Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ambeinghari/Archive

25 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The account were opened on 17 October another account on 18 October though on different years.

Both edits in same area with similar edit summaries. Their userpage is opened in similar way. this edit is similar to the comment. Check the edit summaries of 1 and 2. The Avengers (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

I don't have any abuse report other than this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#WikiBriefed_is_on_a_crusade_to_establish_boxofficeindia.com_as_the_one_and_only_reliable_source_for_Bollywood_movies. WikiBriefed is on a crusade to establish boxofficeindia.com as the one and only reliable source for Bollywood movies.]

There were observation by other users, other than my alternate account. --The Avengers (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I haven't even looked at the diffs, but could you please present descriptive and diff evidence of abuse? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are . Behaviorally, the puppet seems significantly more intemperate, particularly in their edit summaries. Also, the master participates in Talk page discussions far more than the puppet. They clearly have the same agenda, though. I'll let a clerk decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please wait before taking action on any accounts. Mike V • Talk 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, the accounts appear to be . I've conveyed my thoughts to Bbb23 via email8 explaining some technical differences. However, that of course doesn't rule out the possibility of meatpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As knows, I was unable to review this because I was away. I'm not convinced I agree with the jump from  to, although I understand Mike's reasons that he stated in his e-mail to me. Instead, I might downgrade my finding to . Regardless, to the extent the accounts do not belong to the same person, I think meat puppetry is likely and the account could be blocked on that basis (see my comment above re "the same agenda"). Just as before, I'll leave the decision as to any action for someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing the case with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

01 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Once again promotinf BOI above other sources and the userpages were opened in similar way. The  Aven gers  01:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Question--- Has boxofficeIndia employed large group of editors to remove references from reliable sources as old Indian Newspapers, News Magazines, News channels, reliable websites  and promote BOI as one and only reliable source for Bollywood box-office? -- The   Aven gers  02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked further but one IP user was supporting Semanti Paul in ANI. The IP's comments were covered as 166 troll. 1. -- The   Aven gers  00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is to . Some behavioral evidence connecting the accounts would be helpful here, just to be sure. Mike V • Talk 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked Semanti Paul as a sock of WikiBriefed (See and ). Closing.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

23 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I originally brought WillShowU to ANI for disruptive behavior, then became curious about some of his behavior and realized that it matched WikiBriefed.


 * WillShowU
 * Here he removes a box office value from a film article's infobox with the edict "worldwide gross is added after full run".
 * Here he removes the gross values from the infobox again, explaining "worldwide gross can be added at the end. Please."
 * Here he again removes the box office gross value from the infobox, commenting "For God's Sake, listen to me. I dont have the time to take a silly thing to the talk page. We will add gross at the end, otherwise different people will come with different sources, vandalize the page or start an edit war. Please use your brain."
 * Other hostile comment here, "Remember that I am being as cordial as I can. I have explained my edits once before and if anyone has a doubt, can check that. I don't know who is retarded enough to not understand."
 * Here he changes a Bollywood Hungama reference (suitable for inclusion per Indian cinema task force) to a BoxOfficeIndia.com reference warning, "If anybody changes the gross or source, they must explain their edit and give a better and more convincing source than this (not Bollywood Hungama, Koimoi etc.")
 * He disputes several times that the female leads in the film Dilwale (2015 film) are credited before Shah Rukh Khan. (Apparently Shah Rukh Khan [known also as SRK] wants his female co-stars to get top billing.) WillShowU eventually backpedals with no apology. "You're right. The film does credit Kajol and Kriti Sanon ahead of SRK. Woww!!
 * Copyright violation here where he introduces content lifted verbatim from Times of India.
 * Account created November 30, 2015, four days after WikiBriefed was blocked by JamesBWatson.

Behavioral summary: Account created four days after WikiBriefed was temp blocked. Issuing edict that we can only add box office gross values at the end of the film's run, issuing edicts about what references we're allowed to use, with an emphasis on BoxOfficeIndia.com, hostile edit summaries, little discussion anywhere else. No reply to ANI as of this writing, seems to limit discussion to edit summaries. Resistant to the idea that ladies should be credited before Shah Rukh Khan.


 * WikiBriefed
 * Here he introduces the edict, "Do NOT ENTER THE GROSS WORLDWIDE UNTIL THE COMPLETE RUN. WHOLE WIKI COMMUNITY ONLY ACCEPTS BOX OFFICE INDIA NOW. NOT FRAUD SITES LIKE KOIMOI BLAH BLAH. SO ONCE THE RUN IS OVER YOU CAN FILL THE BOI FIGURE. CHECK HAPPY NEW YEAR OR KICK OR PK PAGES"
 * Here is an edict issued on a talk page, "gross worldwide...to be added only at the end of the film's run"
 * Here is a hostile edit summary: "HOW STUPID ARE YOU? MANEESH SHARMA THE DIRECTOR SAID ITS A THRILLER. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED. IDIOT!
 * Here is another hostile edit summary: "ARE YOU BLIND THAT YOU DID NOT SEE THE REFERENCE AND MANEESH'S QUOTE. DUMB TROLL."
 * Here is another edict. "Dont change the budget. Dont mess around. BOI is uniform for all BW movies across the board on Wiki for comparision purposes. Relax."
 * Resistant to the idea that ladies are credited before Shah Rukh Khan. "LADIES FIRST ONLY FOR RED CHILLIES SRK MOVIES NOT ALL SRK MOVIES"
 * Copyright problem with file upload.

Behavioral summary: Issuing edict about adding box office gross values at the end of the film's run. Was on a campaign to elevate BoxOfficeIndia.com as the only source we can use. Beef with Koimoi.com, elevation of BoxOfficeIndia.com as reference. Hostile edit summaries. Resistant to the idea that ladies could receive billing over Shah Rukh Khan (SRK)

I think this is enough to warrant a CU if anyone thinks it's necessary, although I think it's an out-of-the-park duck situation. was kind enough to temp block WillShowU for 48 hours as a result of my ANI report. I'd probably respectfully recommend that that be changed to indef. WikiBriefed was originally blocked for 48 hours. JBW didn't indicate the block duration in his block template, so it's possible that WikiBriefed thought he was indeffed. I'm not sure what to do about the sockmaster, but I don't get the sense that he's here to do good things and be part of the community. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2015 (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

 * WillShowU is more technically connected to the master than to WikiBriefed based on location. The technical data other than location is muddled. Just as Mike said regarding Semanti Paul, and implicit in the problems with the relationship between the master and WikiBriefed, all of these alleged puppets require a behavioral analysis to see if they're all similar, or one is similar to one but not the other, or however it falls out. Be aware that Cyphoidbomb's detailed presentation of behavioral evidence compares WillShowU to WikiBriefed, not to the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's ample evidence to correctly link WillShowU to WikiBriefed based on behavioral evidence. I'm still trying to figure out what is or isn't considered WP:INVOLVED, so I'm going to hold off on blocking WillShowU at present, and in the interim, if an experienced admin has any wisdom to share with me about WP:INVOLVED, my talk page is thataway --> Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing on this. WikiBriefed seems far more prone to overheating than WillShowU. Time will be the best gauge. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * any thoughts on the December 1 report as well before it's closed? Mkdw talk 17:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/WillShowU.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)