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

All the three accounts with around 500 edits have significant overlap among each other. They also have a consistent pattern of supporting each other in AfDs and related discussions. In my opinion, there seems to be a tag teaming effort at the least or perhaps I'm imagining things but the degree of overlap compared to overall contributions looks suspicious to me.

• Identical arguments presented by Yoonadue (Special:Diff/960854371) and Azuredivay (Special:Diff/961185867) on deletion review.

• Wareon (Special:Diff/956233746) posts an AfD and Yoonadue (Special:Diff/956823704) and Azuredivay (Special:Diff/956378579) move to present identical arguments in support of and identical to the nominator.

• Identical arguments presented by Yoonadue (Special:Diff/958007729), Azuredivay (Special:Diff/958112815) in support of Wareon (Special:Diff/957928320) on the deletion review of the same.

• Yoonadue and Azuredivay have both edited relatively obscure topics such as Farkhor Air Base (Special:Diff/887599920 & Special:Diff/862507138) and Indigenous Aryans (Special:Diff/952431879 & Special:Diff/946109670) .

• Yoonadue and Wareon have both edited Tamils (Special:Diff/566420821 & Special:Diff/956593045) and taken an interest in Rollback rights (Special:Diff/590218333 & Special:Diff/955512021).

• Yoonadue (Special:Diff/953511654), Azuredivay (Special:Diff/944165484) and Wareon (Special:Diff/946117688) have also shown interest on 2020 Delhi riots article disputing neutrality issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wareon, Ideological arguments? Content dispute? What? In case you are not a sock you should probably read up WP:USTHEM. I could only find one content dispute between us which was a month ago (11:02, 30 May 2020) where your participation was limited to one comment and none with the other two. I'll admit at first I wasn't certain if I should add your name since the overlap wasn't that stark unlike between the other two but you seem to have found (02:24, 22 June 2020) this SPI without being notified right after Azuredivay posts (01:09, 22 June 2020) an SPI. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• So existence of "ideological arguments" shared by 100s of millions people is a valid basis for an SPI? Do you become same person if you edited same page edited by thousands of editors? You need to quit abusing SPI for your content disputes. Wareon (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - There's enough behavioral overlap for me to be suspicious, but not enough for me to duck block. I'll note that all of the accounts really like talking about content forks and POV forks. Self-endorsing for CU. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  In progress - Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• All three accounts are  Unrelated. Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing without action per the above finding that all three suspected sockpuppet accounts are, in fact, unrelated. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Dympies was named in an investigation request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel, and was found by checkuser to be operating two undisclosed alternate accounts. The finding led to an arbitration enforcement discussion, the results of which are summarized below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As noted, all three accounts are  Confirmed. From the AE discussion the user chose to continue using the Dympies account, and has been placed under a single account restriction and topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, both as arbitration enforcement. The other two accounts have been indefinitely blocked without tags. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

I went to look for the edits of Dympies after saying that I would file an AE report against Dympies. Upon searching his contribution history slightly more than what I had done before, I found that he has entirely resembled the history of another account named Shinjoya, who was topic banned from caste-related topics.[1] However, as Dympies, he continues to mainly edit the "caste-related topics". Dympies was topic banned from "Rajput" topic in 2023 by Abecedare,[2] before getting topic banned from WP:ARBIPA by Firefangledfeathers, all of which was later overturned. Nevertheless, the topic ban on Shinjoya was never overturned.

While Dympies account was created in 2020, it had only 31 edits until 15 July 2021 when it became regular.[3] That happened after Shinjoy was indeffed on 10 July 2021 by Bishonen.[4]

Dympies stopped editing from 14 August 2021,[5] and Shinjoya requested unblock from 31 January 2022.[6] Once the unblock request of Shinjoya was declined on 3 April 2022,[7] Dympies would resume his editing from 29 April 2022.[8]

• Both Dympies and Shinjoya are focused on clarifying "Jat" origin of Dharmendra.[9][10]
• On Maratha Confederacy, both added Image:South Asia 1758 AD.jpg with the same edit summaries:

• "added 1758 map to show the empire at peak in geography section".[11]
• "Added 1758 map describing the political conditions in India of that time"[12]

• Shinjoya added File:South Asia 1758 AD.jpg|Maratha Empire in 1758 ''(orange)'' on Maratha Confederacy[13] Dympies restored it.[14]
• Dympies was blocked from 2019 Balakot airstrike,[15] an article where Shinjoya also has major edits.[16]
• Both Dympies and Shinjoya removed the middle name "Singh" from Nandish Sandhu.[17][18]
• Dympies made a total of 303 edits to Rajput and 102 edits to Talk:Rajput,[19] while Shinjoya made a total of 90 edits to Rajput and 49 edits to Talk:Rajput.[20]
• Both Dympies and Shinjoya are concerned about images on Rajputisation#Formation.[21][22]
• Both have modified the first line of Rajputs in Bihar#History concerning some e events since 1200 CE, and edited nothing else on Rajputs in Bihar.[23][24]
• Never-ending acrimony with Adamantine123 aka Heba Aisha as clear from their comments on WP:ANI.[25][26]
• Both accounts showed lack of understanding of WP:MEDRS.[27][28][29]

Fair to say,  Looks like a duck to me.

Dympies had the opportunity to disclose his accounts when he was caught socking. In fact I had asked him to "declare your accounts on the userpages of your accounts."[30] Dympies never disclosed this account on which he was topic banned from caste, and is technically still evading that topic ban. Capitals00 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, accusing people of sock puppetry is not allowed outside SPI but SPI is the correct venue for it. I am doing that by providing the evidence. I am under no restriction. Shinjoya was indefinitely topic banned from caste topic, before getting indefinitely blocked. He was not allowed to edit with another account. The similarities between that account with this SPI are too many, and that's why I filed this SPI.

Upon further discussion below, more similarities have been discussed, some of them are:

• Adding Devanagari script on Ror.[31][32]
• used the same https://bollywoodtoday.in/manushi-chillar-and-urvashi-rautela-reacts-to-swara-bhaskars-open-letter/ on Urvashi Rautela, while claiming that the subject was born in a Rajput family.[33][34]
• Edits mentioning the religion of The Great Khali.[35][36]

Capitals00 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Same assertions on talk pages:

• Dympies: Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajputra caste had been formed before 13th century.[37]
• Shinjoya: Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajput caste had established itself well before the 13th century.[38]

• Reminds LukeEmily of their creations:

• Dympies: Luke, it was you who created different sub-sections for different terms and you yourself contributed to Rajputra sub-section.[39]
• Shinjoya: LukeEmily, I have observed that it was you who created the article Rajputisation.[40]

• Same formatting style; Shinjoya and Dympies include their name in the heading when appealing sanction.[41][42] Their responses to their editing issues is in plain numerical order.[43][44]
• Adding names to List of Jats by using YouTube links.[45][46] Capitals00 (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree with the allegations that I am operating the Shinjoya account or engaging in sockpuppetry to evade a topic ban. This SPI has been filed in a bad taste by Capitals00 who became hostile towards me ever since I supported a move proposal which he had opposed at Talk:Maratha Confederacy. At 01:48, I supported the proposal and at 12:50, Capitals00 makes the following comment in an ARE report against me: "This report filed by a sock is tainting the credibility of some of the comments that were correctly raised about the edits of Dympies. I have some evidence to offer but this sock report is making it impossible to file an easy-to-understand report about Dympies. Can you consider closing this report? I promise I will file a new report with proper diffs in 24 hours."[47] Capitals00 must have tried finding some disruptive edits of mine. On failing to get anything substantial, he came up with this malicious SPI trying to link me with a historical account named "Shinjoya". I understand that the similarities in editing patterns have raised concerns, but these can be explained by shared interests and the nature of the topics we edit, rather than evidence of me controlling both accounts.

1. The edits on Dharmendra page have been misrepresented. The 2024 edit of mine was merely adding a quote from the source without changing the content. In fact, my 2023 edit changed his caste identity from "Jat Sikh" to "Jat" which was doing exactly the opposite of Shinjoya's stated edit (of 2018) which was changing it from "Jat" to "Jat Sikh".

2. The use of the same map image (South Asia 1758 AD.jpg) with similar edit summaries is coincidental. This map is a well-known, frequently used image for illustrating the Maratha Empire/Confederacy extent, and the edit summaries reflect standard language for describing geographic additions. My edit [48] and Shinjoya’s [49] were years apart, and I was restoring a relevant image that had been removed, not mimicking Shinjoya actions. My restoration of the map [50] was based on its relevance to the article, not because I was continuing Shinjoya work. Images are often restored by multiple editors when they are deemed useful, and I had no knowledge of Shinjoya specific contributions at the time.

3. 2019 Balakot airstrike is a high-profile article with many editors contributing over time. My involvement in Dec 2024 was a major one which even resulted in a partial block while Shinjoya's edit[51] was merely a minor edit replacing name of place from "Balakot" to "Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunwa". Editing by both of us reflect a shared interest in Indian military history, which is not uncommon among editors interested in South Asian topics. The partial block I received was unrelated to sockpuppetry and does not imply a connection to Shinjoya.

4. The removal of the middle name "Singh" in Nandish Sandhu[52] [53] was based on sourced information or discussions about the actor name in reliable sources. This is not a major edit, and its not unusual for multiple editors to make similar corrections based on the same sources.

5. My significant contributions to Rajput (303 edits) and Talk:Rajput (102 edits) reflect my interest in caste-related topics, which are heavily edited by many users due to their cultural significance. Shinjoya smaller number of edits (90 and 49, respectively) suggests a less intense focus, and overlap in such a prominent article is expected. The topic is broad, and in our edits, I don't find any major overlap in edits as such.

6. My edit in Rajputisation [54] and Shinjoya’s [55] addressed image relevance, a common task in Wiki articles. These edits were made years apart and was standard maintenance work, not coordinated behavior. While I was adding an image, Shinjoya was removing some different image. I don't see any link here.

7. Modifying the first line of a section in Rajputs in Bihar [56] [57] is a minor overlap. This section is a focal point for editors interested in regional caste histories, and both edits likely drew from similar historical sources or discussions. While I had restored the edit made by an IP on grounds of WP:SYNTHESIS, Shinjoya had done edit on his own by giving attribution to the author.

8. Well, disagreements with another editor [58] [59] are not evidence of sockpuppetry. Content disputes are common in contentious areas like caste related topics, and multiple editors may have similar conflicts with the same user without being the same person.

9. The accusations about misunderstanding medical sourcing guidelines reflect a learning curve, not a unique behavioral trait. Many editors, including myself, have needed guidance on complex policies. While Shinjoya's edits were focussed on Covid 19 [60], my editing was on Omega 3 food supplements.[61][62] which are two different areas altogether.

10. The report suggests that my editing as Dympies resumed after Shinjoya unblock requests were denied. But, I paused editing due to my academic reasons and resumptions are common due to personal circumstances, and I had no connection to Shinjoya block or unblock requests. My account was created in 2020 and became more active in 2021, well before Shinjoya indefinite block, which undermines the claim that I “switched” accounts. Bhaproda, The Great Khali, Dassault Rafale) articles, while seemingly obscure, are tied to broader interests in Indian culture, history and military topics. For example, The Great Khali is a well-known figure in India, and 2019 Balakot airstrike and Dassault Rafale relate to Indian defense, which attracts many editors. Overlap in such articles is not surprising given the shared Indian good faith interest context.

11. I acknowledge that I was previously topic-banned from the entire "India Pakistan Afghanistan" topic in Dec 2023,[63] but this was overturned in Aug 2024,[64] and I have complied with all subsequent restrictions. I have never been asked to declare other accounts because I only operate this one. The request to declare accounts [65] was unrelated to Shinjoya, and I had no reason to disclose anything, as I am not using multiple accounts.

I note that the report relies heavily on behavioral similarities without technical evidence. Its like throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. Filer Capitals 00 recently received a log warning for failing to assume good faith.[66] As per WP:SOCK, behavioral evidence alone can be circumstantial, especially in contentious topic areas where editors often share interests, sources, and editing styles. Dympies (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the many times when I ended up finding the editor in question to be a sock while reviewing their edits.[67][68]

The similarities that were mentioned above are just a small trailer of the whole picture. Shinjoya and you have both added Devanagri script of Ror which goes beyond the limits you have set in your explanation.[69][70] I have never edited Rajput.[71] There is no chance that it is really "such a prominent article" like you are claiming. More than 10% of your edits on both Shinjoya and Dympies have been made there because both are your accounts. When you were appealing your block on Shinjoya, you said, "I will edit with more patience and participate with fellow users in achieving consensus, before going ahead with edits."[72] This is the same thing as you said during topic ban appeal as Dympies that, "In accordance with the WP:BRD, I will discuss the matter first with fellow editors and take them into trust before making edits which can invite contentions."[73] That means, even in your own words, you had the same behavioral issues on both of your accounts. Capitals00 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Khali is a prominent figure and editors do write about their caste and religious background in Early Life section. Both the edits you mentioned were done whopping 7 years apart. While Yoonadue added his religion, Shinjoya added his religion and caste using completely different sources. The edits at Ror shows lack of awareness of WP:INDICSCRIPT and nothing else. Both me and Shinjoya made plenty of edits to Rajput page, so do many users. At WP, every second user is blocked or banned due to behavioural issues or edit warring. So they are likely to be appealed in similar manner only. No one will appeal like "I will continue to edit war". I don't find any of your points convincing enough. Dympies (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Khali is a prominent figure because of professional wrestling career, not for his religion/caste over which you edited that article with your multiple accounts. You are trying to suppress that similarity because both accounts used "completely different sources", yet you have used the same https://bollywoodtoday.in/manushi-chillar-and-urvashi-rautela-reacts-to-swara-bhaskars-open-letter/ source while claiming on Urvashi Rautela that the subject was born in a Rajput family,[74][75] even though the subject is not known for their caste. Only you have dedicated more than 10% of your edits on both of your accounts to Rajput. On Ror, it was just about ignorance of WP:INDICSCRIPT then there was no need to make the same problematic edit of inserting Devanagari script once again and with another account. Edit warring is itself "behavioral issue", it is not separate from "behavioral issues". If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Capitals00 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the subject is not her caste, but if we go by this logic, there is no need to mention the entire "Early life" section as her place and date of birth, parents names, educational qualifications have nothing to do with her acting career. India is a vast country and editors here do edit a lot of articles and if we were to dig like this, someone can even point out similarity between you and me. I checked this huge page - Sock investigation Capitals00. If behavioural evidence alone was to be considered, you would have been blocked long back. As Fowler&fowler correctly pointed out at ARE page, admins should take note of how often you harass other editors by such frivolous reports. Dympies (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which report are you talking about? Many biographical articles have "Early life" sections, however, you are focusing only on the caste/religion aspects of these biographies, even though they are not known for it. Behavioral evidence exists about you, not me. Actually, Fowler has criticized you many times over your troublesome editing.[76][77] Do you agree with that too? Capitals00 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fact that editors who have interest in caste and religion topics often edit about these aspects in "Early Life", infobox, categories and castelists of BLPs. Such editors number in thousands. But such editing, in no manner, is considered disruptive. 01:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Dympies (talk)

---

(talk page stalker) The report simply tells us that there are two distinct editors, based on account creation, who edited the same topic they were interested in. I think this is not fair -- we can't tag a blocked account for sockpuppetry with new ones just because their EIU matches. My evaluation of the diffs provided by Capitals:

• Dympies and Shinjoya were both topic-banned, but for different reasons. Shinjoya was sanctioned for caste-related topics, while Dympies was only restricted to Rajput-related topics.
• The second piece of evidence is totally misleading, as the dates speak for themselves. Dympies started editing regularly by July 15, while Shinjoya was blocked on July 10. The gap isn't huge, but it gives a rough idea that both are distinct.
• The "unblock and resume edits" argument makes little sense. If there was no CU check expected, why would they even stop editing? That thought comes to mind -- I'd call it a mere coincidence. Besides, the dates are still pretty far apart: from August 14 to January 31 is a significant gap if someone was supposedly waiting to request an unblock. This also helps to negate the April diffs.

The rest of the diffs have been reasonably countered by Dympies, and I agree with that too. These are contentious topic areas which attract thousands of editors. We don't need to associate an almost decade-old account with a relatively new one. I also don't know what Abecedare is trying to suggest by pointing out that both edited The Great Khali, the 2019 Balakot airstrike, or the Dassault Rafale aircraft. All of these topics attract plenty of editors. Even for a village with fewer than 7,000 people, we can see Sitush edited the page: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] So we can rule out the idea that a small village can't attract many editors. I disagree that there's enough evidence to justify running a CU with any archived data, but it wouldn't hurt either. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using {{tps}} template when this is not a talk page and this SPI wasnt posted on any talk pages?

It is entirely sensible to suggest that two editors making similar edits on The Great Khali, 2019 Balakot airstrike, Dassault Rafale and Bhaproda is suspicious. For example, Dympies edited The Great Khali on both accounts in order to add details about the subject's religion/caste,[83][84] and this similarity cannot be rejected only because Dympies says he is "a well-known figure in India". He is undoubtedly a well-known figure in India, but for professional wrestling which has nothing to do with the edits of Dympies. His motive was to add about his religion/caste, things that are irrelevant to his biography.

There is no need to drag Sitush here only because he edited one of these pages. Capitals00 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used for contribution stalkers as well. Both diffs are distinctly intended. different sources cited for which one only shows the addition of religion by dympies in infobox while other shows the addition of caste and religion in the article body. If this is the best you can do, then the report should be closed. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used only for those user talk pages where you are technically familiar with them. It cannot be used for evading concerns about your suspicious arrival here. Instead of addressing why Dympies edited about the caste/religion of a person who is not even known for it, you are only making your defence look counter-productive. Since you believe that "different sources" discounts the similarity, then you are basically agreeing that Shinjoya was Dympies since he used the same https://bollywoodtoday.in/manushi-chillar-and-urvashi-rautela-reacts-to-swara-bhaskars-open-letter/ source while claiming on Urvashi Rautela that the subject was born in a Rajput family,[85][86] even though the subject is not known for their caste. Yes the report will be closed, but hopefully with a block. Capitals00 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00, in this comment directed at Ivanvector, you have resorted to bludgeoning. Most of your "evidence" has already been debunked. You should introspect why you indulge in such behaviour that admins have to repeatedly remind you of containing your battleground mentality. Dympies (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to more diffs: About diffs 37 and 38, I said what source (Irfan Habib) exactly says while Shinjoya said with a little synthesis. In fact, I had previously read a comment somewhere on talk page archive, thats why there is similarity in language. About diffs 39 and 40, the context for both the conversations was similar, thats why response was also similar. About 41 and 42, though both of us used names in heading, formatting is still quite different from each other. Shinjoya seems to have some competence issues which is evident from their poor English. Also, using [[User:username] ] (by Shinjoya) instead of {{u|username} } (by me) for referring to other users is clearly noticeable. About 43 and 44, you have provided both diffs from Shinjoya. So no case of commonality. In 45 and 46, though both citations came from youtube, we can see different styles of citing. Dympies (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to my mail to Shinjoya (apologies for mailing a blocked user), I have now received a ping in an unblock request from them. They say they want to join this discussion, which is not possible though. I am trying my level best to clarify why some of my edits overlapped with theirs but its only my justification. Dympies (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, your assessment about my editing behaviour isn't accurate. I haven't received any major sanction ever since my ARBPA tban was successfully appealed in Aug 2024. Just lame accusations from here and there, without any evidence. Dympies (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like WP:DUCK to me too. In addition to the evidence in the report, consider also the overlap in articles that are either obscure or out of the editors' main area of interest of Rajputs/castes, eg, Bhaproda, a village of < 7,000 people; the wrestler, The Great Khali; the 2019 Balakot airstrike; the Dassault Rafale aircraft etc. This would seem to rule out distinct editors having similar interests and views related to certain castes or mere meat-puppetry.

However, I would like to give it some more thought and another go over before I potentially take any action. Also would appreciate independent reviews of the evidence by other admins. Pinging @Ivanvector: to check if there is any archived data from the Dec 2023 CU check. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) Capitals00's declaration that Dympies is a sock, without a finding by an administrator or SPI clerk, is a personal attack and a violation of their arbitration-mandated assume good faith restriction. Going to this much effort to dig up edits by an account blocked four years ago to compare to edits that this user made more than a decade prior also smacks of a battleground mentality incompatible with editing a collaborative project, and I will not participate in these games. I therefore decline to investigate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a reminder to all editors that a rhetorical slugfest at SPI is not useful and another instance of the battleground mentality prevalent in this area, that Ivanvector rightly called out. Unless you have specific additional evidence or refutation, please avoid posting further here and let admins/CUs weigh in. (I will take another look myself over the next day). Abecedare (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked through the editing history of Shinjoya and Dympies (and their known socks) again, I am still convinced that these are sock accounts.

So the main question for me is what sanction is appropriate. While the argument that Tbans/blocks apply to editors and not accounts per se and hence the account operator should be regarded as TBanned from caste-related articles and indef. blocked since June 2021 and July 2021, respectively, is technically true, given the age of those sanctions, those arguments could be overlooked if the conduct of the active accounts were problem free. However, that is far from the case: the Dympies account was given a logged warning about civility at AE in Dec 2022; Tbanned from Rajput-related area in June 2023 (by me); found to be operating undisclosed alternating accounts in Dec 2023; Tbanned from ARBPIA in Dec 2023; p-blocked for edit-warring in Dec 2024; and, among other complaints, were subject of a recent AE report that was closed in anticipation of filing of a fresh, less messy, one. Given this history, the conduct of the previous sock cannot be ignored IMO and I am therefore indeffing the Dympies account.

Aside: it is clearly true that many other accounts in the ARBIPA topic area (esp. related to caste and history) have been and are involved in, at least, meat puppetry, tag-teaming, and battleground conduct as can be seen in the this RFC, this RM, recent tag-teamed reverts edits at Shivaji; and almost any SPI/ANI/AE reports involving these editors. Perhaps a fresh Arb case is warranted and/or we admins should get stricter about sanctioning such conduct at WP:AE. Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abecedare: I'm afraid I may have to eat my hat here. Since Shinjoya responded to Dympies' email and posted on their own talk page, there is fresh data to check against. Checkuser suggests that the accounts are  Unrelated, and furthermore I found no evidence to suggest that Dympies is abusing any other accounts. It would not have been possible to make this determination when I posted yesterday. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivanvector, I am fine if you or any other CU/admin decides to unblock Dympies on that basis but I am not surprised that Shinjoya's fresh login would be from a fresh location/device than Dympies' given the amount of proxy-ing and off-wiki coordination in this area. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC) To clarify, by proxying above, I am not referring to proxy server that a CU would indeed detect but rather to editors editing on another's behalf. Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My conversation with Ivanvector has convinced me that the Dympies and Shinjoya accounts are operated by different persons at present. Any suspicion about meat-puppetry or shared accounts a few years back, even if proven, would be too thin a reed to hand a current block on. So I'm going to undo my indef block of Dympies that was based on this SPI report.

Any concerns with Dympies recent or future editing can be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE although I'd remind all editors of my Aside above. Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to add here, except to say that evidence came to light during this investigation which strongly suggests that we should be scrutinizing the filing accounts in any future reports here. Closing with no further action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---