Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashutosh.94/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets


Older, possibly connected accounts:


 * (per edit summary here )
 * (per edit summary here )


 * (per deleted revision contributions at this diff )
 * (per deleted revision contributions at this diff )


 * (per reverted contributions before this diff )
 * (per reverted contributions before this diff )


 * (per behavior: Only contribution, single-purpose account. Note that the sock-master-suspect has been editing before and after this one. Before, proof: diff 1 // after, proof: diff 2 )
 * (per behavior: Only contribution, single-purpose account. Note that the sock-master-suspect has been editing before and after this one. Before, proof: diff 1 // after, proof: diff 2 )


 * (per behavior: Only contribution, single-purpose account. Again, the sock-master-suspect has been editing before: diff)
 * (per behavior: Only contribution, single-purpose account. Again, the sock-master-suspect has been editing before: diff)

Even older, including article creator:


 * Both per behavior, single-purpose accounts. I suspect undisclosed paid editing or a very heavy COI as the initial reason for creating this article in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both per behavior, single-purpose accounts. I suspect undisclosed paid editing or a very heavy COI as the initial reason for creating this article in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both per behavior, single-purpose accounts. I suspect undisclosed paid editing or a very heavy COI as the initial reason for creating this article in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

New ones; users completely ignoring any COI or paid editing advice on the talk pages above.
 * Both per behavior as single-purpose accounts, even after having been reverted and warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both per behavior as single-purpose accounts, even after having been reverted and warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both per behavior as single-purpose accounts, even after having been reverted and warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


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

Edit history of "Indian Institute of Management Ranchi": Possibly undisclosed paid editing with masses of sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Accounts apparently created only for editing this article promotionally, being thrown away after a few edits. Checkuser needed to detect sleeping socks, I guess. Jesus Christ. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Thank you, and sorry for the possibly enormous amount of work caused by this large request. Would it be possible, to avoid unnecessary work while still providing great help, to do a search for currently unused or sleeping accounts, not on the list, by the same IP address? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. All right. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * for CU / sleeper check. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked a bit and stopped. I knew what I would find, but I wanted to confirm it, and my suspicion was correct. These accounts are either socks and/or classmates/colleagues. Many of the IPs are owned by the school, making it difficult to tell which whether they are socks or meat. I suggest blocking whichever accounts you wish and not worrying about the technical data or other accounts. I personally will not spend any more time on a check, but another CheckUser might feel differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What you're requesting doesn't make sense for two reasons. First, it's pretty much the same amount of work, and, second, the vast majority of these users/accounts have no interest other than editing the one article. It's therefore unlikely I'd find any other active accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw a related RFPP request and semi-protected the article for 3 months. However, looking at the username of the new accounts more carefully, I am pretty confident that this is not a case of vanilla sockpuppetry (ie 1 user abusing multiple logins), but rather a bunch of IIMR students using computers at the institute to create accounts and editing under their real names. I suspect a local wikipedia editing training workshop may well be behind this sudden burst of misguided activity.
 * So instead of blocking all these accounts as sock/meatpuppets, would it make sense to drop COI notices on their talkpages advising them not to edit the IIMR article but rather to take time familiarizing themselves with wikipedia policies etc. Or, based on past experience, is this just a lost cause? any input? Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I suspected: see this edit-summary: ...as part of Digital Marketing assignment. Wish we could the instructor! Abecedare (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on my experience, this is a time sink for the project. I understand that "punishing" the students, thereby possibly discouraging them from constructive editing at Wikipedia in the future, is not a great solution, but it's not like trying to help a single newbie - there's a whole herd of them. My guess is the instructor is probably also acting in good faith and doesn't realize how much disruption they are causing. Unless you - or someone else - wants to take onboard the thankless task of trying to work with the students, I recommend waiting a bit to see if semi-protection ends the problem, and, if it doesn't, blocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I have dropped notes on their talkpage, and if the disruption resumes will block the involved accounts. My expectation though is that their course assignment thwarted, most of these accounts will just fall dormant. In any case, I guess this SPI case can be closed now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)