Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bullus/Archive

02 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These host of accounts involved in promotional editing for just these two lesser known bio articles viz. N_Ravichandran and C.K._Gandhirajan and controversial edit on Subrata Roy and Relief_India_Trust.

Previous linked cases Sockpuppet investigations/Shevakumaran/Archive Quote "All these accounts are removing "Controversy" section from Subrata Roy and Sahara India Pariwar - Investor fraud case. They have a tendency of using/claiming "removal of non-factual content". Current active User:Bullus is trying same Subrata_Roy&diff=687245286

The same account User:Shevakumaran is the page creator of Relief_India_Trust

Where another spi raised for article involving promotion Relief_India_Trust Sockpuppet_investigations/Aarvig/Archive Quote " All involved in removing negative information and/or adding promotion to Relief_India_Trust".

So it seems there is obvious connection between these editing and affiliation and past allegation of meatpuppeting and temporary block. DChinu (talk) 11:14, 2 November 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
If you're saying these accounts are behaviorally connected to Shevakumaran, why are you opening a new SPI with a new master rather than reopening the other SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I started following the bread crumb from a different lead ( N_Ravichandran and C.K._Gandhirajan) and than reach the old records of Shevakumaran, the other trail. Though the instruction reads : point to the oldest account (sockmaster), i thought its relevant to request the SPI on the current active account. Though it may be merged with the oldest case. Although there is obvious behavioral pattern which stemmed this request, I suppose we should wait for technical evidence.--DChinu (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've declined the CU request. The approach here is unacceptable. There are two other SPIs: Sockpuppet investigations/Shevakumaran and the one noted by the filer, Sockpuppet investigations/Aarvig. Shevakumaran is the oldest account (created on January 22, 2014). Bullus was named as an alleged puppet in the Aarvig SPI, which was also filed by DChinu in September. The technical findings by were complex. Why the Shevakumarin SPI is hanging out there all by itself I have no idea. All of the puppets except one listed here are, and the one non-stale puppet has a single edit. The clerk is requested to review this mess (sorry) and decide what to do. The two options I can think of are (1) merge this with one of the other two SPIs, although to some extent it's a repeat; (2) decline it simply because it should never have been filed this way. If this sits too long without clerk action, I may decline it myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 didn't define how long "If this sits too long" means, but I reckon 9 days are enough. The editor who filed this case is aware that the filing has been questioned, and is perfectly capable of now making a proper filing if he or she chooses to. I am therefore closing this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)