Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88/Archive.

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

• SpunkyGeek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Eucalyptusmint (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RealPharmer3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ram112313 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Schwinnspeed (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 · SPI Tools

All of these accounts were created around the time(Ram112313) or after the Moksha88 fiasco(rest of the users). And resumed editing after the previous socks were blocked. All of these users are engaging in pro-BAPS editing and attempting to continue the removal of details about the lawsuit from the article citing a dubious consensus between members of this sockfarm [1][2][3][4]. And supporting the said removal on talkpage [5][6][7][8][9]. They all have extensive overlap with socks that were blocked in 2021[10]. Spunkygeek has uploaded hundreds of BAPS owned images to commons stating that they have permissions from the BAPS to upload them.[11] Apollo1203 did the same and the permission for uploading the images was verified by VRT[12][13] Resumption of promotional editing by RealPharmer3 on BAPS Charities [14][15][16] right where the socks left off. see Kbhatt's post below Both Spunkygeek and Eucalyptusmint have extensively edited Narmada River [17] and Sabarmati River [18] On Narendra Modi both cited same essay [19][20] in edit summaries. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd also wondered already about RealPharmer; too many similarities with that sockfarm. See their pov-pushing on Michael Witzel, and their WP:SEALIONING at Talk:Micael Witzel#Criticsm and Talk:Michael Witzel#Reddif-interview and Pacific News Service, similar to the endless overly polite requests for clarification, sources, etc. at Talk:Swaminarayan. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had concerns with Realpharma as well. Particularly on the BAPS_Charities as shortly after the ban in 2021 I had removed some questionable metrics that relied on a COI source (the entity itself) where Apollo and Moksha were citing the organizations own annual report to promote their every activity. See 1. Realpharma made a strong push to reinclude the exact same information with other sources (almost 2 years later) and in a different format to retain the socks original content 2. I ended up walking away from the circular discussion but found it odd that such a specific edit by the socks being removed had such a strong desire to resurface from an account just walking into the Swaminarayan content space. Specifically the baps content space.

I have noticed some similar patterns recently as employed by the socks in 2021 prior to the ban. Important to note that there were half a dozen accounts banned for multi-year meat puppetry but also over half a dozen accounts suspected of involvement and their involvement in the Swaminarayan content would come under a lens post the issued bans.....Almost all accounts that were reviewed and not banned have since all gone dormant/inactive. I would not be all that shocked if over a dozen accounts engaged in POV pushing and consensus stacking over many years didn't eventually resurface. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SPI Admins, the only way I found out that I'm under review is looking through Ratnahastin's edit history. That does feel a little bizarre to me, but regardless I will cooperate with whatever investigation is ongoing.

In the meantime, I do think it's especially interesting that this is being brought forward by Ratnahastin, when all I've witnessed from him on the Swaminarayan Akshardham page is a pretty clear POV push (that is until he finally added [21] some relevant context after ultimately being called out for edit warring and not engaging in the ongoing discussion [22]) All of this feels particularly notable when you consider his previous topic ban and subsequent appeal [23])

The page history clearly shows a coordinated strategy between him, Capitals00, and CharlesWain to trap users into an edit war and get them blocked [24]. None of these users (Ratnahastin, CharlesWain, Capitals00) have edited the page except for restoring/reverting the same piece of content in the lead : ([25], [26], [27]). This plus an initial refusal to engage on the talk page: ([28], [29]), and the fact that CharlesWain and Capitals00 conveniently return when Ratnahastin can no longer make back to back reverts without violating 3RR [30].

This shows a coordinated strategy between the three and should be taken into consideration as well. (Editor Interaction Analysis for Ratnahastin, CharlesWain, Capitals00)] Schwinnspeed (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Admins, This is the first time I have been accused of being a sockpuppet, which has come as a complete shock to me. However, I trust this platform and its admins to conduct a fair and thorough investigation.

Now, addressing User:Ratnahastin claims: In their post, it is stated that:

"All of these accounts were created around the time(Ram112313) or after the Moksha88 fiasco(rest of the users). And resumed editing after the previous socks were blocked. All of these users are engaging in pro-BAPS editing and attempting to continue the removal of details about the lawsuit from the article citing a dubious consensus between members of this sockfarm. And supporting the said removal on talkpage."

This is categorically false, as I have never removed the content from the article nor argued that it should be removed from the article. The conversation is about if a POV edit was appropriate for inclusion in the LEDE, particularly since there were significant counterclaims and the investigation is on hold.

It's also worth noting that I have refrained from further modifying the content during the discussion, demonstrating good faith, whereas Ratnahastin has actively engaged in reverting and editing the content which is being questioned and against WP:STATUSQUO

Additionally, I would like to address another claim:

I am being grouped with other users with whom I have had no contact, except for User: Eucalyptusmint, and that was only regarding the Narmada and Sabarmati pages which aren't related to Swaminarayan topics and have disagreed with them specifically on splitting the page. About the Narendra Modi page I don't find any logic behind comparing two different edit summaries 1 and 2 which are based on two different sections and have completely different context.

About User:Ram112313 - I agree that his block was valid because there was a violation of 3RR. However, User:Ratnahastin also violated 3RR by slow-motion edit warring and here are the links to those edits - 3 and 4. I hope there are repercussions for them.

Also, I don't recall interacting with User:RealPharmer - the only exception I think is when they agreed to split the Akshardham New Jersey page, where I disagreed.

Lastly, regarding the pictures:

If I have uploaded BAPS pictures with proper permissions, does that automatically make me a sockpuppet - I find this reasoning flawed. The fact that a sockpuppet has also uploaded pictures with permissions does that mean that anyone who does the same in the future is a sockpuppet? - This logic is, quite frankly, absurd.

I appreciate that this issue has been brought forward, as it offers an opportunity to address the unfounded claims being made. Unfortunately, User:Ratnahastin's tactics appear to be aimed at discrediting others and seem unchanged despite previous reprimands for similar actions.

I trust the admins to see through this baseless accusation and deliver a fair and just resolution for the betterment of Wikipedia.

Thank you.SpunkyGeek (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: saw this linked on the article talk and am honestly surprised that I've been accused here. Either way, all I've got to say is that there's no factual evidence or any truth to this claim based on the interaction tool, as my edit history speaks for itself. I edit a lot of other river articles because of my interest as well as plants, national parks, hindu deities, among other things. So how is the claim that the Narmada River has been extensively edited by both relevant? Have you read WP:ECA?

On the Narmada page I made a lot of copyedits, finding citations for unsourced content and worked on improving the article based on my interests in geology, archeology, and the role of rivers in Hinduism (I've done the same on other river articles as well, see Kaveri and also Yamuna). So if I was a SPA and wanted to push POV would there not be clear evidence for those occurrences?

Also, I've never even edited the Narendra Modi page (take a look at my history), so that claim is also false. Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I'm concerned you may have WP:SOCKOPHOBIA. I'm WP:HERE for the encyclopedia and not to engage in WP:SOCK or WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All accounts with edits in the last 90 days are  Unrelated from each other. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]