Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhijit puranik/Archive

10 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All are making the same (disruptive) edits in Upendra; all are relatively recent accounts used in an edit war in that article. A quick CU is requested and while I could block a bunch of them as ducks, CU will be very handy to wipe out any more accounts and for future reference: expectation is that this will continue. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The following accounts are a confirmed match: I have indeffed all socks and blocked the master for a week. Regarding, I'd say a check is , as this user appears to edit from the same area, but from a different IP range and with a different user agent. This will have to be decided on behavioural evidence only. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Shafal1392 looks particularly likely. All others already dealt with. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

18 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user (master) was doing disruptive edits from multiple accounts, at that time I requested help in ANI. User:Drmies lodged an SPI which can be found here. From 1 week after taking action a new avatar came into scene User talk:UppiShishya, then came User talk:Abhijitkool. I did not have good experiences in the first ANI report and my rollback flag was removed for some time since I used it in an edit an edit warring against those socks and copyvio etc, though rollback flag was given back after 12 hours or so, more details here (now I use rollback very carefully, actually almost never use it, hardly used 2-3 times after that removal :-D :-/). For last 2-3 months I have not done anything in that article other than reporting copyvio of images in Commons.

Like Abhijit puranik, Abhijit kool too is mainly editing the article Upendra and the same articles. They are uploading copyright violated images continuously, and the same images which were uploaded by the previous socks and doing similar edit. On 3 July 2012 Abhijit (puranik) uploaded image with title Superstar Upendra, yesterday Abhijit (kool) has uploaded image with same title twice (yes after deletion image they have uploaded a new image with same title). I am requesting an SPI investigation! Tito Dutta (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Now this user too uploading same image continuously! Yes, the previously blocked accounts are not being used now! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - I'm requesting checkuser because all the accounts are uploading similarly problematic images, they have very close interests as demonstrated by the user compare utility, and they all have similar (usually nonexistant) edit summaries. Additionally, the previous time a checkuser was run a large sock farm was uncovered. Probably the only non-stale account left is . If any checkuser wants to decline this per the lack of any specific smoking-gun diffs, that is fine with me. I probably would too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Subhash Chandra Gandhi is and i'm assuming everything else is too. Adding the users behavior into my analysis, I find it  that these two users are related. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for adding the stale account&mdash;obviously I can't add correctly. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that has been added after this check. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've blocked the three named sock account indefinitely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

26 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Multiple socks of this user has been banned (reported twice, details, now a new account has come "who is not scared" and doing similar edits and uploading same/similar copyvio image (of Upendra) with similar name and description! Tito Dutta (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC) And the have similarly incorrectly removed image nomination deletion (if you can not see this link then the image has been deleted!). --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Based on the deleted contributions, it's clear that it's indeed a sock. Blocking and tagging. ( X! ·  talk )  · @330  · 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

16 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

After blocking sock accounts for the third time, this account has come into scene now, they made edits in same account to get autoconfirmed and like before uploading copyvio images of Upendra and when reported copyvio he just removes copyvio template like before (if you can not see this link then the image has been deleted!). Tito Dutta (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Thanks for quick action. And any sleeper? Everytime an account is blocked, a new account comes into scene in next 12-13 days (actually in 2-3 days, I spot them when they edit the semi-protected article Upendra) --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Taking contribs and comparison into account, it's fairly clearly a sock. Blocked and tagged. ( X! ·  talk )  · @254  · 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I ran a quick CU for sleepers as the first case had so many and it has been a while since the last sock, there are no immediate sleepers. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

18 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Like all other socks this account too are editing the same article to get autoconfirmed so that they can edit the semi protected Upendra article and editing pattern is also similar! Tito Dutta (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Confused! Is this account already blocked? Anyway, their edits in the same articles (before editing the semi protected article) are similar. KFI Fan's edits, Uppi Shishya's edits, Suresh998's edits --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright! I think they have created another account Sushuppi143, they re-added the same content what a previous account added --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * New report

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Please provide diffs to support the case. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Already blocked as a sock by . Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

25 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Please see the rationale of last week, it's same, like the previous sock he is adding same content in same article! Tito Dutta (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Last time when I was told there was no sleeper! But, within 7 days they are editing semi protected articles. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - This obvious sock was itself a sleeper, registered a week ago, before the previous sock was caught. Endorsing for checkusers to look for more sleepers. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I might as well add that from 18 January is also ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

08 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same issue Tito Dutta (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Blocked and tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

14 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Again same issue Tito Dutta (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obvious sock blocked and tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

07 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Exactly similar to these reports. Blocked sock's edit, new account's edits. In addition please check sleepers! Tito Dutta (contact) 15:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Sock blocked indef. Adding CU to check for sleepers.  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . Sleeper check is not possible at this time. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing, then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

23 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same again - Sockpuppet investigations/Abhijit puranik/Archive. Requesting sleeper check Mdann52 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Supporting the sleeper check request! Everytime an account is blocked, within 2—3 days he comes back with a new account! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorse for sleeper check; also IP block if appropriate. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very, sleeper check is going to be rather large and take a good while, so I will not complete one at this time. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

27 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Like before, previous edit, Current edit Tito ☸ Dutta 03:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Compliments on the clear evidence, blocked per WP:DUCK. Raising sleeper check. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did a small sleeper check, nothing came up, though I doubt my check was effective. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What could be done was done, closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124; WER  16:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

30 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Like before, last account was blocked on 27 June. Previous and Current edits. Tito ☸ Dutta 21:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked and tagged.  Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

28 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Like before, previous edit, current edit Tito ☸ Dutta 18:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, tagged, closing. NativeForeigner Talk 20:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

03 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

as always Tito ☸ Dutta 16:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked and closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

20 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

as before Tito ☸ Dutta 12:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting evidence.. right after reverting their edits from the article I got a friend request from Abhijit Puranik in Facebook. I accepted it and started talking. Supero Ranga posted at my talk page this message. When I started talking with Abhijit Puranik, the first message he sent was the copy paste of the suspected sock's message. I have blacked out his photograph. Tito ☸ Dutta 12:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Account blocked. Sleeper check requested by Drmies User_talk:Abhijit_puranik Tito ☸ Dutta 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There are numerous accounts that have not edited. However, most of them are almost certainly unrelated, so a sleeper check really cannot be performed. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)