Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Apart from providing reference, look at quality of references research papers surely less than research papers. Also please edit what you understand. Do not go for subjects beyond your expertized.

What reference can be better than this. http://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10152140961606675.pdf

Dixitsandeep (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about Makar Sankranti, you're quite late with your "warning," which actually seems to be a personal attack. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You once said it was strange for me to call Smarta a hybrid between the extremes of Srauta and Tantra. Well Alexis Sanderson describes Smarta as the "middle ground" between the "opposite ends" of Srauta and Tantra.

Though the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism they shared the character of being specialists of intensified ritual above the more relaxed middle ground of the smārtas (the followers of smṛti). pg. 662 HERE

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VictoriaGrayson: That statement by Alexis Sanderson does not mean "smarta were a hybrid between the extremes of srauta and tantra". Sanderson is merely stating, srauta and tantra traditions have been more intense ritual specialists, unlike the more relaxed smartas. The word "hybrid" means "a kind of mix, blend", it is a loaded word, and inappropriate here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you understand by this: "the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism". You are skipping the first idea in the sentence.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VictoriaGrayson: No. I see the sentence you quoted on page 662, Saivism and the tantric traditions chapter of Clarke's book. No where is Sanderson stating, or implying, that "Smarta a hybrid between the extremes of Srauta and Tantra". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on what this phrase means: "the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism".VictoriaGrayson^Talk

VictoriaGrayson, I know nothing about the topic area, but if this sentence is all we have, then the word "hybrid" looks like it's pulling it in a different direction. It implies that the smartas used and combined features derived from the other two schools. Is that the case? Wording like "middle ground of the spectrum" seems to suggest that it isn't. – Uanfala (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the important part. She doesn't want to acknowledge that "the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism". I am not attached to the word hybrid.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, "hybrid" was clearly part of your argument—it's right there in the title of the this section—and it is one that doesn't seem to fly. It is not unusual that things in the middle of a spectrum would not partake of either extreme, much less be a hybrid of them. I would like to suggest that you drop this argument, as Ms Sarah Walsh is now blocked, and your claim that "she doesn't want to acknowledge" is putting words in her mouth. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When has MSW ever acknowledged in any way the existence of the extremes or the spectrum you are talking about? I'll drop the argument, but you are also putting words in her mouth. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please note that the discussion started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado has now been moved to WP:ANI and you may wish to contribute there. Ben MacDui 18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A response or explanation from your side would be most welcome, actually. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some unsolicited advice: come clean. I don't know the details of the history here, but the community looks far more favorably upon folks who can admit and learn from past mis-steps, if any, than those who ignore them or dissemble instead. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: You mentioned on the SPI page that you will provide more details if requested. I would appreciate if you would wikipedia-email those details to me, or a link to it in case it is already somewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using diffs that suggest ‘this edit is similar to that one’ I take large blocks of edits and analyse them for similarities and differences, and then compare any findings against a random selection of other editors. It is quite painstaking – and I don’t think anything will be gained by discussing specifics here.

You may of course appeal your block. In such circumstance - note for the guidance of any patrolling admin – please see both the archived WP:SPI case and the related discussion at ANI. Ben MacDui 11:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm a bit surprised by this turn of events, I must say that the evidence presented looks strong. If the other accounts are actual socks of yours, you should come clean on this talk page, clearly state that you won't do it again, and then request an unblock. Given that the other accounts in question haven't edited in a long while, you might be able to successfully edit again, perhaps after a short hiatus. If you haven't been socking, the path is murkier. It is hard to prove that you haven't been socking and there doesn't seem to be any easy way to come back without an admission. Perhaps someone with more experience watching this page can suggest something?--regentspark (comment) 03:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; this is probably the best advice anyone of us can give. Step over your pride, and keep yourself in balance. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit surprised, too. I can't argue with what appears to be fairly clear but RegentsPark has it right regarding the way forward. Or not if, as they suggest, it actually was not you. Either way, it is a mess. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. @RegentsPark: One request... just like you asked Joshua Jonathan and I not to post on the user talk page of Js82 in the past, as well as advised Js82 that they "have the right to ask anyone to stay away from your talk page and they have to comply (except for notifications)" (e.g here). I request you to ask Victoria Grayson, Lorstaking and Js82 to stay away from my talk page (except for notifications), and I request that you please enforce their compliance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure MSW. You have the right to ask people not to post on your talk page (except for required notices and warnings). @Js82, VictoriaGrayson, and Lorstaking: please do not post comments on MSW's page except for the following exceptions: required notices, warnings, or reasonable comments on an unblock request. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 12:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RP: Thank you. Given 1, the history such as 2, the section involving Victoria Grayson above, etc, this will be helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Thank you for this note. You are a prolific contributor with some 95,000+ edits, one of many I admire here. Fwiw, neither would "reverse reincarnation" through a dormant account be right nor feasible. I never had and do not have any wikipedia account's password other than this one. I am considering filing an appeal, per these guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really don't know why you've been blocked indefinitely. Your ApostleVonColorado account (a great name) was never blocked, although maybe it had a few doppelgangers running about. Then you stopped using it in September, 2012 and came back 14 months later as Ms Sarah Welch, never resurrecting VonColorado even though you say it's on the same password. The over five year period between shows you have adjusted, learned whatever lesson was needed, and then brought Sarah into full compliance and productivity. The "big deal" factor seems strong with this one. A slap on the wrist is warranted, and that slap has been applied (along with invisible trouts). And your interest in appealing further likely means that you want to come back as the productive editor you have been in the past. I would hope a wandering admin would wander by and let you off with time served, just knock on the window of your cave to get their attention. Since an unblocked VonColoardo and its spawn departed, and Ms Sarah Welch emerged 14-months later, I can only believe that this itself is a case of reincarnation. I honor your work in your productive new form. This block is starting to look silly. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, I believe "other than this one" meant "other than the MSW account". So no connection with the AVC account is indicated here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but almost no reincarnates remember their previous incarnation, unless they are forced to pick their favorite objects among a group of someone else's favorite objects and then make a good guess. Is the whole sticking point that MSWelch won't admit something that others see as obvious but is not proven and that MSW claims is incorrect? Amnesia explains it all. Hit on the head with some loose karma and then awoke anew. Kidding aside, major productive editors who are accused, even with proof, who have mended their ways in-between then and now (especially after years and years of now) should be sent to a neutral corner for awhile, but how long is long enough? The project needs their input and knowledge back. Wikipedia should not be self-destructive, so if such a major editor wants back in, even with amnesia or whatever went down, slaughter the fatted calf (well, maybe not in this case), break out the wine, and party their return. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RK: I love your sense of humor, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case files

The SPI case as originally filed on December 29 2017 can be read here.

The SPI case was expanded both before and after the block in February 2018. The discussion and comments can be read here.

The ANI discussion can be read here.

My responses

My response to the SPI case can be read here.

The ANI attracted response from many editors, with a few inserting their comments non-chronologically. Truncating the ANI thread linked above helps isolate my response, and this can be read below:

Acknowledgments and methodology

Some of the analysis that follows is inspired by, or utilizes the tools/software discussed in the following. These are thankfully acknowledged:

• Solorio et al (2013), Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia: A Corpus of Real-World Deceptive Writing for Linking Identities, arXiv:1310.6772v1 [cs.CL]
• Tsikerdekis et al (2014), Multiple Account Identity Deception Detection in Social Media Using Nonverbal Behavior, doi:10.1109/TIFS.2014.2332820, University of Kentucky
• The database download of entire wikipedia with its talk pages. Three versions used: one from December 2017, another from version archived by wikipedia as of 2018-03-10 19:01:30, and the entire wikipedia archive of articles + talk / etc pages file named enwiki-latest-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2 dated 03-Mar-2018 14:45. Some parts were manually extracted. While, the most thorough analysis would analyze "all revisions, all pages", but as wikipedia warns these files expand to multiple terabytes of text and the good 4.1TB and 43 TB archives are per wikipedia from October 2017, a bit old for the goals here. The "all revisions, all pages" analysis is something this prep does not do.

I focus on comparing my contributions with those of the alleged socks, but not between the alleged socks. I will strive to present results that are in my favor as well as those against me. I compare the similarities and differences between me and the alleged socks, as well as a random group of editors. I include editors who have been declared "confirmed socks" by past checkusers and SPI team, and compare the similarities and differences between "confirmed socks" and "suspected socks". I also will look at and summarize the stylistic, syntactic and semantic similarities as well as the differences between many editors who were never mentioned in the SPI or ANI threads linked above. Some of these editors are active currently, and some are now dormant or blocked.

Since the case is complex, plus admin and ARB committee's time is limited, I will try to disclose information that may be material for a review to the best of my abilities. I will also try to summarize, rather than be exhaustive. However, if anyone is interested in massive tables with 1000s of matches between two or more editors, please contact me by wikipedia email.

This is a work in progress. Please expect me to make mistakes and correct my mistakes. I hope to complete this work by May 2018, sooner if my RL commitments allow.

Opening remarks

The SPI allegations may be loosely grouped into four: behavioral, words/phrase matching, spelling mistakes, and the use of certain wikimedia images by me in some articles.

For the behavioral part, the allegation is that "I continued to edit war with one or more editors that AVC also disagreed with". I submit that this is false because

• Only one editor has been identified in the case, not "or more editors". The one identified editor is F&f. The truth is that my early interaction with F&f had been cordial in several articles such as here (January 2017) and here (May 2017).
• The first content dispute between F&f and I emerged months later, in the cattle theft and cow vigilante-related violence topics, after I was pinged to comment. I neither sought the topic nor the content dispute. The cattle vigilantism issue was being actively covered by the media. I tried to help. Many editors (F&f, Casktopic, Capitals00, Vice regent, Jionakeli, I, etc) got caught up in the content dispute with each other. Admin Vanamonde intervened (see ANI case linked above). The topic was difficult, controversial. From this SPI case perspective, please note that the dispute between F&f and AVC happened in 2012. F&f and I edited on numerous topics, without disputes, prior to the summer of 2017.
• I have read the ANI case filed by AVC on F&f. I disagree with AVC, agree with F&f there. The discussion of caste in scholarly sources has indeed historically centered around the paradigmatic example of Hinduism. This is significant in other ways. It is one of the reasons scholars treat Hinduism as an ancient religion and not a modern 19th and 20th century invention. In this section written before the SPI case was filed, for example, I wrote, "Please note it is the "Hinduism did not exist" which is off topic here, and a WP:Fringe and a dangerous slippery slope of POV pushing we must avoid. It is a slippery slope because [a] [...] [b] it means rituals, festivals, varna/class/caste system, etc is not related to Hinduism, because "Hinduism is a modern phenomenon" and all this was invented by them or forced on "Hindus" when Sunni Muslims or the Christian British or post-British Nehru were ruling them; [c] [...]". I have repeatedly stated this on other article talk pages for quite a while.
• Capitals00's submission to the SPI investigation case file, about my behavior during the cattle theft/vigilantism content dispute, does not resonate with their past actions. Capitals00 initiated an offline conversation by wikipedia email system with me on July 2 2017. I will provide all the Capitals00 emails as evidence directly to the ARB committee because it is relevant to this case and contradicts the claims Capitals00 made in their SPI submission against me. I do not wish to post it here, because per this policy, I want to respect the guideline that "the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki". Further this is related to email and may contain personally identifiable information such as embedded IPs, I believe I must treat this as non-public information and with due care to protect Capitals00's privacy. I will leave it to the ARB Committee to evaluate this collection of Capitals00 emails and Capitals00's credibility.

The words/phrase matching part of the alleged evidence in the SPI case is by far the predominant part, one which can be analyzed by tools/software mentioned above. I will analyze this separately and extensively in sections to follow. I will try to be comprehensive by looking far beyond the alleged evidence and by including random editors many of whom have not been mentioned in the SPI or ANI case. My presentation will also include editors with exact words / phrase / sentence / edit summary matches with me, as reported by the methodology explained above. These users have been blocked by SPI team after checkuser investigations as recently as February 2018.

On spelling mistake, a repetitive example mentioned is "focused" versus "focussed". These are alternate spellings. Again, I will come back to this with tools/software mentioned above.

Offer to make non-public disclosures

The case is complex. According to the first review of this SPI case, no unequivocal evidence linking me and AVC has been found after "a long look", but a considerable evidence has been filed that suggests such a possibility ([7]). After the case was filed, I did not systematically refute the initial allegations, nor the new allegations as the case was expanded. I was dismissive and attempted to argue policy. This, in hindsight, was my mistake. My response came across as someone arguing loopholes and evasive. Later, I followed this advice which "You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them."

In this appeal, I shall endeavor to present my side and cross-examine the "considerable evidence". Most of what I discuss in this appeal is for the first time. I hope a full review will benefit the project beyond me and my case. There is a danger, as I will show with results from software tools and methodology above, that numerous long-time editors with valuable contributions may be dragged into similar SPI cases, then banned, based on similar zillion words/phrase matches with old dormant account(s) submitted as "considerable evidence" with misrepresentation. This is a part of my larger goal in this appeal. My efforts can be casually seen by those who oppose me and want me banned as an attempt to disassemble and defensiveness. My efforts can be casually seen by those who support me and want me a part of the volunteer community as an attempt to correct injustice and the due process. I hope the patrolling admin / ARB Committee will evaluate the considerable evidence as well as my counter-evidence and cross-examination objectively, with the larger goal perspective.

An indefinite block in wikipedia is like a death sentence or a life sentence with solitary confinement. It is punitive. I urge that the patrolling admin / ARB Committee consider what sort of "necessary and sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" should determine such a wiki-life sentence with solitary confinement and whether this is the case here.

I will make non-public disclosures to the ARB Committee by email, and strive to cooperate with further disclosures if requested. My disclosures will include the locations I have edited from between 2016 and now (from password protected network), between 2013 and 2015 (from non-password protected public network) to the best of my recollections. Such a disclosure may help me, or go against me. I will also consider proposals to meet admins in person, login in their presence to help confirm my identity, though clearly such as option raises issues of my privacy and that of any admin(s) involved.

Statistics

• My wikipedia birthday: November 15 2013
• Total yearly edits:
  • 2013: 7
  • 2014: 395
  • 2015: 4634
  • 2016: 11308
  • 2017: 12076
  • 2018: 464

• My accused/suspected socks: AVC, LD, MM, WF, MTH
• Wikipedia birthdays of the alleged socks: between 2011 and 2014
• Last edit by each alleged sock:
  • AVC: September 22 2013
  • LD: April 27 2014
  • MM: January 28 2015
  • WF: November 25 2014
  • MTH: July 15 2015

Comment: All the alleged socks are stale and dormant for nearly 3 years or more.

• Total edits by each alleged sock:
  • AVC: 4,325
  • LD: 622
  • MM: 142
  • WF: 57
  • MTH: 302

Comment: Most of these, except perhaps LD, are minor editors by edit count. AVC is more substantial, has seven fold or more edits than each of the others.

• The editor(s) with whom the alleged socks had content disputes / edit conflicts by studying their edit history (with topic in bracket):
  • AVC: Fowler&fowler (Caste [8])
  • LD: couldn't find any
  • MM: Raj2004 (Karma, [9])
  • WF: Bladesmulti (Fornication, [10], [11])
  • MTH: Tarnas (Farmers' suicides in India, [12])

Comment: I have had no interaction or edit conflicts with Raj2004 and Tarnas ([13]). In each of these two cases, our edit times are separated by more than one year. I have interacted with Bladesmulti ([14]), and Fowler&fowler (see F&f-related notes in the section above). With both Bladesmulti and F&f, our edits occurred in the same 24 hours period.

• Top article edited by AVC is Caste (228 edits). I have never edited it ([15]).
• Top article edited by LD is Hindu wedding (55 edits). I have edited it, and the gap between LD's last edit and my first on that article is about 8 months.
• Top article edited by MM is Karma (23 edits). I have edited it, and the gap between MM's last edit and my first on that article is about 15 months.
• Top article edited by WF is Fornication (23 edits). I have never edited it ([16]).
• Top article edited by MTH is Rape in India (46 edits). I have never edited it ([17]).

Comment: The top edited article is where the alleged socks had their edit wars / POV conflicts, except in the case of MTH where the conflict article was Farmers' suicides in India. I have never edited that one either ([18]). I leave it to the ARB Committee to consider whether, in wikipedia editing history, socks predominantly return, typically pronto, to the articles they have edit warred to push their POVs / favored version.

Analysis of stylistic, syntactic, semantic similarities and differences

The style, words and phrases matching is the predominant part of the SPI case against me. The match-allegations list and the filing is very long. A complete response will address every allegation, and therefore should be expected to be long.

I will discuss in this section what sort of word/phrase matching is frivolous witch hunting, what sort of matches are not. I will use the methodology of Solorio et al, Tsikerdekis et al and Halliday's work on lexical density. Please see my notes on acknowledgment and thanks for the help I have received, above. This section will also discuss differences. I submit that while matches are worthy of consideration, idiosyncratic differences are also worthy of consideration. If a witness states that the person who ran out of the victim's house was about "5' 6" tall man" and the DNA evidence inside the house is that of a male, a random anyone or everyone who is about "5' 6" tall" should not be executed nor handed out a life sentence with solitary confinement. For sure, a "5' 6" tall woman" should not be. The differences are important.

I analyze the alleged "considerable evidence" in three parts, along with comments on their relevance to the current case:

• Part 1: Present a stylistic, syntactic and semantic comparison between
  • my account and other accounts not mentioned in the SPI or ANI discussion so far
  • past SPI cases
  • currently active account and dormant/blocked "confirmed sock" accounts
  • accounts of random editors
• Part 2: Identify differences between my account and the alleged socks.
• Part 3: I will analyze the allegations against me, each and every one, line by line, because I respect WP:NOTTHEM. If the patrolling admin / ARB Committee finds the allegations persuasive, I should be dealt with without favor or discrimination. If the patrolling admin / ARB Committee finds my appeal persuasive, I should be dealt with without favor or discrimination.

Part 1: stylistic, syntactic and semantic matches

Cautionary note: The aim of this presentation is not to accuse anyone of socking or any other policy violation. The aim of this presentation is to determine when words/phrase/sentence matching is a basis for "false positive" match, and when it is not. I submit to the patrolling admin / ARB Committee that this analysis will be helpful in Part 3.

Case 1: Substantial matches between me and accounts recently blocked after SPI checkuser

1.1 The case of User:Anandmoorti

Anandmoorti is an account that was created by someone on 30 November 2016. It was blocked by Ponyo after a checkuser in August 2017. Both Anandmoorti and I have extensive words and phrase matching (edit diffs for Anandmoorti followed by edit diffs for me):

• "c/e" as edit summary [19] [20]
• "undue and unsourced" [21][22][23][24]
• "please see WP:RS guidelines" [25][26][27]
• "please see WP:WWIN" [28][29]
• "rm more OR" [30][31][32]
• "remove all OR and incorrect information" [33][34]
• "tags have been pending for a while" [35][36]
• "please feel free to add it back with WP:RS" [37][38]
• "recover sourced content and sources" [39][40]
• "remove fv, add sources" [41][42]
• "replace dup-cite" [43][44]
• "c/e, rm more OR, clean up tag template, offtopic WP:Coatrack", [45][46] (Anandmoorti), [47] (MSW)
• [additional matches trimmed; I will provide these if ARB Committee requests]

Comments:

• Despite numerous exact words/phrase matches and overlap in articles Anandmoorti and I edited, a checkuser did not find me as a sock of Anandmoorti. If I were socking, it would have been discovered by the checkuser process just like this and this by DoRD which found sleeper/other accounts from the same IP. This implies that exact words and phrases match along with edit space overlap can be because of reasons other than socking, and relying on words/phrase match can lead to false positives.
• I note that the edit summaries added by Anandmoorti do not reflect their actual edit. The Anandmoorti edit summaries seem like blatant copy paste, and some edit summaries are also copies of other long term wikipedia editors.
• I also note that a sock of Anandmoorti edit warred with me and Kautilya3 as Akib.H and ה-זפר (aka বব২৬) in April 2017. I had filed an SPI. After an investigation by Ivanvector, Ponyo and Bbb23, additional sleeper accounts were discovered then. All were blocked, including the then sock of Anandmoorti.

1.2 The case of User:Aadhira68

Aadhira68 is another account identified by the software driven search as one with substantial words/phrase matching with me. It was blocked after a checkuser in Fenruary 2018:

• "c/e" as edit summary [48] [49]
• "rm undue and OR, rm incomplete sources that I am unable to trace after searching for them; add sourced content and sources" [50][51]
• "move into refn note" [52][53]
• "update, add various views for NPOV, add sources"[54][55]
• [additional matches trimmed; I will provide these if ARB Committee requests]

Comments:

• Again many exact words/phrase/sentence matches. A checkuser did not find me as a sock, when Aadhira68 was identified as a technical match of Kkm010 on February 22 2018.

Case 2: Past SPI case filed against Joshua Jonathan and Thigle (March 2015)

In March 2015, a case was filed by Bladesmulti alleging that Joshua Jonathan was a sock of User:Thigle. The complete case can be read here. The case showed evidence of one word match, phrase matches and sentence matching:

Still talking about "Royal circles" [56], like he did 2 years ago: [57]

We say talk page, but he calls them "discussion page", and told others to "see discussion page"[58]-[59]-[60]-[61]

"has nothing to do with" [62]-[63]

"removed double"[64]-[65]-[66]

"removed/removing dubious"[67]-[68]

"added link to main article"[69]-[70]

Comment: The case alleged that the match in style, words, phrases and sentences amongst other things was behavioral evidence of socking by Joshua Jonathan. Comparing the Bladesmulti's allegations presented above against a random group of editors indicates that a random group of editors in the same articles do not exhibit this sort of similarity. The patrolling admin disagreed and considered the 76 links provided by Bladesmulti to be false positive. Using the software tools mentioned in the methodology section, I get the same results as the patrolling admin. This case shows that word/phrase/sentence matching can lead to false positives, and that active editors working in the same topic area may show trivial to substantial matches even though they are not sockpuppets.

Case 3: The case of checkuser confirmed User:Buddhakahika sock farm

(please see cautionary note above)

User:Buddhakahika has created numerous socks for a number of years. Many of these have been confirmed by checkuser. The methodology and tools mentioned above find numerous phrase and sentence matches between the checkuser confirmed socks, across wikipedia articles in the South Asia space. More specifically, automated searching for two or more words, 8+ character tokens resulted in 784 matches between these socks. Some examples:

• Buddhakahika accounts have had a general obsession with certain POV and phrases, such as "the warrior buddhist brahmin", "Buddhist Brahmin" (alternate found by the tools is "Buddhist Bráhman"). These are found in new articles and across many articles edited by the socks ([131][132][133])
• same idiosyncratic citation style that starts with "<ref> P." or "<ref>P."([134][135][136][137][138][139][140])
• "where one is inspired to inculcate virya or courage and be a dharma pala or dharma defender"([141][142])
• [trimmed to respect WP:Beans, will provide a full list to the ARB Committee if requested]

Comments:

• The Buddhakahika socks have a lexical density variation of less than 5%, a marker we will use in Part 3 of this appeal.
  • Since the wikipedia article on lexical density is weak, here is a quick intro: A lexical density is the frequency of lexical items in sentences one writes or speaks. A lexical item is one that adds meaning or substance to a sentence, in contrast to the grammatical items. For example, in the sentence "if you harass a wiki-editor, you may face wiki-sanctions", the lexical items are "harass", "wiki-editor", "face" and "wiki-sanctions". Lexical items include nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Grammatical items include pronouns, determiners, conjunctions, finite verbs, prepositions and to some scholars also some adverbs. Babies often skip the grammatical items, so their early attempts to communicate with us is with high lexical density phrases. As we grow, we weave in grammar and our lexical density drops at first, then it rises again as our premises and knowledge of lexical items grows. Lexical density can be measured in a number of ways, each giving a different score (see Ure, etc). What matters here in Part 1 and Part 3 of this appeal prep, is that the lexical density be measured consistently. Halliday in his 1985 work described lexical density as a measure of the complexity of one's writing style. It is a way to use automated tools to evaluate a text qualitatively. Lexical density is not a finger print of any person's writing, and millions have the same lexical density. Two lengthy written passages with different lexical density suggests that their authors are likely different. Two lengthy written passages with same lexical density does not prove that their authors are same, but suggests plausibility. In the case of the Buddhakahika socks, the lexical density is statistically the same (I have selected Halliday method to compute lexical density here and in all other cases, see Michael Halliday (1985), Spoken and written language, Geelong, Deakin University; Reprinted by Oxford University Press in 1989).
• The Buddhakahika case is instructive. It contrasts with the allegations thrown at Thigle-Joshua Jonathan case above by Bladesmulti. While there were a few exceptions, most of the matches mockingly thrown at Joshua Jonathan by Bladesmulti were common terms / phrases, frivilous and circumstantial, cherry picked out of context. In the case of Buddhakahika, the matched phrases are idiosyncratic and repetitive. They have also been loaded with original research, attempting to push unsourced or fringe content or the same dubious sources such as from scribd, strange websites, blogs and similar.

Cases 4 and 5

(to be prepared and submitted offline/off-wiki, per WBoG note)

Case 6: Two currently active editors

(to be prepared and submitted offline/off-wiki, per WBoG note)

Case 7: Random editors: South/Southeast Asia space articles

(to be prepared and submitted offline/off-wiki, per WBoG note)

Case 8: Random editors: Africa-space articles

(to be prepared and submitted offline/off-wiki, per WBoG note)

Part 2: stylistic, syntactic and semantic differences

(to be prepared and submitted offline/off-wiki, per WBoG note and my reply below)

Part 3: analysis of allegations against me

(to be prepared and submitted offline/off-wiki, per WBoG note and my reply below)

Not yet. I want to prep the arguments on this talk page above, and some offline for now because of privacy concerns. If I file an appeal, this is where it will be for the review and discussion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to see that your account is blocked. I do not have checkuser right to go into those details, but, you know that I respected you as an editor. --Titodutta (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tittodutta: Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much aware of the exact circumstances but, given the edits you have been recently making to your t/p, which can be easily construed as casting personal aspersions against other editors, under the flimsy pretense of researching about sock-puppetry and your block, there is a fair chance that your talk-page-access may be revoked, if you persist.Thus, please do not restore the removed stuff, in any on-wiki manner.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WBoG: No worries. I misunderstood two things. First, I understood that my appeal needs to provide reasoned arguments and objective basis. Part 3 will be difficult to understand without the basis and arguments in Part 1. Second, I understood ARB Committee's 2015 motion to state that if edit diffs and evidence is provided, it is not WP:ASPERSIONS. I provided dozens of edit diffs, and included "cautionary note" above. Since you state you are not much aware of the circumstances, the situation and reasoning are the following:

• I am accused and suspected of sockpuppetry, where the alleged socks edited three or more years ago. The case is heavily based on matched commonly used words/phrases based on edit diffs, behavioral. No checkuser has been done on me (or the alleged socks, to the best of my knowledge).
• I am trying to present evidence that a current editor has far far more matched words/phrases with a checkuser confirmed socks farm banned by ARB Committee about three years ago, many of these phrases are rare in wikipedia history, all this evidence with edit diffs. A behavioral review has not been done in this case, just checkuser done. If words/phrases match is irrelevant in one case, it should not be used against other editors. Otherwise, many of our seasoned editors can be victims of false positive witch hunting, just like Joshua Jonathan was once targeted.

I respect you. Maybe, the best way for me is to prepare the rest of the appeal offline over the next 4 to 8 weeks, sooner if RL permits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the community does heavily frown upon blocked editors pointing fingers at others, to justify the prospects of an unblock.I will sincerely advice you to secure an unblock on it's own merits (i.e. by contradicting the behavioral overlaps between you and the master), pending which you may choose to proceed with your investigations into potential sock-puppetry by other users.Also, see this policy.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I ain't a sysop.And, I will gladly raise you this ANI thread.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]