Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

[1] (mind the insertion of picture with same note) is same as [2]. Same edit warring on B. R. Ambedkar and bothering same user that he bothered previously, User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Babasaheb_Ambedkar(Sock) User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan/Archive_2014#Consider_watching_this_page...as_some_people_are_trying_to_vandalize_it.(old acc)

He actually got banned on Astronautabhinavstar for not just edit warring, but also abusing many accounts. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think that the issue is unsolved, see talk page for explanations. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He had written on the page of Talk: B. R. Ambedkar with a IP that "Amartya sen called him that "HE IS HIS FATHER in economics"[3], same thing he did on the talk page of a user[4] "Noble Prize Winner Amartya Sen calls him his father in Economics." with the account Siddheart.

See the evidence on the talk page, he has abused the similar IP for posting a hate message. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Helloooooooooooooooooooooooo to whomever it may concern (specially Bladesmulti) I am not a sock of which I recently found out the meaning on wikipedia itself..and so what If the messages were same? that can be used to claim Ambedkar's legacy. Looks like you are so concerned with Dr.Ambedkar's article. That's why you have been reverting any postive changes. Fist cease yourself from hatred. I use Wikipedia very rarely. His name is Abhinav (as I saw him from his Id) and I am Siddharth Chabuskar from Maharasthra and hate message? Seriously?? Man , what the heck are you talking???????? (Personal attack removed)

I haven't posted any hate message Don't you ever call me a sock puppet. Enjoy your editing. Nice day. Siddheart (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Already blocked, closing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: I have blocked 42.104.26.174. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

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

I blocked Siddheart for edit warring. After the block expired Mosesben was created, but the main purpose of Mosesben has been to perform edits originally done by Siddheart, and also getting into the same disputes. see [5] vs [6], also a unique common interest in one particular editor from the fifth edit. —SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk note: I did not find that a CU was needed as the evidence was fairly obvious. A couple of additions to the report. First, the puppet account was created before Siddheart's block expired (6-7 hours before). Second, the puppet went after User:Bladesmulti with a vengeance. Bladesmulti apparently accused Siddheart of being a sock, and there were some words between the two accounts. Moseben filed a bogus report at WP:AN3 against Bladesmulti (no violation found). I indeffed and tagged both accounts. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• Akshatra (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Akhil.bharathan (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mosesben (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (added for comparison purposes)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

EdJohnston just blocked him for edit warring. Since it is a single purpose account, only made for attacking me, it is probably sock puppet of this user, see this sock complaint. Mind that "orthodox hindu" and once again he said that on Edit warring board.[7] His nature of following my activites that are related to some particular subject is also apparent.[8] I am doubtful that how a user who has perfomed only 3 editings sessions can be so practical with the system of this website.

User added "accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html"(unreliable source) to this article, Buddhism and Hinduism [9], just like he did with his blocked sock account User:Astronautabhinavstar [10]

Need checkuser, he probably got sockfarm like before. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also check for User:Akhil.bharathan, same weeping about Ambedkar's professions,[11] - [12] last edit on 8th August, but today he edited just for reverting to the nonsensical version[13] of this suspected sock.

Everytime it ended with behaviour match, no CU was used before. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Clerk endorsed - Per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The technical connection between the accounts is  Likely. I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• AbhinavKumar1289 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Name matches with the indef blocked sock Astronautabhinavstar of this user. Same weeping about Ambedkar's professions,[14] - [15] Today he jumped to recover a edit.[16] He had added it with his main account.[17] Bladesmulti (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav seems to be working to derail this report. I don't see even a single sentence that was actually required. Knowing that Gaurav is argumentative, I would let him know that;

• AbhinavKumar1289 is a obvious sock puppet, account made only for backing up the particular edits that he made on other blocked accounts.
• Just because you are interested in making non existing claims, I would be impressed if you had said that indeed "all Dalits" have viewed this article but none of them shared strange views like this sock master who is in the territory of long term abusers.
• And about your last point. Lets make it clear, it is has been always a great idea to block anyone who is disrupting whether this website or any other by posting false stories and misrepresentation of unreliable sources.

Now even if he has already started saying "Please I beg from you to not block me"..[18] on his own talk page, he thinks that he will be pardoned. It becomes even more obvious that he still don't seem to be understanding anything. He will probably resume posting inflammatory and abusive content on the talk pages, article pages, edit summaries once he is blocked on any of his sock puppet. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP match is just a confirmation that accounts are abused by 1 person, during wikimania or meetups, users of this website may share same IP. Behavior match is more important and anyone can agree that it is a sock. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callanecc : Gaurav is a sock puppet too? There is some obvious meat puppetry though. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bladesmulti first stop attacking me unnecessarily. You are a good editor. I am here to edit wikipedia not to fight with you. Again sorry if I have hurted any of your sentiments. You went furious after me because I am a Dalit (Low caste person)since my first edit on wikipedia. I request the admins to block all other Ids if there are any and allow me to edit. am not here to disrupt wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhinavKumar1289 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 4 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I would like to defend User:Akshatra, User:Akhil.bharathan and User:AbhinavKumar1289:

1. User:Bladesmulti suspects that these users are sockpuppets of User:Siddheart. The evidence provided is that all of them are "weeping about Ambedkar's professions". I would like to point that all Dalits (members of a Scheduled Caste) would share these sentiments, so this des not imply the users to be sockpuppets.
2. User:Akshatra, User:Akhil.bharathan, User:AbhinavKumar1289 and me were part of some debates against User:Bladesmulti and User:NeilN. I cannot say whether they are sockpuppets, however they had made some valid comments. User:Bladesmulti, instead of answering their comments, labelled them sockpuppets.
3. Caste System is a controversial subject. I feel that blocking all users that share a particular viewpoint has left pages like Caste_system_in_India and Criticism_of_Hinduism with a very biased content. --Gaurav (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also post on the Sockpuppet investigation page of User:Akshatra and User:Akhil.bharathan? --Gaurav (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauravsood0289: No, seriously, you need to do as I suggested and read the casepage Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Siddheart/Archive and talk pages of the users in question. Have you done that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how Wikipedia identifies someone as a sockpuppet? Since User:AbhinavKumar1289 has made very few edits so far, I assume Wikipedia would not be able to find any correlation between his posts and those of User:Siddheart. So, I assume that he may be blocked solely on the basis of comments of other users, and so I came to defend him. If this is not the procedure, please let me know. --Gaurav (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauravsood0289: A checkuser was asked for. See Wikipedia:CheckUser. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just stated my opinion because the section was titled "Comments by other users"; and I assume this is the purpose of the section. Anyway, if I was not supposed to defend, the SPI clerk will ignore my comments. So, I assume I haven't done any harm --Gaurav (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav, you can state your opinion. However I asked if you had taken into account the checkuser conclusion and evidence brought by another editor before defending two first two editors you named. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since many people are part of a Virtual private network and therefore share their IP with other users, I assumed that IP is not the final criteria for blocking. So, I assumed that your and User:Bladesmulti's comments have played part in User:Akshatra and User:Akhil.bharathan being blocked. I just wanted to give them a fair trial. My assumptions may be incorrect and I may have made mistakes; and so the SPI clerk/admin is free to ignore my comments, if he likes. Therefore, I don't think there is any point in taking this conversation any further. --Gaurav (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following is my defence against being a meat puppet:

1. I had posted comment_1 and comment_2 on some talk pages. It has been more than a month, and I have not received a reply yet. If these people were my meat puppets, I could have asked them to support my comments and could have removed the sentences I did not like. I have however not edited the main article.
2. I have only made edits likes adding "citation needed", "non-primary source", or marking an article "NPOV", etc. I have never changed the contents of an article and have never reverted it. Instead, I have mostly focussed on talk pages. On the other hand, the users mentioned here as well as User:Bladesmulti and User:NeilN have engazed in edit wars. So, I think my behaviour is different from all these users.

@User:Bladesmulti I request you not to delete my defence. If, you think, I have violated some guidelines of Wikipedia by posting this defence; please comment here. I would be happy to delete my defence in such a case. --Gaurav (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AbhinavKumar1289 is  Likely, clerks might like to have a look at any relation there might be to Gauravsood0289 (I haven't checked). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying that my mention of Gauravsood0289 was based on suspicious editing (I didn't do a CU check as there isn't enough evidence yet), if there is any evidence which comes to light a new SPI can be filed. AbhinavKumar1289 has been blocked and tagged so marking report as closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• Surya3456 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Right after I asked Callanecc [19] to protect a page where this user is infringing copyrights and adding unreliable sources, he made a new account.

[20] Restores sock[21], [22] edits today with the edit summary,"Not so fast . First discuss that on talk page"

Then he goes to follow my edits per his usual practice and made a nonsensical revert on Jainism and Hinduism.[23]

Strange indeed, I am sure that he is adding these edits because he did the same thing before with his sock puppets. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Blocked and tagged as a duck. Closing Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• John Harkins (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Frequent habit of following and reverting my edits on the pages about which he don't even know, he did that with his last suspected sock.[24] Use of long edit summaries [25], [26]-[27], [28] and failing to discuss on talk page(s).

Frequently labeling casual cleanup of irrelevant content as deletion/removal of article. don't remove the article - [29], removing the whole article - [30], not good to remove the whole article [31]

Extensive use of multiple(more than 3) question marks,[32] - [33]. Telling to stop reverting [34]. Claiming that "you remove sourced content...", [35], [36] Previously he has also used socks with English names to evade his block.[37][38][39]

I have also checked the IPs that he used for editing wikipedia around the time he created this account hardly 18 hours ago. Locations of those IPs match with the previous IPs that he abused. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, your guess was correct, you were remembering this diff [40]. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk endorsed. There's a good amount of behavioral evidence but I'd feel more comfortable with a confirmation (although in the past, the CUs all seem to come back as likely). Still, even that would be helpful. Almost all of the editing here is to an article that, AFAIK, hasn't been touched by previous socks, although I have this nagging suspicion that the edit itself (talking about Hindu customs) is something I've seen before - maybe I'm confusing it with another editor completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As suspected, the connection is  Likely. The range they edit from is large and well traveled. Tiptoety ^talk 17:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, Bladesmulti, but what I remember - or what I think I remember - is something more extensive and to an article, not to a talk page. No matter. The latest puppet has been indeffed and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Same weeping about Ambedkar's professions,[41], [42] -- [43], [44], [45]. Always asking anything like What is sock?[46] -- [47] Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  On hold - I've checked but I'm getting another opinion before I comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is  Possible, just. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've semi-protected the article for one month, added PC1 and indeffed sock with tag. Closing.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Terabar (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ProudIndian007 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

@Ivanvector: "if Terabar was someone's sock this would have been discovered".[48] Following this comment I got some time to read the history of the articles that Terabar has frequently edited and I found nearly all of them to have been edited or disrupted by Siddheart with his sock puppets before. Terabar's account was created in September 2014, same month when last sock of Siddheart appeared, and Terabar started making edits on Siddheart's subject by 1 November 2014.[49]

• Siddheart created userpages of his accounts with "hello",[50][51] Terabar did that too.[52]
• Refers people as "my friend"[53][54]
• Starts talk sections with "Hello (username)"[55][56][57]
• Likes using exclamation marks.[58][59]
• Siddheart sock: "May peace be upon you",[60] Terabar: "May peace and blessings be upon you".[61]

• Inserting same images of B. R. Ambedkar on Caste system in India[62][63][64]
• Terabar used same source and information as Siddheart sock on Creator in Buddhism[65][66]:-

• Socks made their first edit with WP:GettingStarted,[67][68] so did Terabar[69]
• Edit wars to insert same sections on Criticism of Hinduism (start reading from "Varna system"[70][71][72][73]
• Canvassing editors who he thinks will defend him in WP:BATTLE.[74][75]
• Canvases people by misrepresenting others edits as vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND).[76][77]
• Canvassing same editor in a friendly manner.[78][79][80][81]

This one is most striking of all:

Siddheart sock:"Official colour of the party is RED not LIGHT BLUE. http://www.samajwadiparty.in/)"[82] (edit marked as minor)

Terabar: "Official color is red and not celestial blue. See http://www.samajwadiparty.in/ideology.php"[83] (edit marked as minor)

Although, official color is not just red, it is red and green.

Leaves no doubt that he is sock of Siddheart. Capitals00 (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector: I saw you have created a separate SPI. What I am seeing is that the sockfarm shares similarities with socks of Anatha Gulati:

This sockfarm creates wikipedia redirect,[84] then turns into article[85] "expanded with citation", Anatha Gulati also creates a redirect first, then turns it into article.

[86][87] ("updating with citations"), same as sockfarm [88][89][90]("updating with citations")

[91][92]("expanding with references") same as [93][94]("expanding with references")

Nearly all article creating socks had file uploads too.[95][96][97][98]

I requested and had a few of articles deleted already under G5, even @SpacemanSpiff: deleted a bunch. Tell what do you think. Capitals00 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Terabars edits overlap with Siddheart socks on BR Ambedkar and caste related articles [99]. An ANI case against Terabar [100] has been opened yesterday. JimRenge (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terabar has not edited after this SPI. --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A CU isn't going to work here, but as one of the first admins to block a sock of Siddheart, I have this page on my watchlist and I've also blocked Terabar in the recent past and have warned them (ARBIPA/DS) reg their editing. I did not make the connection earlier on, but now it seems obvious. Also, Bbb23's clerk comment (archives, June 29, 2014) is telling of the behavior even now. Therefore, I propose a block as a sock based on the behavioral evidence presented above and in the archives. —SpacemanSpiff 11:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk endorsed, and I've added ProudIndian007 (talk · contribs), the old account that turned up on my userpage to repeat Terabar's allegations after the last Capitals00 case and then harangued a blocked sock of another user. Yes, all of the accounts are stale, but this evidence is convincing, and with the history of this case there may be CU log info that could be useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Terabar and ProudIndian007 are  Unrelated.
• ProudIndian007's real location is not discernable with any confidence. The CU logs are of little help regarding Terabar as they show only that they are editing from the same country, which is not a big surprise. As SpacemanSpiff says, the determination of whether Terabar is a sock of Siddheart must be based on behavior.
• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and constitute an independent sock farm:
  • Celtsgo (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Clemgor (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Clothwa (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Devonshe (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Droinglipse (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Errstw (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Jurtrzikman (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Kareintader (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Lemryio (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mangleo (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Neauribloan (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ProudIndian007 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Riksielanutra (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Rutralporan (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Urlentasik (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blocked without tags. Some of the technical and behavioral characteristics of the above group are reminiscent of Orangemoody (talk · contribs · count). A new case with the above group should be created and the accounts tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New case filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007; this set of accounts all  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given my close involvement with this case in other venues, I'm going to leave it to another clerk to make a behavioural determination with respect to Terabar. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked and tagged Terabar as a suspected sock on Siddheart based on evidence presented. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---