Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhinavinternet 10001/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Abhinavinternet 10001's first edit was adding controversial content in Newslaundry .. Kanhakris2297's second edit was adding controversial content in the same article..
 * Abhinavinternet 10001 added controversial content in Scroll.in in their first day of creating the account.. Kanhakris2297 first edit was adding controversial content in the same article.
 * Both users have the habit of leaving a space between the fullstop and citations, and leaving spaces between citations. (Kanhakris2297: ) (Abhinavinternet 10001: )
 * Almost all of the edits by both the users were controversial content on multiple articles within a short span from the time of their account creation. Abhinavinternet 10001's editing spree lasted for only two days and all their edits were huge chunks of controversial content supporting the Bhartiya Janata Party. It is the same case with Kanhakris2297.
 * Kanhakris2297 created a separate headings for warnings in their talk page.. Abhinavinternet 10001's talk page warnings were also separated by another user and this user could have taken a hint from it.
 * Both their talk pages are full of warnings for personal analysis and their edits were reverted for the same. -  SUN EYE 1  09:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Both the users capitalizes random words; Abhinavinternet 10001 capitalized the words Senior, Governance, Politics, Initiatives, Politics, Neutral, Point, View in this edit and Content, Left Wing, Citation, Critical Reception in edit summaries. Kanhakris2297 capitalized Controversies, and Sub-heading, Original, Talk, Controversial in their comment below this section. -  SUN EYE 1  12:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Maheshvyavahare01 became active after Kanhakris2297 stopped. Both Maheshvyavahare01 and Kanhakris2297 have added controversial content to Indian media articles. Maheshvyavahare01 adds controversial content to Newslaundry in the subsequent edit after the controversial content added by Kanhakris2297 was reverted. Same habit of capitalizing words randomly.Link Added, Infringement. Both the user names of Maheshvyavahare01 and Abhinavinternet 10001 edits with "01".-  SUN EYE 1  09:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've requested CU again after I added Maheshvyavahare01 -  SUN EYE 1  13:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I'm in no way related to the other user being described. I had never seen his talk page before or his edits before.
 * The 1st 2 points mentioned in the accusations.........I had not known the concept of Original research at that time. I had thought that citing reliable sources to each line I wrote was sufficient. 2 users making same edits is purely coincidental.
 * one allegation is that talk page contents are similar, while they are not. In my Talk page, I created a separate heading for a particular warning from User:Suneye1, because I thought I had a lot to respond, However the other user I'm being compared to, created a Sub-heading for each issue (not a heading or section)
 * None of my edits support the Bharathiya janata party as claimed, the only place I had mentioned it was under political stance in article on Jallikattu protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_pro-jallikattu_protests&diff=1055911215&oldid=1048215216 . Here I even stated that the BJP leader Mankeka Gandhi opposed the Jallikatu festival, thereby it is a anti-BJP statement, not a pro-BJP statement.
 * It is wrong to claim that all the edits were on Controversial content, while the content I added on various articles like NDTV 24x7, WION, Internet censorship in India all continue to be present and accepted.
 * I'm a new user so have problems in identifying which is a reliable source and which is not a reliable source, especially when the sources that I have quoted never listed in unreliable sources list or in desecrated sources list. I feel I'm being harassed just because someone doesn't find some source to be reliable.

--Kanhakris2297 (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - the master account is stale; the case will have to be decided based on behaviour. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - moving to declined per -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's certainly some similarities, but I also see some differences in the way they write, editing clients used, timecards, etc. It's certainly possible they're the same person, but I don't see enough evidence to base a block on.  Closing with no action. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)