Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Capitals00 (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 13 May 2018 (→12 May 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sardeeph

Sardeeph (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardeeph/Archive.

12 May 2018

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Today JosephusOfJerusalem filed two reports on WP:ARE against long-term established editors, the style of reporting multiple users to ARE is strongly reminiscent of Sardeeph who also had filed similar spurious reports against me and Kautilya3 on the same day at ARE, not too long ago.

Sardeeph was eventually blocked by Boing! said Zebedee and Black Kite for WP:NOTHERE after a long WP:ANI thread that he had himself started and cited same type of evidence that JosephusOfJerusalem has cited on ARE, as well as attempted to canvass dozens of editors just like JosephusOfJerusalem is doing on WP:ARE at this moment.

Sardeeph was indeffed on 20 October 2017. JosephusOfJerusalem registered on 18 October but made his first article space edit on 31 October. It's also worth mentioning that Sardeeph had made only 35 edits.

• Sardeeph filed two ARE reports against me and Kautilya3 on 30 July 2017.
• And today, JosephusOfJerusalem filed two ARE reports against Capitals00 and D4iNa4.
• The notification left by JosephusOfJerusalem and Sardeeph are also same:

There is a discussion about your behaviour at WP:AE.

Please see WP:AE for discussion about your behavior.

• Also note that they both mention socking history of editors in their reports:

Sardeeph: User has an extensive block history over edit wars and socking.

JosephusOfJerusalem: A history of sockpuppetry.

• Both cites WP:CHERRYPICKED.
• Both filed frivolous complaints against Kautilya3 for getting him blocked.
• Both shares the same feuds with Kautilya3.
• Same WikiLawyering on edit summaries.

Same style of composing sentences:

• "message there needs to be a more solid reason"

"pulls there needs to be a paragraph"

• "reach a conclusion not stated in either"

"implying a conclusion not supported in any"

• "stick to policy based arguments rather"

"also have more policy based arguments"

• "It strengthens my view"

"strengthens my case against"

• "It does not matter how many"

"it does not matter what"

• "I am afraid there is"

"I am afraid these prejudices"

• "been here for a long time and requires"

"observer for a long time nevertheless"

• "fit into the article"

"add them into the article"

• "this comment is opinion"

"this comment is particularly telling"

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. MBlaze Lightning 15:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Except the convincing evidence above, I have found some more similarities that cannot be found in anyone else:

• After seeing opposition, he alleges the involved established editors of being "close" to each other:-

• JOJ: "MBlaze Lightning as I said is very close to Capitals00"
• Sardeeph: " these users to each other (Vanamode and Joshua and Kautilya). Their talk page histories reveal a great deal of closeness to each other"

• Canvasses admins he believes handled a "similar" case before:-

• JOJ: "I am going to invite administrator Sandstein who dealt with a similar case with similar users to take a survey of these cases."
• Sardeeph: "I am pinging Spartaz and Salvio Giuliano who have experience with blocking a similar India POV pusher Mrt3366."

• Tries to boast that opposition against Kautilya3 apparently exist:-

• JOJ "shows is that many people have disputes with Kautilya3"
• Sardeeph: "other editors have found the same problems with Kautilya3"

• Claims other editors are engaging in "tendentious editing" while filing report against them.

• And usual claims of others engaging in "tendentious editing" around.

This is a clear case of WP:DUCK. Capitals00 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This is a spurious report, a weaponisation, if I may say so, of SPI to derail the WP:AE threads I have opened about the rude language and behaviour of Capitals00 and D4iNa4, users who are close to the filer. The reason I opened two threads is because the behavioural problems of both Capitals00 and D4iNa4 are identical. It is also worth mentioning here that D4iNa4 has even been under the radar as a potential sock of Capitals00. The SPI found them technically 'unlikely', yet the evidence of coordination was noted by the users.

MBlaze Lightning as I said is very close to Capitals00 and there is plenty in the way of evidence of their WP:TAGTEAM. As a small example I will cite these diffs of both Capitals00 and MBlaze Lightning reverting text on Mridu Rai against WP:STATUSQUO, with deeply patronising edit summaries by both. A survey of the history of Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus shows that neither of the two users had much participation in the discussions except for fleeting statements. Yet both coordinated in the removal of the same content with a similar behaviour.

I also had warned Capitals00 that I would take him to WP:AE because of his behaviour. I did not take him there straight away, as this Sardeeph appears to have done, but gave an ample number of warnings over time.. So you cannot use my simple filing of AE threads about Capitals00 as proof.

You also bring up Kautilya3's history to make your case. Kautilya3 has disputes with many users, this thread being a recent example. Interesting to read is that user's own admission of "Yes, Fowler and I have argued many times, and will probably continue to argue. But that is my battle and it doesn't concern you." A search through records also reveal that other users have filed SPI claiming a link between Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning. Of course I do not endorse this but what all this shows is that many people have disputes with Kautilya3 so just because 2 people have disputes with Kautilya3 does not mean they are the same persons.

The rest of the case is based on linguistic analysis but I do not see language similarities. Different language structures have been shown and are being passed off as "similar." These phrases ("there needs to be", "policy based", "strengthens my argument") are commonly used in the English language and across the encyclopedia. This SPI, covering MBlaze Lightning's linguistic match with Spartucus, is far more convincing and precise, yet was ignored.

Going through Sardeeph's ANI thread I found significant differences between me and Sardeeph.

Sardeeph uses ' ' or a single ', but I use " for my speech marks. Sardeeph puts 2 brackets for internal wiki links, I use one bracket and prefer to incorporate diffs into my texts.

It is also worth noting that closer to October MBlaze Lightning supported a frivolous SPI against me, here. He seems unable to decide whose so-called "sock" I am. MBlaze Lightning filed another frivolous report, based on alleged behavioural similarities, against KA$HMIR, here. The frivolity of these constant reports calls for a WP:BOOMERANG.

I would recommend an immediate closure of this purely retaliatory SPI. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Note to adminitrators compare this SPI to the one the filer filed against me. Each of these look like ducks to him. Aside from that he trails my edits. Would recommend he be put on restriction when filing SPIs.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Because if he was wrong once, he will certainly be wrong every other time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review