Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/256Drg/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blatant revenge attack on recent edits by myself as I was primarily involved in the NOTHERE block of master account last week. The 256 digits are common to both as are some of the articles impacted. A clear case of WP:DUCK but I think we should employ CU in case he is creating a sock farm or has sleepers. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the evidence provided by Firefangledfeathers should be sufficient to show similarities. The account was created today with a similar name (256) and began by continuing where 256Drg left off, especially in the case of Ashok Laxmanrao Kukade with this edit which restores a suspect image loaded by 256Drg here and unsourced or QS content that had been added by Drg (this and this) with exactly the same disregard for WP:BLP. Please let me know if I should provide other evidence. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and. I think we should also be investigating Swtadi143 (now also nominated above) who may be the real sockmaster. If you study the edits by 256Drg, and especially the comments by and about him at the ANI case which resulted in his being indef blocked for NOTHERE, there is a clear similarity in editing patterns. On his talk page, Swtadi143 has attracted repeated criticism for breaches of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SIG, WP:EW and has constantly shown the same non-collaborative attitude as 256Drg and Proudhindu256. And, though this may not be really significant, Swtadi143 has a three-digit number in his name. I noticed Swtadi143 at Vallabhbhai Patel when he submitted this edit only a day after Proudhindu256 was active on the article. The edit is the same sort of POV that was typical of 256Drg and it was rightly reverted by TheWikiholic immediately afterwards.

Please let me know if you would like me to investigate further and/or if you would like me to provide additional diffs. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Proudhindu256 has been almost exclusively editing pages recently worked on by No Great Shaker. Not a stretch that they are playing out some kind of grudge. To me, that and the user name numbers are ducky enough. There are these two diffs on Mohan Bhagwat (#1 and #2) adding the same image with near identical edit summaries. The other page they both worked on was Ashok Laxmanrao Kukade. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Lol who is this sockpuppet and how is my account a sock puppet, Just because he/she edited in one page that I also edited ? I just saw the other user (proudhindu256) recent edits in that Sardar patel page  it doesnt even match the things i am trying to put lmao and just the three number thing in his/her name and my name also has 3 number is a mere coincidence, you can ask me any question you want?? Also that user is editing pages (except a mere one page i.e sardar patel) which i have never edited with my wikipedia account, you can see my edit list.Swtadi143 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also that user(proudhindu256) seems to be excessively doing images edits whereas my account hasn't added a image edit in months.... Swtadi143 (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No Great Shaker your accusation is baseless and completely wrong, hope this other editors see my defense arguments and give justice to your irresponsible accusations so called "sockmaster" thing your saying.. i have given everything in my defense this is the first time in like my 1.5 year + of joining and editing in wikipedia I haven been accused of this so called puppet account or alt account very unfortunate, also I am from Nepal you should check the IPs this will make it clear that this accusation is wrong. Also your basis of accusation is so wrong, any user can have a similar set of name like having numbers in their name and just because of number in name and a mere one page (sardar patel) presence of that user at the page and me editing is coincidence where even in that page the my edit and his/her edit has no pattern or connection that user is mostly doing image edits.. also if I really had to use a so called alt account (which I don't know why would I, I have no reason to make it), wouldn't I have changed the name so it didn't appear similar?? This name thing is a mere coincidnce lmao any person would have changed there alt name so it wouldnt appear similar this is a no brainer. So This is a clear cut case.  Swtadi143  (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * also to be honest I think the two accoumts above are sock puppets of each other that DRG and proud hindu accounts, adding my account as a so called suspect sockpuppet is a mistake (which I proved with my points above), But this is just my opinion since both are adding similar image edits that is for you guys to decide, I rest my defense hereSwtadi143 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I need more information. How do we know that these two accounts are controlled by the same person? Can you provide any diffs that show similarities between these two accounts? Same editing pattern? Anything like that?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * - The two supplied diffs (Special:Diff/1021881845 and Special:Diff/1022353223), especially with the similar edit comments as noted, seems like enough to endorse. The timecard comparison (https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/timecard/256Drg?users=Proudhindu256&users=256Drg) falls into the "possible" category, and the fact that they both use visual editor also falls into "possible". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Proudhindu256 is technically, and I've blocked them as a sock. Swtadi143 is ❌. Closing. – bradv  🍁  01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
User:Success think opened their account on 11 January 2022 and, within minutes, was stating "WP norms" as their reason for a change in this edit summary. I hardly think a genuine newbie would know what the norms of this site are. Yesterday, the editor posted this at Rohit Sharma, plus a few minor (but messy) follow-ups. I saw it on my watchlist and initially assumed that the editor was unaware of the lead/narrative relationship, and duplication of citations in the lead, so I restored the previous version and wrote: "As a rule, we don't place citations in the lead because they are used in the narrative; the lead is a summary of the narrative" to explain why. This morning, the editor posted this on my talk page, effectively accusing me of bad faith by "trying to mislead fellow editors". I absolutely refuse to discuss issues with people like that so I suggested they go to WP:TH and find out how we use the lead in relation to the narrative, etc. They came back with and by then I was thinking I had seen all this before when 256Drg was around and ran to ANI after I reverted one of their edits. The tone used by Success reminds me of 256 and I think the DUCK test is positive.

I am a little undecided because 256 didn't edit cricket articles and I can't see any common ground in their chosen subjects. There was a recent issue with User:Michri michri, who was proven to be a sock of User:Soutut. Those were about cricket articles, mainly Mohammed Shami, and I got involved just after the SPI because I picked up Michri's GAN and failed it, so it's possible I provoked something by doing that. See also WT:CRIC about the failed GAN.

I'm quite sure Success is a sock because of their general behaviour and the way they are shouting the odds about things they don't like, despite their supposed inexperience. For example, see this ongoing case at ANI. It's highly reminiscent of 256 but without the cricket connection.

I'm requesting checkuser because of my uncertainty about the sock master. I hope the above helps but please ping if you need any more from me. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Hi, I think your doing mistake with linking me, 256, I don't what is this 256 but, I few sec before read here. I don't claim that I know everything, I am just a student here. By saying WP norms, what was my mean was, I have read above 50 plus articles on WP (probably), and WP articles have certain unique structure, and way of writing. Don't get offend, I didn't accused you and If I offended you, I apologise for that. I am no expert, but I didn't found word to express my self and used norm word.Success think (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Your contradicting your self in your above paragraph. First you said I don't know how lead section should be written and I don't know rule, secondly you wrote I know WP norms and I'm experienced. Both things can't be true.

Listen my side, I know wp and its structure because I read some or little WP articles in last 3 to 4 years, don't take this number exactly, I'm just saying. I'm no pundit of WP.

I questioned you, 'why you removed 'need citation' tag on Rohit Sharma article', 'cause as per I noticed Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards article have 4 to 5 citations in lead section, and I wonder why Rohit Sharma don't have citations in lead. That's why I pasted need citation tag their. But removed that and I surprised.Success think (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Everything in this case is stale. I did run a check and compared to some old CU logs; nothing there makes me think Success think is related to 256Drg.  They are also unrelated to Michri michri.  I agree that Success think's editing history raises questions, but given what we've got here, there's not enough to take any action if there's no specific master to compare to. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the investigation, . I'm satisfied with the outcome and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. I'll apologise to Success think too and see if I can help him with his problems at Rohit Sharma. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)