Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JCC Friends

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: JCC Friends

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JCC Friends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bermudatriangle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dhirrosses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Added by User:Shalom as recommended by Sennen goroshi

Report submission by

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This user registered just over a month ago, and has a single purpose account. They are very keen for a certain section relating to a non-notable organisation to remain on a prominent article (Princess Diana article) in a very prominent manner.

When the section was removed/reduced/given its own (non prominent) article, they entered into an edit-war.

The user seems very aware of wikipedia protocol, creating links, formatting talk pages etc.

When I searched around a little online I found an old talk page of the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajkumar_Kanagasingam he had previously worked on an article relating to the exact organisation that Bermudatriange is trying to make prominent.

On Rajkumar_Kanagasingam's user page he states he is working on his book title "German Memories in Asia" which struck me as a little odd, as that book is referenced on the Princess Diana page.

Upon looking for that book online I found this http://books.google.lk/books?id=MrBi0ghiZN0C&pg=PR10&dq=%22Princess+Diana+Institute+of+Peace%22+Sri+Lankan&lr=&sig=8rFcVCp-35tJnXLVfXfrupnX2r0#PPR10,M1 which states that he actually founded the Institute that Bermudatriangle is trying to keep in a prominent place on wikipedia.

Also when reading a little more about this author, I came across the following. (add http here as this site is on wikipedias spamsite blacklist)ezinearticles.com/?German-Memories---Ancient-Germans-Migration&id=560308 which has one interesting line "Going further back, most of the current territory of Germany was occupied by Celtic and Nordwestblock tribes who were eventually linguistically assimilated into the Germanic peoples."

This was of interest because Bermudatriange has claimed that he was from Nordwestblock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales&diff=cur&oldid=209247329

When I mentioned the user Rajkumar_Kanagasingam to Bermudatriangle, he reacted by saying that my use of that name proved I was politically motivated. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bermudatriangle&diff=cur&oldid=209736961

If he has only been here for a month, and has only edited one article, then how would he know that editor?

I have asked him straight if he has edited with another account, but he refuses to answer the question.

I had always wondered why he was so keen on promoting that particular organisation, it is not highly political, it does not support anything other than peace. But the user was hell bent on making it prominent, now it seems obvious, he founded the organisation and wrote a book about it!!! slight COI. well not slight at all. about as blatant as is possible.

Add to the suspicion of being a sockpuppet the fact that he has already been blocked for 3RR, has today been warned for racially motivated comments, abusing edit summaries[1] and is a blatant single purpose account, I think there are more than enough reasons to request a permanent block from editing for this account

note - excuse my attempt to bypass the spamsite blacklist, i consider this information to be of great importance and relevance to this case.

oh...I nearly forgot. I made a 3RR report against Bermudatriangle, while he was blocked a mysterious account http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Dhirrosses was created and attacked me, this account accused me of being another user, a particular user that was previously in conflict with Rajkumar Kanagasingam. When I complained to an admin about this account and explained my suspicions regarding Bermudatriangle's use of sockpuppets, this account was immediately blocked.

sorry, there is more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam

AFD regarding Rajkumar_Kanagasingam using sockpuppets for self promotion regarding his book and his organisation Princess Diana Institute of Peace

One more item. The sock puppet who was recently blocked for attacking me, accused me of being user Iwazaki, in this very report Bermudatriangle makes the same accusations, and user Iwazaki was in dispute with Rajkumar_Kanagasingam.

There are no diffs or IPs to support my claim, however there are so many small details all pointing to the same thing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another item. Please note that none of Bermudatriangle's responses actually dispute the evidence I have submitted or the accusations that I have made against him. When asked directly, he does not confirm nor deny the accusations. Every comment he has made here has been either regarding the legitimacy of this report, the motives behind it or making accusations against me.Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

new evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wackymacs&diff=prev&oldid=103133732

the above is a talk page diff made by User:Rajsingam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajsingam which is the aknowledged previous acct of Rajkumar Kanagasingam

I would like you to compare the two following statements.

I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page

and

I couldn't understand why this sockpuppet case is relevant at this juncture where we are in th middle of the content dispute of Diana Institute where others also have shown interest[2][3][4] and critisized its removal is politically motivated.[5].Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

the first statement is that of user Rajsingam (aka Rajkumar Kanagasingam) who has already admitted the use of sockpuppets. This statement was made over a year ago.

the second statement was made in this very report, by Bermudatriangle.

same style of language, same argument. same damn user !!

Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

First, I want to know the rational how that vanished account could be taken into sockpuppetry violation case.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That account has not vanished. So here is a simple question, which accounts have you edited with before? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember, you are not a Policeman here, you have just filed a sockpuppetry case, just wait, my questions are here to the administrator who might be handling this case.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, perhaps if you want to ask a question specifically an admin, you should make it clear that it is them that you are addressing.

And now I am curious, why won't you answer my question regarding what accounts you have used in the past?

While I was reading a few of the Sri Lanka conflict articles, I also found your edit patterns are very simillar to User:Iwazaki. Are you User:Iwazaki?. First clear my doubt, other things, we will discuss later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermudatriangle (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss any IDs that I may or may not have. But for the record, no, I am not Iwazaki, we both live in Japan, which has a population of about 135 million people. Please stay on topic, anything else can go to my talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't understand what do you mean by "We are not here to discuss any IDs that I may or may not have..." Can you please explain that a bit more? Are you sure you are 100 Percent not Iwazaki? Bermudatriangle (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All replies to non relevant questions will be answered on your talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me questions like policeman and finally threatning me you be permanently banned.

Which harm I have done to wikipedia?

Until the article (Sri_Lanka)_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace which was created by you, was deleted speedily, I never edited or included any thing on the article Diana, Princess of Wales as the consensus was reached at ANI by the facilitation of User:Jasynnash2.

As the article was created by you, after it had been nominated for "Speedy Deletion", User:Jasynnash2 informed you but you never attempted anything. You just left it be deleted. You questioned in a politically motivated tone towards User:Jasynnash2 and in turn User:Jasynnash2 advised you Please don't bring any political opinions for or against this article (or its contents) to me. If you really couldn't care I ask that you not behave like what many people term a troll. Personally, I'm beginning to have trouble Assuming Good Faith with yourself or the other main user involved.

Now you have dragged me to this sockpuuppetry case which is irrelevant to the consensus we reached at ANI or before we reached by the actions which caused the article being deleted by your silent consent.Bermudatriangle (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have previously stated both here and on your talk page, I will not respond to questions/statements that are not relevant to this case on this page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For the closing Admin:

I could n't inderstand why this sockpuppet case is relevant at this juncture where we are in th middle of the content dispute of Diana Institute where others also have shown interest[2][3][4] and critisized its removal is politically motivated.[5].Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant, relevance does not depend on when you break the rules or what is happening at the same time. Please don't try to cloud the issue, or distract people from this case, this cases concerns the accusations made by me, against you. If you want to discuss another issue, take it to the relevant talk page, where I and others will be more than happy to discuss it with you.Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can be the complaint but that doesn't mean the defendant can't question the intention of the case concerned. Especially the timing, some times complaint use to distract things from the original issue to avoid they become the defendant somewhere else.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you have refused to answer me when I asked you which other accounts you have used, while I answered you when you asked me if I was user Iwazaki (even when you asked me here, on the page dedicated to the accusations against you) I have no desire to answer any further questions. I have drawn my own conclusions regarding the reasons for your unwillingness to answer my question. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your answer to my question is somewhat unclear. You started with "We are not here to discuss any IDs that I may or may not have." and then only you conferred, "But for the record, no, I am not Iwazaki, we both live in Japan,.." But when I asked further about the ID, you accused me it is my Suspected sock puppet case and not yours. If I want to answer who might be the account which accussed you initially, "I am not XXX account you refered, but we might be from the same country or else where."

Though you said you are not Iwazaki, but a "White English". But I did a small research and found you are also taking the same interest like Iwazaki to defame Rajkumar Kanagasingam. You have shown a lot of spam links where he has published his articles. But I also read almost all his articles, but I found in better places like North Dakota State University Library and other.

You related me with Rajkumar Kanagasingam and saying I was hell bent on making the organization prominent, because I founded the organisation and wrote a book about it, but I have checked the Press Release in Reuters, it has not mentioned anything about the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace", but only the Google Book Search only carrying a few content about "Princess Diana Institute of Peace". So how you could say, why he is promoting the Institute is because he wrote a book about it.

You have accussed Rajkumar Kanagasingam using sockpuppets for self promotion regarding his book and his organisation Princess Diana Institute of Peace and shown the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam, there I found User:Iwazaki, User:Lahiru k and User:Snowolfd4 are heavily debated to delete his article from wikipedia. I tracked the previous debate also from your given link and found this and this. There was a War unsuall to normal afd and found people are accussing User:Iwazaki too critically It doesn't really matter. AfD isn't a vote anyway, so additional voting will only be considered by the closing admin on the basis of what new facts or observations are brought to light. Frankly (and I don't know anything about you, so please don't take it personally) I find the flailing-of-arms and the "crying foul" attitude to suggest that you have something deeply at stake regarding the removal of this individual from Wikipedia. Even if that isn't the case, that's the appearance that you put forth. Surely there are a lot less-borderline cases on WP worthy of your attention?.

I also found some evidence to answer your sockpuppetry of Rajkumar Kanagasingam non other than from User:Sebastian here, Maybe I could propose that all votes by accounts who have in the last 20 edits been POV pushing should be discounted? Of course, that would leave the question open who decides that ...

But for my surprise, removal of the Institute's details from the Diana, Princess of Wales started with User:Lahiru k[6]and then by you [7]and the "Speedy Deletion" of the(Sri_Lanka)_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace by User:Snowolfd4. He came to the scene after many months of interval. So don't you think all this shows there is more likely the chance of you be the User:Iwazaki and you all are working with team sprite.

The above answers are for the most accussations you charged and make me to claim this Sockpuppetry case is also politically motivated and irrelevant one.Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My answer was 100% clear. I clearly stated that I was not Iwazaki. If you have trouble understanding that, then that is your problem not mine.

I don't mean to be rude, but if English is not your first language and you can't understand when I make statements in basic English, then why don't you ask someone to help you with translation? I don't mind using basic English, but it is a little frustrating when I make a simple statement and someone does not understand.

As for all the continued accusations that I am a sockpuppet, why don't you make a sockpuppet report, and catalog it all there. This is not the place for it.

And yet again, you type more bullshit in here, but you still have not answered the question. Which accounts did you previously use?Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it is so stupid to ask, Which accounts did you previously use? while you are denying something which is used by you.

I don't type bullshit here all are actual. If the closing Admin wants let him use the Checkuser to prove, you are Iwazaki. That is it. I don't want to waste my time any more here.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Final Note to the Closing Admin

As I have spent a lot time with Princess Diana Institute of Peace related issues in the last couple of days, I am tired of things here. Kindly exuse me I might not be in a position to answer any of your queries in the coming days. Regards.Bermudatriangle (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Realistically you knew I wasnt Iwakazi, you just accused me because I made this report. Enjoy your wikibreak.Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

When the above user says he needs a break and may not be able to answer questions, it seems they are trying to avoid this case, and are hoping that it is abandoned due to them no longer editing, even if this editer does not use this account again for a while, it is important to get to the bottom of this, so any further cases can be refered to this one. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe it is highly probable that Bermudatriangle is a sockpuppet of someone. I also believe that is quite possible that Sennen goroshi is also a sock/secondary account. For the record the shear number of places that the two users have had dispute over the article(s) is beyond belief and they both seem to be displaying very disruptive behaviour along with various issues of Civility and such. I went into things in an effort to be of help to the project not to support "one side or the other" and my opinion on the matter is that action of somesort (to be determined by a consensus of administrators) should be taken to prevent future disruption by both parties. And please "gentlemen" don't bring this to my talk page again. I would prefer to have nothing further to do with either of you until such time that I feel I'm able to AGF again. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think I am a sockpuppet, then please ask for checkuser on my account, and then make a sockpuppet report, otherwise don't offend me by making such absurd, unfounded accusations. I have a static IP, it should be easy to confirm. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sgt. bender (talk)Clearly not a sockpuppeteer. Everyone should back off. Sgt. bender (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, this is enough to determine who am I. Rajkumar Kanagasingam already revealed he shared his passwords while he was writing the book.[8][9] I am one of them. I can't reveal other facts for personal reasons. But this checkuser drama is only to distract the major issue in discussion.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that proves nothing - although are you trying to admit that rather than being a sockpuppet, you are a meatpuppet?

On another note, this "drama" is for one reason only, the fact that I think you are a sockpuppet/meatpuppet - I consider the Institute of Peace to be over and done with, due to the current state of the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be in a position to respond to your above comment once this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki is resolved.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am eagerly awaiting your response, the sockpuppet case you mentioned has been resolved. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then be happy, the Princess Diana Institute of Peace will be there where it should be when time comes.Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

It's clear that there are issues here and at the counter-accusation Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki that go far, far beyond whether Rajkumar is (again) using sockpuppets or not. My first impression is to recommend a short-term block on Bermudatriangle because I interpret his accusation against Sennen as WP:POINT, where the accusation on this page, especially connecting Bermudatriangle with Dhirroses, is based on reasonable evidence. This dispute has already gone to WP:ANI once (I'll look for the link), and I think it may be headed back there. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• ANI link from May 5: [10]
• ANI link from May 2: [11]

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Additional note: Hoping to close this case soon, I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rajkumar Kanagasingam to find out if Bermudatriangle can be shown to be a sock by technical data. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam's account is blocked indef. He sent me an email where he said " I shared my passwords with some more my friends.", which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Username_policy#Sharing_accounts. I will forward the email to any admin that asks. Awaiting RFCU results as to disposition of other two accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I too received an email. He agrees to the block, but asked (since it's his real name) to remove the blocked tag in case someone Googles him. This is reasonable, and all info is duplicated on the talk page, so I have granted his request. --Haemo (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • It's a compromised account and indef blocked, that's no privacy vio. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• It is not sockpuppetry to change accounts, as long as the accounts are not used at the same time in an attempt to influence consensus, etc. Mr. Kanagasingam essentially abandoned his first account, now renamed to JCC Friends (talk · contribs), in 2007, only using it briefly in 2008 to post some facts under his own name that he believed would help his cause. This is not really abusive, at least under the usual meaning of the sockpuppet policy. As Mr. K is concerned about his privacy, and given the geopolitical situation, I recommended a user name change for the old account, hence the renaming of this page. This does not, of course, excuse Mr. K's other failures to understand and adapt to our way of doing things, but those can be dealt with under his current user name without having to reference his real name. Thatcher 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he's editing with the new account, he's still in vio if he didn't change the pwd. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to continue this SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)