedia. This type of behavior is relevant to your dual accounts in which you list yourself on various WikiProject pages under two names and even greeted yourself as a seperate editor saying, "we're so glad you're here!" [12]. I ask that you provide a full disclosure on both your user pages and stop feigning neutrality in relation to Sathya Sai Baba. I also hope that this inquiry will reveal any other user-names that "Ekantik", aka "Gaurasundara", has used or is using. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is a page to discuss my alleged sockpuppetry. Please keep other issues out of it or discuss them on an appropriate venue such as my talk page. I already mentioned that I have not got around to correcting my participations under various Wikiprojects. I certainly do not intend to edit under two different names.
- My intention to participate in the editing of Sathya Sai Baba says nothing about my off-Wiki critical stance as I fully intend to comply with Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality, vandalism, etc. The article has been badly written, contains poor spelling and poor grammar and is nowhere near the expected standards of an encyclopaedic article or Feature Article status. If I have an agenda with Sathya Sai Baba on Wikipedia, then it is to cleanup the article and provide correct information that is suitable for inclusion in the article. I maintain my neutral stance with Sathya Sai Baba just as I do on all the other pages I edit. As a default POV-pusher himself, SSS108 is not qualified to point these things out.
- Again, there is nothing "secretive" about anything I have edited as my full history can be seen on my contributions page. Freelanceresearch was reported for very good reasons (being badly behaved) for which she received two block warnings. Thankfully he has indirectly confirmed his very close connection with her and for bringing up this frivolous issue on a page discussing my alleged sockpuppetry. I trust that this will all come in handy for SSS108's off-wiki activites related to Sathya Sai Baba. Ekantik 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If SSS108 wishes to engage in more frivolous arguments such as the style of a welcome greeting, this was the same greeting template that was given to me on my talk page and which is available for viewing here → {{subst:welcome4|username}} Ekantik 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- To the contrary, your activity on the Sathya Sai Baba article (as well as a related issue on the Shashi Tharoor article) is contentious. The fact that you are a well-known critic who viciously, systematically and unremittingly attacks and defames Sathya Sai Baba on the internet does not argue well for your alleged NPOV position. Your presence on the Sathya Sai Baba article is not a coincidence and it is very difficult to assume good-faith considering your extra-Wikipedia agenda against Sathya Sai Baba. People who create two accounts, for whatever reason, normally do not greet themselves as if they are a different person. You did. SSS108 talk-email 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- My edits on the Shashi Tharoor article were also cleanups, removal of POV references and connected with proper formatting, (example1) (example2) (example3) (example4) (example5). The only "contention" was brought forward by SSS108 who argued for the removal of references to Sathya Sai Baba because of unreliable sources (see relevant section of talk page). The information about Sathya Sai Baba was not inserted by me, but by another editor.
- My NPOV standing in relation to Sathya Sai Baba has not yet been demonstrated, so please refrain from making judgements on the basis of one edit that appears to be part-supported by current editors (diff) and which has been fully explained above. When it comes to assuming good faith, SSS108 is a default POV-pusher who has declared himself as an advocate and proponent of Sathya Sai Baba (example1) (example2) and also carries out an extra-Wikipedia agenda that viciously, systematically and unremittingly attacks and defames critics and apostates of Sathya Sai Baba. As this is not a discussion about off-Wiki projects, it should be noted that several editors have expressed dissatisfaction with SSS108's edits and find it hard to assume good faith in his editing capabilities (example1) (example2 (example3) (example4) and too many more examples to be listed here. He was also cited for "disruptive edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba" with the result of being blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Beyond this, I thus repeat my statement that SSS108 is the last person who should be pointing out edits that allegedly violate WP:AGF when his actions of assuming bad faith and related statements are themselves violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
- I strongly suspect that SSS108's complaint about my alleged (legitimate) sockpuppetry has effectively collapsed due to my pointing out of legitimate uses above, and thus we are going to go around in circles repeating the same things in pointless and frivolous argumentation that have nothing to do with the original complaint. I strongly suggest to administrators to quickly resolve this issue so that we can all get on with our business. Ekantik 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
With twenty-two blogs to his name publicly attacking Sathya Sai Baba, devotees and proponents (using over 35 online user-names) and thousands of vicious, defamatory, sexually-explicit and grotesque public attacks against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, I think I am entirely justified in not assuming good-faith in Ekantik/Gaurasundara. He is also directly promoted, solicited and published by the largest Anti-Sai-Baba Site on the internet run by Andries. Ekantik also publicly boasted about being a prime participant in a newspaper article that attacked Sathya Sai Baba. All of this proves that he is not neutral and his agenda was thankfully exposed before he took it any further incognito. I have said all I needed to say and consider this discussion ended. SSS108 talk-email 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thankfully SSS108 has decided to end this discussion with his last and final statement. As I am required by the suspect notes to respond to all accusations, I would like to point out patently false information in this final statement. I own and irregularly maintain only ten blogs that are directly and indirectly connected with critically analyzing Sathya Sai Baba, and only one of these is updated with any form of regularity. As SSS108 is a devoted proponent and advocate of SSB, it is his opinion that my criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is "vicious, defamatory, sexually-explicit and grotesque". Furthermore these were created prior to my joining Wikipedia. I may similarly draw attention to SSS108's owning of many adoring blogs and websites in favor of Sathya Sai Baba as well as his numerous defamatory blogs against critics and apostates of Sathya Sai Baba and discussion forum posts also (I have not counted them all). I see no need to do this because SSS108's continual use of Wikipedia as a battleground is nonproductive and leads nowhere except to hurt the project rather than help it, and he has been warned about this several times. He continues to assume bad faith on the basis of one cleanup edit that is not evidential of any alleged agenda on my part. As I have already stated my case above I see no need for further repetition in regards to my consistent tendency to perform cleanups and maintenance on several different articles, which I will continue to do with a view to helping the Wikipedia project.
- Regarding my alleged "boast" about being a prime participant in a newspaper article that was critical of Sathya Sai Baba, this is blatantly false and my comments were taken grossly out of context. If any agenda has been "exposed" I would say that it is SSS108's; his continued determination to maintain a vendetta discussing many extraneous topics beyond his original complaint of alleged sockpuppetry is proof of his continued violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DISRUPT. Again I strongly suggest to administrators to quickly resolve this issue so that we can all get on with our business. ekantiK 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you are so neutral and so dedicated to a NPOV, please explain why you created a public blog specifically attacking me and my edits on Wikipedia? Thank you for admitting that you are a critic and opponent of Sathya Sai Baba. SSS108 talk-email 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought you had already said everything you wanted to say, and your last comment was your final statement? SSS108 I am getting tired of having to repeat this to you: This is a page to discuss your complaint of alleged sockpuppetry, which I have shown above is completely legitimate. Your complaint has effectively collapsed. Any other points that you bring up that betray your malicious agenda in regards to off-wiki activities is in violation of several Wikipedia guidelines and policies including WP:DE. Do you accept my explanations of sockpuppetry and withdraw them? If not, please explain why. If yes, kindly maintain a vow of silence. ekantiK talk 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This is to inform reviewers that I updated my userpage a few days ago to correctly reflect my current affiliations with one or more Wikiprojects. The userpage on the Gaurasundara account remains unchanged (reflecting Wikiproject participation for that account). Ekantik talk 01:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Conclusions
It looks like the accused has admitted the charge, has made the substance of the discussion linked from the main userpage at User:Ekantik/Sockpuppet, and the original accuser is not pursuing the claim of sock puppetry any more. The other issues being discussed here will be better looked at in the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2.
Meanwhile, I would request that Gaurasundara and Ekantik use the {{User Alternate Acct}} and {{User Alt Acct Master}} templates on their user pages as suggested in WP:SOCK. One is an active editor of Hinduism related articles and the other is an active editor of India related articles - while there certainly is a difference, it is hard to say these subjects are not related. This does not seem to be a strict requirement, but is strongly recommended, as this issue may come up again. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)