Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coramandel23/Archive

28 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

kindly help me to solve this issue, Please any administrator check the activities of Fourfiftytwo using duplicate and multiple id’s. Please take the necessary action for the user Fourfiftytwo which is destructing the articles in multiple way’s.

There was a user User:Coramandel23 blocked [| here] Then came again with another name as  User:Geofisherguy  blocked [| here], then came again with the name User:Kurienne  blocked [| here]. Now I am sure he is back with the name User:Fourfiftytwo, User:Bibliobuff and User:Johnmylove. Kindly see the similarities of these users. User:Fourfiftytwo is deliberately, consistently insisting to add the humiliating and un relevant text see [| here], the last sentence of the section culture in the article Secunderabad and added conflict information which is not provided even in reference.
 * User:Fourfiftytwo added the link List of churches in Secunderabad and Hyderabad to the section [| Architecture] in the article secunderabad as agreed by him [| here] on June 26th of 2011  and on the same date June 26th  of 2011 User:Bibliobuff added the same link to the article Hyderabad, India [| here], and trying to make the article communal rather to make it neutral view. The strange part is the page List of churches in Secunderabad and Hyderabad was created from 10:44, 25 June 2011 to 01:40, 26 June 2011 by the user User:Bibliobuff and User:Fourfiftytwo used it at  03:28, 26 June 2011 in the article Secunderabad not even two hours after creating the article by User:Bibliobuff.
 * Tone used in talk page by User:Bibliobuff [| here] and User:Fourfiftytwo [| here]
 * Bothe users focused only on the article Secunderabad
 * User User:Kurienne had appreciated User:Johnmylove [| here] and User:Fourfiftytwo used his work and references [| here]
 * User:Kurienne was not allowing other users to use the images and information about religions other than Christianity on the article Secunderabad and the same is repeated by User:Fourfiftytwo.
 * Ignored the WP policy of neutral point of view.
 * Deleted the section gallery from the article Secunderabad, deleted referenced information of Ramzan celebration from the section culture of article Secunderabad without discussing on talk page.
 * Applying and insisting for the conditions of his own to add images and information.
 * Making multiple edits without giving edit summary.
 * Both the users add information without references.
 * Maximum information provided by User:Fourfiftytwo is without references.
 * deliting the architectural valued 140 years old image and information of 150 years Saidani maa tomb Saidani maa tomb, Hyderabad.jpg and insistingly applying advertising images such as restaurant Gardenrestaurantchristmaseve.JPG and images which have no relation to the article such as Tankbund road.jpg not located in secunderabad.
 * Deliberately added the information and image of Osmania University without reference and writes as locatede in secunderabad. where as the reality is that the Osmania University is located in Hyderabad, India please see [| here] the official location map declared and provided by the web site of Osmania University. Thus he is deliberately misleading the WP articles.

I tried my best not to discourage the user User:Fourfiftytwo for his work towards architectural heritage of secunderabad and hyderabad, but his consistently insisting and raising arguments for the conflict information and setting his own conditions for WP articles edits, spl for the article Secunderabad and User:Fourfiftytwo breaking the WP policy of neutral view, arguing and playing with misleading words on talk page. all this wrong activities of User:Fourfiftytwo had make me to investigate his/her edit work and above is the information which i obtained. even after many requests User:Fourfiftytwo is not allowing and deleting the edits of other users spl in the article Secunderabad. As I don’t want to involve in edit war and arguments, thus i came to ask for the help and necessary actions thru any administrator.

For more details see talk page of Secunderabad the way User:Fourfiftytwo is playing and misleading the simple discussion into argument. please see the view history of the article Secunderabad the way he is deleting the other users edits without edit summary or without discussing it on the talk page and for his edits there is no edit summary.

and now when i had asked for the intervention of administrators in this issue he is accusing me of false blames and trying to prove me a defaulter and confusing with wrong remarks. please correct me if i did not approached properly for WP:SPI of above users, or if i missed any method of approaching for WP:SPI, as this is my first investigation attempt to do so, regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Omer123hussain (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2011 (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 following accounts are to be the same user:
 * I've moved this case to show Coramandel23 as the master, as I think that's who we're looking at here. There are some other accounts, like and, that are tagged as suspected, so I'm endorsing to see if we can draw a connection there. They shouldn't be stale... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What a mess. I was reluctant to check this one because of the WP:TLDR wall of text looks more like a content dispute than anything else. But, at the heart of it, dispute is the reason for coming to SPI in the first place. I have found evidence that supports multiple accounts being used, shown below. IMPORTANT NOTE: I am making no judgment that says there is abuse here and I have not looked more than glancingly at behavior. All I am doing is making strict technical judgments on which accounts are likely to be the same user and which ones are unlikely to be. It is very possible that even the "unlikely" accounts are the same user...and mildly possible that some of the "likely" accounts are actually not the same user. So...on to the findings:

The following users, previously blocked and which I can confirm are the same account, appear to be the same as the above:

Finally, appears ❌ to any of the others.

This may bear further investigation and discussion. Frank &#124;  talk  18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged all the confirmed accounts. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)