Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

User:Sarvagnya, User:Gnanapiti etc
Code letters: A and C

I have a strong feeling that the above persons have colluded together to force their views on other users, revert the edits without reason, threaten other users with blocking etc., It is also possible that two or more of these persons (user names) are the same individual. For instance, I made an edit with proper citations in Chalukya Dynasty on June 29th, 2007 at 18.46. It was reverted by User:Dineshkannambadi at 18.51 ignoring my citations. I made a revert to my original edit. Immediately, User:KNM reverted my edit at 19.15. I again reverted the article to my original edit. Within a few minutes User:Gnanapiti reverted it at 19.30. In the process, my references were branded 'fake', 'unreliable', 'not worthy of quoting', 'only few in number' whereas Dineshkannambadi had 8 citations, 'FA cannot be edited', etc., I requested not to revert my edits and discuss on talk page. I was ignored. Please see Talk:Chalukya dynasty as well as "History" of the edits to Chalukya dynasty. This also applies to User:Sarvagnya who ignored the compromise I reached because of the mediation of User:Sumanthk in the articles Telugu script and Telugu language. He edited the sentences ignoring my requests. Now, User:Nrupatunga and User:Gnanapiti also joined in reverting my edits. I thought User:Gnanapiti would respect the previous compomise but now it seems these users want to push their view down my throat.

Administrators must give a hard look at these Users, their contributions, edits, revert edits, the language they use against other Users and investigate into their antecedents, IP addresses etc. Or else, wikipedia will lose its credibility. Kumarrao 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya



 * Code letter: E, C and D

There is a serious problem with a section of Wikipedia with several users ganging up to forcibly drive home their point. I kindly request a check of a strongly possible case of Sock puppetry against the users. Some have strongly shown a preference for trolling and baiting other users with whom, they are engaged in possible "edit wars." The style of English language used also appears to be very similar. I've already reported a case of "code C" sock puppetry here.

The evidence/link for violation code:D is this.

Evidence for violation Code: C


 * 1st revert 20:05 3 July 2007
 * 2nd revert 21:47 3 July 2007
 * 3rd revert 11:11 4 July 2007
 * 4th revert 11:17 4 July 2007

This sock-puppetry case (part of it, that Sarvagnya is Gnanapiti) was also confirmed earlier by an administrator investigating it.

Thanking You,  Altruism To talk  11:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya





 * Code letter: A, D

I respectfully request a check on the two user accounts above in regards to a possible sock puppet and/or meat puppet fraud. These two accounts were reported for a usercheck back in October of 2006 and both accounts have been confirmed to be the same person on 1 November 2006 here by Dmcdevit. On Nov. 12, 2006 Gnanapiti was unblocked here by Dmcdevit. Info on Sarvagnya's block can be found here. On 9 February 2007, both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were involved in a possible vote fraud here.

Both user:Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have been involved with a tag acounts for POV pushing and attacks against myself and and ethnic group overall on the Template talk:Dravidian topics here, here, here, here, here, here. On the Talk:Yakshagana page both users have posted in support of the same POV, false accusations, and attacks against me and my ethnicityhere, here, here, here, here, here, here, andhere. On the same page, both users have removed my WikiProject Dravidian civilizations template here and here. Wiki Raja 07:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I and Gnanapiti were accused or sockpuppetry and the results initially held it to be true. However, upon further investigation by many admins including Blnguyen and Dmcdevit, we were cleared of the charges.  I have ever since requested more than once to update this page appropriately. See the [talk page].  However, it was never done.
 * As for the template in question, admin blnguyen has today [put it up for deletion and several users have voted for delete]. That should speak for itself.  Sarvagnya 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At the time of the second check, it showed that Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya were no longer in the same location, however, Sarvagnya did disclose that he had told Gnanapiti about WP and explained how to get started. This was in the midst of the Indian language disputes in October/November. Gnanapiti was subsequently unblocked and free to edit - under the condition that they did not double vote or use 6RR on linguistic topics, since the Kannada-Marathi debates on Belgaum, etc, were the circumstances in which Sarvagnya introduced Gnanapiti to WP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Regarding the unblock by Dmcdevit and the request that his comment be annotated in the below archived request, I have added a note linking to the comment under the  result. Cheers,  Daniel.Bryant  08:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Geographic similarity -- unsurprising, given the circumstances. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I didnt understand. By geographic similarity, do you just mean that we are in the same country?  Well, we're 1500 miles away from each other.  Does the CU reveal that?  Sarvagnya 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right. CU often doesn't reveal much better information than same country or same continent. So "inconclusive" is pretty useless information.

--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respects, but I am just curious... if CU doesnt reveal any more info other than telling you that two users are in the same country or same continent, how then did dmcdevit conclude that I and Gnanapiti were in the same city last time round and further still that we were socks? Just curious.  Do you go by anything else other than just ip check? Sarvagnya 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! Already a check user requested and results are also out! I never noticed this page until now. :) Gnanapiti 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya





 * Code letter: A

I respectfully request a check user on the above username and IP Adresses. Reason is for constant vandalism, inappropriate behavior, personal attacks, and acting as multipe users in order to get a POV across. Furthermore, these IP Addresses and user have been recently active in the following pages:


 * Template:Dravidian topics
 * Template talk:Dravidian topics
 * Carnatic music
 * Talk:Carnatic music
 * Dravidian people
 * Talk:Dravidian people

Wiki Raja 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide pointers to said vandalism and personal attacks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Notified by Daniel.Bryant at 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

It shows that Sarvagnya is using a couple of IP Addresses without signing in to make it look like there are multiple people backing up his POVs. Here is what I have found. Sock Puppeting caught in the act

I have caught this user in the act of using multiple accounts posing as multiple people (Note: I have included links to the following sites). He first stated that:

Sarvagnya going under another 59.92.46.189 then stated about him requesting valid citations and sources from me. However, 59.92.46.189 has never requested me to provide any citation of sources what so ever.
 * can you demonstrate with references that they are indeed 'Dravidian'. here


 * I just asked you to provide references that show that Carnatic Music was exclusively or mainly Dravidian. here

Furthermore, I have had 59.92.47.201 rebuke me here and then tries to apologize here using the 59.92.46.189  IP Address. This would be the second time I have caught this user sock puppeting. Vandalism through numerous deletions

Removal of items on Dravidian topics by Sarvagnya and 59.92.46.189:


 * Sarvagnya removed items on 18:50, 25 January 2007
 * Sarvagnya removed items on 20:01, 25 January 2007
 * Sarvagnya removed items on 16:19, 28 January 2007
 * Sarvagnya removed items on 04:16, 29 January 2007
 * 59.92.46.189 removed items from Dravidian topics on 6 February 2007. Also, this user IP Address only started editing on Wikipedia that same day.

Vandalism on Dravidian people by Sarvagnya:


 * Warns that he will be “tagging” the article on Dravidian people if the article does not suit his POV liking. soon on
 * Removed parts of Dravidian people on 5 February 2007 without consulting anyone.
 * Reverted the article back to his previous removal of parts of the Dravidian people on [title=Dravidian_people&diff=105891400&oldid=105888549 5 February 2007] without consulting anyone.
 * Removed section of Dravidian people on 21:40, 5 February 2007 without consulting anyone.
 * Removed ‘’Historic Claims’’ section from Dravidian people on 6 February 2007.

Vandalism on Carnatic talk page by Sarvagnya:


 * Removed official template on 06:17, 6 February 2007
 * Removed official template on 06:54, 6 February 2007
 * Removed official template on 07:02, 6 February 2007

Note: knowing that he would be reported for violating the 3RR, 59.92.46.189 jumps in to add to the accusations made against me by 59.92.47.201 for “pushing to have a Dravidian template”. This I find odd. Here are the following dates.

Personal attacks
 * 6 February 2007
 * 19:25, 6 February 2007
 * False accusation against me first started by 59.92.47.201 on 20:24, 5 February 2007

Sarvagnya has also been involved with personal attacks and rebukes against me in the following links (Note: I have provided random statements made by this user. To see the full excerpts I have included links to the specified pages:


 * You dont get it. Do you? Stop saying that these legends are 'referenced' etc.,. Nobody is asking you for references to prove your point. to say, but your arguments about this issue so far have simply been nonsense. 6 February 2007
 * After providing some examples with Malayo-Polynesians, 59.92.47.201 tells me that ‘’Malay and Polynesian connections are all total crap here.’’ 20:38, 5 February 2007
 * After I reply to him with patience, 59.92.46.189 comes in and makes a derrogative racial statement here about Sri Lankan Tamils.
 * Sarvagnya starts calling the Sri Lankan Tamils ‘’terrorists’’ here and here


 * . Seems to me you've demonstrated clearly that there is sockpuppetry going on; you don't need checkuser at all. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What nonsense!! Neither is there any sockpuppetry going on nor has there been any vandalism.  It is a simple case of 'content dispute' and calling it vandalism is a personal attack.  I dare Jpgordon if he is an admin to go ahead and conduct a checkuser instead of jumping to stupid conclusions. Sarvagnya 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a good point, even if you said it quite rudely. Dare accepted.
 * Yes. I was rude. Because I've been humoring this troll far too long.  This was the last straw and you jumping to ... well an 'erroneous' conclusion simply rubbed it in and way too early in the morning.  Thanks for the CU anyway.  And apologies for being rude.  Sarvagnya 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ❌ on reconsideration. All of Sarvagnya's edits are from North America. The two IPs are from India. And Josh shouldn't do checkusers before coffee. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya





 * Code letter: C, E

On article Saare Jahan Se Achcha, Sarvagnya has been trolling and going against consensus to keep the Hindi language script on the page. He has vandalized and made 6 reverts to the article, abusing popups many times, , , , ,.


 * User:Gnanapiti has well under 100 edits, and has made reverts using popups for his edits(I didnt get popups until I wsa well past 3500 edits and I'm supposed to believe this newbie mastered it in 3 edits and got it after 40 or so) and vandalized a source and removed Hindi again as well . Over a string of 5 days Sarvagnya and his sock have vandalized/reverted to vandalism 12 times s shown by the page history.Bakaman Bakatalk  03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note: One editor not using popups till he made 3500 edits, has absolutely got nothing do with another user, under 100 edits or n number of edits, using it. Learning how to use Popups is a matter of few minutes. If a new user uses popups, it is absolutely understandable/acceptable and it can never be a reason for sockpuppetry allegations.
 * Saare Jahan Se Achcha article has gone over an edit war, and is still protected and the discussion in it's talk page going on. Even you were involved in that edit war, and as well few other editors. If one editor has same view as another editor, then it absolutely doesn't mean they are sockpuppets of each other. Reverting has been done by parties on both the views. Does that mean, one party with one view is a set of sockpuppets? and another party with different view is set of another sockpuppets? Certainly not.
 * Please refer to this statement: "Over a string of 5 days Sarvagnya and his sock have ...". The result of this complaint has yet to be announced by authorities(if at all the check is made; given that there are no valid reasons) or you must have already the proof that Sarvagnya has used his sock. Without either of them, your statement is both incivil and a personal attack. - KNM Talk 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User Naveenbm seems to master wiki policies in lesser time..I think he should be checked too. Mahawiki 05:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is great. Mastering the policies and simplest of the editing techniques is a yardscale for sockpuppetry! If someone didn't know how to use popups till he reached 3500 edit, does that compell me not to do it within 100 edits? Anyways, I'm not going to comment much here. Let this issue be taken care of by concerned admins and the result will speak on behalf of me.Gnanapiti 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Added KNM. He/She has been coming to the rescue of Sarvagnya in content disputes like anything and vice-versa. - ; Arya   Raj ya  महाराष्ट्र  15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the so called source Bakaman accuses of removed by me. That is a personal blog in terrible English. That too, the reference given to this article is taken from one of the comments to that blog! In no way that can that be considered as valid citation. This is the exact reason I removed that source and I have indicated this in the edit summary.Gnanapiti 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gnanapiti is Sarvagnya. Naveenbm and KNM are ❌. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, excuse me. Any particular reason for claiming so? What's going on?Gnanapiti 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! I am sure there's been a mistake. Can you please check again? Sarvagnya 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I request the concerned admins to recheck and rectify the issue as mahawiki is taking advantage of this.Gnanapiti 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the result. What furthur steps are to be followed. I request concerned authorities to take a strict action against Sarvagnya. He is reponsible for harrassing editors and pushing POV by using these tricks. Latest eg. Talk:Belgaum_border_dispute and Talk:Belgaum. Mahawiki 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Post-result : this result has been re-examined by Dmcdevit; please see here.  Daniel.Bryant  08:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya





 * Code letter:E

User:Mahawiki has been blocked for violating WP:3RR rule on Belgaum article. The article's history - History. Mahawiki reverted four times. But the real perpetrators are going scott free. User:Naveenbm reverted 3 times and User:Sarvagnya reverted 2 times. I have strong reasons to believe that User:Naveenbm is User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet. It seems to be a sleeper account. See the contribs of NaveenBM - NaveenBM contribs. And see the contribs of Sarvagnya - Sarvagnya contribs. User:Naveenbm's account was created on 5th May and after that he contributed just 7 times till October 3, 2006. After which a few edits were made to some other articles to caumoflage sockpuppetry and then out of nowhere this user comes into Belgaum page. See the similarity in English lang/grammar of both. Apart from that, their (or rather his) only intention was to block User:Mahawiki with whom his linguistic fued has been going on for quite some time. Yes, User:Mahawiki is a Marathi and User:Sarvagnya a Kannada-speaker and a lang-war has been going on, of which I have also been a part. Just check the systematic and caumoflaged sockpuppetry of User:Sarvagnya. In fact, I believe even User:KNM, who reported the 3RR violation here, is a sockpuppet of User:Sarvagnya. But, the sockpuppetry has been meticulously well-disguised, so that the culprit doesn't get caught. Just see how KNM comes to the rescue of Sarvagnya many times when Sarvagnya is caught in a heated fued or vice-versa. And not to forget, it is User:KNM who reports about Mahawiki's 3RR violation. Their sockpuppetry has been well-disguised.

Belgaum page history - here

But I am 100% sure about User:Naveenbm being User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet and he was used to block User:Mahawiki. Just see how User:Sarvagnya comes out of nowhere after User:Naveenbm reverts 3 times. Certainly, a severe violation of subverting justice for one's own need. Both User:Naveenbm and User:Sarvagnya must be blocked for this.  Arya   Raj ya  महाराष्ट्र  16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding, Mahawiki's 3RR violation, yes, he was repeatedly reverting the article with the non-English citations without providing English translation along with the original-language quote, which is against Citing sources policy. This was questioned by multiple editors. He has repeated the revertings, even after questioning from other editors. Just because the same question was asked by multiple editors, all those editors cannot become Sockpuppets.
 * Having said that, I'm glad my name has been accused as sockpuppet of User:Sarvagnya. Let the result comeout, and everyone will know what is the truth. Atleast after that, we can be hopeful of no more accusations of Sockpuppetry. - KNM Talk - Contribs 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

❌. I suggest you pursue dispute resolution in this conflict. Dmcdevit·t 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''