Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AniceMathew/Archive

30 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The combination of the edit to AniceMathew's user page, the near identical user pages, and the time of account creation all strongly suggest that these accounts are operated by the same person. The user is currently blocked indefinitely, and this account appears to be an attempt to evade the block. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 12:33, 30 December 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

 * Suspected sock blocked indef per the duck test, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

18 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Apart from the similarity in name as the last sock, this account was created just a day after AniceMathew's desperate unblock request was declined dated 4 January 2014, 21:40. This user like AniceMathew did, boasts of making Wikipedia look as better as possible and edits the same few articles AM did take for eg. Shahrukh Khan, Chennai Express, Singam II], Shahrukh Khan filmography, Suriya and every other thing related to Shahrukh Khan because he loves that man. Above he is sure that his edits are better than others as evident from this Edit summary which refers to edits once made to the lead by AM.  Soham  16:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that there are 11 common articles between them.  Soham  16:24, 18 January 2014 (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

 * Given the combination of the technical and behavioural evidence, I would call a ✅ sock. Note that there are a number of highly dynamic ranges in play here, therefore whack-a-mole and duck blocks may be necessary to curb further socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sock blocked indef and tagged, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

31 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

3 days after Mark blocked AM this account was created. The name is of Shahrukh Khan wifes who I don't need to repeat is the "man he loves". First edit to user page, that too a full-fledged one not just simple text. Same patter of edits like AM. 11 common articles between them. A CU would not necessary for block I think because it quacking too much.  Soham  17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)  Soham  17:04, 31 January 2014 (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

 * Suspected sock blocked indef per the username policy, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

02 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Pretty obvious duck. —Soham (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Same style of user page (including userboxes as well) as the previous socks of AniceMathew
 * 2) Same pattern of edits — Chennai Express, Shah Rukh Khan. etc.

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

 * No need for CU as it is a very obvious duck (including covering up their userpage when they new it was a give away). Plus there is no history of sleepers. Suspected sock blocked indef. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

12 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Identical name to User:RoshniBaby, a previously blocked sock of his. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2014 (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 as an obvious DUCK. No evidence of sleepers in the past so no need for CU. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

24 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same area of interest — mainly Suriya and Shah Rukh Khan-related articles. Furthermore, FireboltLeviosa's user page reads "Good editor...good edits, all good, nothing bad..", mirroring AniceMathew's egoistic behaviour, which he continued through various socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Checkuser may be declined, but isn't the evidence I presented strong enough to prove he is a sock? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * These are revisions of the user pages of him and his socks, , and . The way he has written in them may not completely show him as egoistic, but still they show how he boasts about himself, and does that prove me right? You may also find some edits in Firebolt's contributions page in which his tone of language in many of the edit summaries is similar to those in AniceMathew's contributions. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , did you check their contributions pages that I have given links to above? Does anything there convince you that they are the same person? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , though Firebolt once said he has been on wiki for "7 years", his contributions page proves that he made his first edit on 24 March 2014. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Kailash29792, the edit summary suggests that FireboltLeviosa has likely edited Wikipedia before under a different username.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * FireboltLeviosa said in this edit summary on Kick (2014 film) article that he has been on Wikipedia for 7 years.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 34, thats a staggering number of common articles in between AM [the sock master] and FBL [the alledged sock] not be suspected. If he is a wikipedian for seven years then he should know about systemic bias and have strong understanding of wikipedia's policies. In such a case why he is contributing to it and gets involved in edit warring, one of the prinicpal policies I expect a 7 year experienced Wikipedian to know about if not have a strong grasp of. Moreover he did not even request an unblock [well, surprising!]. Skr if he is a wikipedian of 7 years [he claims to be one] then under rules of WP:DG he should reveal his previous accounts and under which circumstances he discontinued using them. In his first edit he showed familiarity with templates and did minore space removal. If he can't prove for certain that he is here for 7 long years it has to be dismissed as a golden duck. – Soham (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Note to patrolling clerk/CU: The links provided in this comment as well as the argument presented should be treated as a submission of factual and behavioural evidence.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Everything is unless you have more recent accounts. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kailash, I've moved your comment back up there (makes it easier to follow what's going on and who's who). I've had a look and I'm not convinced that they're related, could you find some diffs which show them pushing a similar interest regarding Suriya and Shah Rukh Khan and/or diffs of AniceMathew's egoistic behaviour you mentioned. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Having checked AniceMathew socks in the past I can tell that this new sock is editing from the same range(s), ISP, and city. In addition, the edit summaries are very similar, with odd use of ellipsis, and the subject matter overlaps with a preoccupation regarding box office revenue. I think that given the new technical evidence available and the behavioural similarities, is likely a sock of .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With Ponyo's recommendation based on the behavioral and technical evidence and after looking through the contributions myself, I have blocked FireboltLeviosa as a sock. Mike V  •  Talk  16:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

15 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Despite making his first edit on 13 September this year, he already seems familiar with editing on Wikipedia; moreover, his odd manner of speaking in English, accompanied by exaggerated usage of ellipses in his edit summaries, and his badly edited user page (similar to his other socks' user pages) may give away his identity. The field of interest is also the same. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Excuse me but what is this....I don't know about your suckpuppet investigation and stuff..I've just made a new account. But I've already said in my user page that I am very familiar with editing wiki (without an account). What does this user have against me? I swear I know nothing about this. Wandamoons (talk), 15 September 2014


 * Oops sorry. But please prove your innocence in any way. Then I will believe you. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The behaviour was almost worth a block per WP:DUCK. A check shows this is a sock and I have blocked and tagged the account. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

22 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Much like the puppeteer, this puppet too edits articles relating to Tamil and Hindi cinema, with most of his edits concerning any film's box office performances, his exaggerated use of ellipses in edit summaries, how he calls his edits superior to other's, and one edit summary shows the rapping nature his other accounts have shown. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And another source of proof: this account made its first edit on 25 September 2014, just 10 days after AniceMathew's last sock Wandamoons was blocked. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2014 (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.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

03 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Made his first edit just three days after the last sock Rovekapok was blocked, has a penchant to edit mainly box office information on Tamil and Hindi film articles, and this edit summary of Rovekapok is similar to this one by InletDevin. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2014 (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

 * Pretty much ✅ Courcelles 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, closing. Mike V  •  Talk  04:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

12 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edits mainly box office information on Indian films (mostly Tamil and Hindi), replaces reliable sources with other sources he sees as superior, his edits are primarily done through mobile, and his edit summaries overuse ellipses. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While vandalising my user page, in foul language he admitted to being AniceMathew. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2014 (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 and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

18 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The latest AniceMatthew sock was blocked on 12 December 2014, after making a series of edits on the Thuppakki article, as well as Maattrraan and Arrambam, that changed the box office grossing against existing reliable sources and consensus. Two days later, this account crops up and edits the exact same articles, doing the exact same thing. Both accounts appear to frequently edit from mobile devices, and this new account even referenced the blocked sock in their first post. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:DUCK, and he seemingly fails to understand that while maintaining an alternate identity, he must not showcase such clear evidence of his true identity. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I was surprised you didn't file a case straight away on the 14th, since you're fairly experienced with this sockmaster. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked per DUCK and continued disruption, not tagged (yet), pending CU confirmation. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * is ✅.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SanalSonu already blocked, now tagged. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

21 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK. Brand-new account changing box-office figures on Indian film articles and editing from a mobile device. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Luke, if only you were an admin, you could block this duck without even opening this SPI. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I'm not, and I don't intend to run for admin in the next few months. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Case does not have a history of sleepers. Duck blocked. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

24 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same old story; edits Indian films and changes the box office figures without sources, although in this account's case, it adds totally unsourced ones into new articles. Editing history tells most of the story; starts editing around the time that FireboltLeviosa is blocked, stops, starts editing again in October (this seems random), stops, starts editing less than 24 hours after the latest AniceMathew sock was blocked. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 17:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kulli4065 has solely edited the Bang Bang! article. Usual story of the inaccurate changes to the box office figures (no sources whatsoever) like, which changes the vandalized figure for another vandalized figure. Same mobile edits, similar editing history around socks to the above user (started editing on 2 November in the gap of editing of Saannbb), stops, starts again one day after an SPI request is filed against Rovekapok, stops, more six days after that sock is blocked, stops, more six days after InletDevin is blocked, stops, starts up again today four days after SkateCrocs is blocked, and one day after I opened this latest SPI).
 * Sonagan is brand-new for today, but is the most blatant of them all; is textbock AM; mobile edit, changing the source and the value.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and have Bangbangluva, who fits the same profile and is also editing just the Bang Bang! article. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Not too surprised by the CU not finding anything; most of these would've been found before if CU was going to work. CU was more for today's accounts than the ones with the gaps in their editing histories. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? WP:DUCK should clearly link these even if they aren't technically linked. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No indication of sockpuppetry by CU. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action taken. Mike V  •  Talk  17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Lukeno94: The accounts have different behaviors. Once uses nothing but the pre-filled edit summaries, one uses a custom summaries. DeltaQuad's check likely shows the accounts are not using the same network or there's a number of different mobile devices, etc. To me, it seems more likely than not that these are all separate users. If there's a problem with adding unsourced material, that requires editor assistance to help educate them on how to properly edit, not block the accounts as sockpuppets. Mike V  •  Talk  18:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

27 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edits information related to box office figures on Indian films (particularly Tamil and Hindi) exclusively from his mobile, and identical edit summaries to previous socks, including "See reference". Very likely to show other blatant characteristics as long as the account is active. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (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

 * ✅ to the archive, blocked and tagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

01 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edits mainly box office information on Tamil and Hindi films, operates from the mobile, and the name sounds similar to KunnaThayoli, a previously blocked sock. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 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

 * The account does show signs of previous socks, such as editing around the fiscal outcomes of Tamil films. 1, 2 Mike V • Talk 15:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Courcelles 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Mike V • Talk</b> 03:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

19 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Pretty obvious duck. His area of interest is mainly (perhaps only) the fiscal information on Indian, particularly Tamil and Hindi films, and despite making his first edit on 2 January 2015, seems familiar with editing. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He also seems to edit frequently from the mobile, and by removing my SPI comments (though I reverted his edits) in an attempt to prevent this investigation from continuing, he is AniceMathew after all. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would just like to note that the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry and hope that the case will be closed without any adverse finding as there is no major evidence. MonishaAneena (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm inclined to agree on the DUCK front, I'm not sure exactly where this user removed any comment of yours in this SPI, Kailash. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a wrong interpretation. It appeared like he had substituted my comments with his, as I found his comments to be in the top of the page, where they should not be. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the account as a sock. It clearly shows signs as the previous accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. A checkuser has mentioned in the past that this user tends to not have any sleepers, so I'll pass on asking for a check here. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 22:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

23 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The similar style of editing fiscal information on Tamil films (may start on Hindi soon), tendency to edit via mobile, and already familiar with editing despite creating the account today Kailash29792 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 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

 * Technically, is  a sock of . I've blocked the account. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I left the account as checked as opposed to closing so that the closing clerk could tag the account. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was sure I had done that all at the same time, but must've ticked the wrong checkbox. Sock now tagges as checked (not as CU-confirmed). Thanks for the ping, ! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. On to the next one!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

25 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edits from mobile devices, messes around with Tamil cinema articles. For me, the clincher that this is AniceMathew is the typical attack on Kailash. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Though this user shows many similar characteristics, he supports Eros International's estimates on Thuppakki's box office earnings, unlike AniceMathew's previous socks who opposed it. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're more expert on this sockmaster than I am. Can't say I'm entirely surprised that CU turned up nothing - if it was that obvious, they would've been flagged up last time. This user toes the line of NOTHERE... but have they crossed it yet? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * appears technically ❌.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

28 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The combination of edits to Indian cinema across languages, particularly fiscal information, the mobile edits, his familiarity with editing despite opening this account yesterday (27 Jan) and he seems to have an interest towards Shah Rukh Khan-related articles (Kolkata Knight Riders, Gauri Khan and Red Chillies Entertainment). Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 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

 * The behavioral evidence shows the same signs we often encounter, but a check might help just to be sure. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 19:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

04 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The same manner of editing fiscal information on Indian films, an interest towards Shah Rukh Khan-related articles, and all his edits are made via mobile. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 4 February 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

 * Mobile editing, an interest in fiscal earnings, gravitating towards the same articles as past socks (Magadheera, I (film)), looks like a duck to me. I've blocked and tagged it accordingly. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

18 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Despite making his first edit on 9 February 2015, he already seems familiar with editing, he edits mostly through mobile, and shows a fascination towards Shah Rukh Khan-related articles and fiscal information on Tamil films. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 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

 * The behavioral evidence is there, with the similar fiscal editing. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

24 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Recreated K C Cariappa (cricketer) just as it was before deletion. Also interested in Bollywood and IPL, particularly Kolkata Knight Riders. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 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

 * - Indeed, this user recreated an article that was originally created by one of the proven socks (K C Cariappa (cricketer)) just a few days after it was deleted . That was one of hist very first edits. This is quite obvious, but because of previous history of sockpuppeting, I endorse CU request to look for sleepers.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I caught this earlier today via the K C Cariappa honeypot. Already blocked and tagged. Closing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

19 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

His area of interest is Indian cinema, wherein he alters fiscal information, sees his edits as superior to other's edits, makes excessive mobile edits, has a particular liking for Shah Rukh Khan related articles and has a penchant for cursing. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On his talk page, he has confessed. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 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

 * Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

02 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Created shortly after the last sock ShaktiKapoor was blocked, and edits in the same style, mostly fiscal information on Indian films through mobile. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 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

 * probably ✅. Blocked and tagged, closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

18 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

While it did not seem initially obvious, I realised that "Ramesh" shares many interests with AniceMathew, including Indian cinema, (mostly Shah Rukh Khan and Suriya-related articles), box office information on Indian films, and Kolkata Knight Riders. He also edits almost always through the mobile. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:30, 18 August 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

 * Per the archives, there's no non-stale account to check against. Therefore, I've declined the CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account. They're a quirky master with some obvious tells if you know what to look for. They're also editing from the same IP ranges as previous socks and the geolocation is a match. Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)