Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CanadianSingh1469/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Both users act in tandem, here and here Ralx888 reverted my edits where CanadianSingh1469 was engaged in an edit war with me. CrashLandingNew (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

"Bad faith" accusation and a fake case for an "attack" to prevent their own editing being examined. CrashLandingNew was blocked for a week for edit warring seen here and resumed it again on article Operation Blue Star as seen here, ,. Ralx888 (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) CanadianSingh1469 Can you shed some light here for admins? We are being accused of sock-puppetry.Ralx888 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I blocked both CrashLandingNew and CanadianSingh1469 for edit warring. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. But this is false accusation of sock puppetry by CrashLandingNew. I have no association with CanadianSingh1469. Some of these articles have been in my interest that I kept eye on and if there are two people disagreeing with an edit, does not make it a sock-puppetry. CrashLandingNew is just trying to prevent his edit warring from being examined. Ralx888 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Abecedare I have been editing for last 4 to 5 yrs without an account and yes I have experience editing. This does not put me in a spot for sock-puppetry. I have no association with CanadianSingh1469 and I do not know him. He is just another editor on the block for me.Ralx888 (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * 's first edit was to re-revert in support of  and they quickly moved into editing many of the same pages.  - Please compare the accounts. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See also User_talk:Black_Kite. Suspicious to say the least. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And this is even more dubious, especially when you consider that Ralx888 only has 103 edits. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. I don't know if this is an instance of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry. But clear indications, even beyond the ones already spelled out, that Ralx888 is not a new editor. Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And some evidence of off-wiki coordination with other editors in this topic area:, . Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The second of which is a blocked sock, as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And Ralx888 has just been blocked as being from the same sockfarm. I'm shocked, I tell you. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The work was done over at Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. I didn't see this report until just now. Still, confirmed, tagged, blocked. --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's nothing more to be done on this report. If everyone else concurs, feel free to change the status. If anyone still needs a checkuser, though, I'm watching this page now. --Yamla (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. Closing. No merge, given it seems pointless. Jack Frost (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This user is restoring all the edits of a recently blocked sock, for example this, started editing yesterday i.e. April the 28th. It is quite obviously him. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Lie. This user is vandalizing articles by removing large extent of information and sources and wants to view the article as he personally fits. Admins can review the article and see the vandalism that this user is unnecessarily committing. User is using sock as an excuse to revert the changes so that the article can viewed the way he wants. 2601:540:8100:1FB0:6DBB:5760:553F:E352 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It is a poor idea to assume that editors here are completely stupid. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I semi-protected some of the targeted articles. Btw can we report future socks at Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit, instead of here? Uunless I am misinterpreting the CU findings, is not a member of this sockfarm. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
And he is back. Of all the millions of pages on Wikipedia this IP decided to mark its presence after years to straight away revert my edit where I removed false information not backed by the citation provided(editors can check). He is going to stalk my edits for sometime, I've made peace with it. Also, he is asking other users to edit pages on his behalf apparently coz they are now protected. CrashLandingNew (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 18:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: your note, I wasn't sure what has been concluded about CanadianSingh146, him being involved in meat puppetry is still open for discussion, right? Re: section, I'll report properly in future. CrashLandingNew (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and affected article semi-ed. please see my note at the previous report and can you check why the reports you file are missing the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section? Abecedare (talk)
 * The boundary between being a meatpuppet and having common interests/POV is fuzzy and I (currently) cannot confidently regard CanadianSingh1469 as the former. This, of course, may change in the future but for now I would consider the above 3 SPI reports closed as, say, indeterminate with regards to the meatpuppet accusation. Pinging in case they have a different opinion. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue was that Ralx888 was reverting some articles to CanadianSingh1469's preferred version. CS1469's conduct has not been great since we unblocked him early, either. I'd suggest a topic ban if they return and continue in the same manner. 21:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just read the unblock discussion and in light of that 's repeated reverts at Insurgency in Punjab, India are particularly troubling. I agree with you that they are looking at a topic-ban unless they live up to their previous reassurances. Abecedare (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * About my repeated reverts. My first revert was reverted moments later. In it I told the editor to contact me as they seemed to not understand the material in the source. After that a long discussion occurred. At the end I added two quotes. There was only 1 revert done by me. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)