Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunkumarnaik/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All of the above accounts, and some others that make relatively minor edits, have been active on the Banjara article since April 2019, make a few edits promoting that caste and then disappear. It could be meatpuppeting, perhaps enticed here by some online caste forum/blog, but there are similarities in account naming patterns between quite a few of them. Sitush (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Eg: two have "009", two have "Veer banjara", five (including those two) have "banjara". In addition "naik" and "nayak" are alternate spellings of a name in India. - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And today has appeared. Same sort of stuff. If this is not socking, I'll have to ask for some sort of protection on the article because their conflict of interest as apparent caste members is affecting their ability to contribute according to our policies (V, RS, NPOV etc). - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

has put the Banjara article under semi-protection for a few months based on the rationale of presumed sockpuppetry. However, I think we still need to nail this because I suspect these or similar accounts will return when the semi expires. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2019 (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

 * - TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ to one another:
 * is at best.
 * is but the behaviour is pretty convincing so I'm fine with leaving it under this name (and tagging the socks as CU confirmed since they're all confirmed to one another, and this is who we're calling it.)
 * , there are possibly a lot of sleepers, but I wasn't comfortable blocking them because of how wide the range was and how many hadn't edited. If/when they come back, file another report and I'll do another sweep. After a few passes, we should have a better idea if the operating system he is using is just common in the area or if all the account creations are one person. All confirmed accounts are . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is at best.
 * is but the behaviour is pretty convincing so I'm fine with leaving it under this name (and tagging the socks as CU confirmed since they're all confirmed to one another, and this is who we're calling it.)
 * , there are possibly a lot of sleepers, but I wasn't comfortable blocking them because of how wide the range was and how many hadn't edited. If/when they come back, file another report and I'll do another sweep. After a few passes, we should have a better idea if the operating system he is using is just common in the area or if all the account creations are one person. All confirmed accounts are . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is at best.
 * is but the behaviour is pretty convincing so I'm fine with leaving it under this name (and tagging the socks as CU confirmed since they're all confirmed to one another, and this is who we're calling it.)
 * , there are possibly a lot of sleepers, but I wasn't comfortable blocking them because of how wide the range was and how many hadn't edited. If/when they come back, file another report and I'll do another sweep. After a few passes, we should have a better idea if the operating system he is using is just common in the area or if all the account creations are one person. All confirmed accounts are . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is at best.
 * is but the behaviour is pretty convincing so I'm fine with leaving it under this name (and tagging the socks as CU confirmed since they're all confirmed to one another, and this is who we're calling it.)
 * , there are possibly a lot of sleepers, but I wasn't comfortable blocking them because of how wide the range was and how many hadn't edited. If/when they come back, file another report and I'll do another sweep. After a few passes, we should have a better idea if the operating system he is using is just common in the area or if all the account creations are one person. All confirmed accounts are . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is at best.
 * is but the behaviour is pretty convincing so I'm fine with leaving it under this name (and tagging the socks as CU confirmed since they're all confirmed to one another, and this is who we're calling it.)
 * , there are possibly a lot of sleepers, but I wasn't comfortable blocking them because of how wide the range was and how many hadn't edited. If/when they come back, file another report and I'll do another sweep. After a few passes, we should have a better idea if the operating system he is using is just common in the area or if all the account creations are one person. All confirmed accounts are . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is at best.
 * is but the behaviour is pretty convincing so I'm fine with leaving it under this name (and tagging the socks as CU confirmed since they're all confirmed to one another, and this is who we're calling it.)
 * , there are possibly a lot of sleepers, but I wasn't comfortable blocking them because of how wide the range was and how many hadn't edited. If/when they come back, file another report and I'll do another sweep. After a few passes, we should have a better idea if the operating system he is using is just common in the area or if all the account creations are one person. All confirmed accounts are . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)