Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bangrubhai/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account immediately starting to create article stubs in the same areas as previous accounts, including Julia Chatterley which was created by previously blocked sock User:Bangruchika (Bangruchika's version was moved to Draft:Julia Chatterley, and the new article is substantially indentical to that draft). The article stubs have many identical features (per WP:BEANS I won't go into that), as well as being in the same/similar areas. It feels a lot like undisclosed paid editing. See also and. bonadea contributions talk 13:54, 13 December 2018 (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, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account, starting out by creating stubs in draft space; two of the three stubs (Draft:Ashok Kumar Lahiri and Draft:Rathin Roy) had previously been created in article space by another sock, User:Lukachupi. Unlike the previous socks (Lukachupi for instance flat out denied any paid editing at all), this one has made an attempt at disclosing paid editing, albeit for an article they have not created... bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 15 December 2018 (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, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

quack Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 19 February 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

 * Sock indeffed and tagged. CLosing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Brand new user, immediately creating the same old draft yet again. bonadea contributions talk 14:14, 20 February 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

 * . Article deleted, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Exactly as before - recreating Draft:Akash Banerjee right away. bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 21 February 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

 * . (I mean, c'mon...) GABgab 16:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created Draft:Akash Banerjee (which is the same as usual) as well as the identically written and formatted Draft:Debasmita Bhattacharya and Draft:Debashis Sen. bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And now they created Akash Banerjee in mainspace - essentially identical to previous versions as far as I can tell. --bonadea contributions talk 08:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

See also this (Bangrubhai sock blocked a week ago) and this (Bhikhurathee toady) --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 27 February 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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Rasalghul1711 recreated Akash Banerjee, which had been previously created four times by Bangrubhai and their socks. Bbb23 deleted the last creation on 27 February 2019. However, Rasalghul1711's account was created on 27 March 2021. Surprisingly, on 7 November 2023, Rasalghul1711 responded to the speedy deletion nomination for Akash Banerjee, acknowledging, 'I do understand that this has been nominated for speedy deletion as this article had already been removed back in 2019. But right now the article has been written citing multiple sources (see references) The previous article was mainly written about the Delhi lifelest event but the new article mentions a lot more citing several independent sources like the Times of India, scroll.in, India Today and more. So it is not a WP:STUB nor is it about a particular event like the previous article. He is a a well recognized political commentator in India.'

The question remains: how did Rasalghul1711 gain knowledge about the previous content, given that their account was created on 27 March 2021, and only admins have access to deleted content and history? – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember to Assume good faith in ambiguous, grey, or unknown areas where sufficient evidence is lacking or not strong. Who knows; the user could've been an avid reader or contributed regularly as an IP user before they decided to register an account here. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:03, 30 December 2023 (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 post highlighted above is indeed suspicious at first glance, but becomes much less so when you consider that it is quite wrong about the content of the deleted version, and that it is therefore probably extrapolating from comments at the AfD. I'm not seeing enough to warrant a check here, but I'll let a clerk or CU make a final determination. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In progress. Stand by, please...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the behavior described suspicious? Sure, that's a reasonable statement to make. However, my threshold for establishing whether or not a reasonable enough suspicion is present to justify pulling technical data using CU needs more than just an incorrect description about an article slated for speedy deletion. My threshold for what's needed to satisfy that level of suspicion is the ability to show that a pattern of similar editing styles, behavior, and subtle habits (be it simply technical ones like the improper use of grammar, punctuation, or writing style is observed, or things such as similar writing style, similar disruption, the miss-spelling of a word in a way that's not common, or similar edit summary descriptions added, etc) exist between the accused. In this case, I don't see enough of that kind of evidence here that would do so. Sufficient behavioral similarities and evidence will need to be submitted and validated before we can move forward from here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * due to lack of behavioral evidence. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)