Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dilip rajeev/Archive

Report date April 30 2009, 04:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Drpms (talk)

User:Dilip_rajeev changed the name User:White adept to his own Diff

User:White adept revealed his name as Dilip Rajeev Diff 1 Diff 2

User:Researcher31 responded to a post meant for User:White adept, answering as User:White adept except under the name User:Researcher31. The signature of User:Researcher31 was then removed Diff 1 Diff 2

Regarding India IP 117.199.1.9, it resolves solely to User:Dilip_rajeev. Regarding India IP 117.199.4.123, the edits resolve to User:Dilip_rajeev and to articles he commonly edits. Regarding India IP 202.83.32.153 User:White adept edited comments under that name Diff 1 and changed this IP to his name Diff 2. Regarding India IP 121.246.170.167, User:Dilip_rajeev's involvement is inferred by Revision history of Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, esp. in relation to the dates 16 & 17 January 2008. The sole editors on those dates were User:Dilip_rajeev and User:Ohconfucius and the IP supported User:Dilip_rajeev's edits. Regarding the widely shared India IP 218.248.68.63, User:Dilip_rajeev's comments were edited under it (esp. on 18 August 20008) Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5, Diff 6, and several edits were made under it on the Revision history of Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident esp. on 6 & 7 August 2008. This IP also added User:Dilip_rajeev's self-identified personal website of bachtherapy.org to the Bach Flower Remedies page Diff. Regarding the widely shared India IP 218.248.68.57 User:Dilip_rajeev's self-identified personal website of bachtherapy.org was added to the Bach Flower Remedies page Diff 1, Diff 2. Drpms (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an account on Wikipedia nor do I wish to make edits here due to systemic warring behaviors commonly exhibited on Wikipedia. I do contribute to several other wikis, including Citizendium. I perceived a bias on Falun Gong related articles and discovered that User:Dilip_rajeev was heavily involved in editing those pages. A cursory web search led me to an internet webpage that revealed User:Dilip_rajeev's activity on Wikipedia. Since User:Dilip_rajeev's edits are controversial and ostensibly biased, I decided to bring this matter to the attention of admin. Instead of focusing on me, it is my hope that admin will focus on the integrity of this sockpuppetry claim. Drpms (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * registered accounts notified. Mayalld (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * please provide evidence regarding the IP addresses. Mayalld (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * it is interesting that the user filing this case has no previous edits under that account. In the interests of transparency, could I ask under what ID this user normally contributes. Mayalld (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Upon looking at this case further:
 * The three accounts listed are probably sockpuppets. I haven't quite ruled out meatpuppetry but changing diffs/confirming an email on a different account suggests the same person rather than a friend/relative.
 * 117.199.4.123 and 117.199.1.9 is Dilip rajeev editing under an IP.
 * 202.83.32.153 geolocates to the same city, and with this, he is undoubtedly related to the accounts above.
 * This shows he's likely Dilip rajeev. The IP geolocates to Hyperabad which is near Kerala, possibly from a place of work.
 * 218.248.68.63 and 218.248.68.57 are on the same (small) range, and there have been a few suspicious edits which lead me to believe a possible connection to the above. However, I can't see any solid evidence. Diffs or elaboration please?
 * Please notify all suspected accounts of this post per the instructions, thanks. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 07:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Further notes: Actually, the relationship between the IPs and Dilip rajeev is clear per this report. I have gone ahead and blocked all three accounts indefinitely, and the IPs for a week (AO, ACB). Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC) all tagged Mayalld (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 5 2009, 15:16 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (believed to be impostor's account)
 * (believed to be impostor's account)
 * (Account that initially raised SPI case against this user)
 * Additional accounts
 * (believed to be impostor's account)
 * (believed to be impostor's account)
 * Additional accounts
 * (believed to be impostor's account)
 * (believed to be impostor's account)

Blocked master returns first as an IP denying socking at User talk:Mayalld, then hours later as a new account, claiming to have turned over a new leaf, and to have conveniently lost the password to his old account, so he can't appeal his block from there Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Mayalld (talk)


 * Evidence submitted by AGK.

I'm having a real headache processing an unblock request at User talk:Dilip rajeev, and would be grateful for any additional assistance that could be offered. By way of a synopsis of events thus far: That user has been blocked for using two secondary accounts—the second and third sock puppets listed above—to evade the block on his first account. He now claims that the other accounts were not created by him, but rather are operated by another individual who is impersonating him—with the aim of having him blocked for "sock puppetry."

The behavioral evidence is somewhat ambigious, from my evaluation; other administrators may be see things differently. If technical evidence can be offered by a CheckUser, it would also probably serve to resolve this irksome issue—and allow us all to get back to more important things!

AGK 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev makes some obvious charades, because he lies and cheats that he doesn't use IPs even on his talk here, while he did so as follows: 82.119.226.53 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by 82.119.226.53 (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties   See Defending yourself against claims.

This account is not me. The user, whoever it is, pretending to be me, blanked my notes clarifying that I had not committed sockpupptery from any account. I strongly suspect it to be the same person who raised these allegations against me in the first place. Please see my posts here. I assure you - am the good guy here! I have never committed sockpppetry from any IP or account!

Dilip Rajeev

I know the passwords of my original account - and I have not created any other account on wikipedia. 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Dilip Rajeev

These are tricks to get me blocked from wikipedia by the Sathya Sai Baba group who has been harassing me through emails and slanderous propaganda on several blogs and websites after I contributed to the Sathya Sai Baba article. Examples of hatred mongering and baseless propaganda against me and other wikipedia users who contributed to the Sathya Sai Baba articles with objective, well sourced criticism, can be seen here :. They have been spinning wikipedia admins for quite a while with these techniques of theirs. Dilip Rajeev 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I first noticed edits fromt his impersonator as there was an edit conflict with this user while I was modifying my post here:[ Dilip Rajeev [[Special:Contributions/218.248.69.23|218.248.69.23]] (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am making a declaration here - I have not lost my password. I have not made any other account on wikipedia to circumvent my block - and neither will I. 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, please appeal your block using your original account. You are currently evading a block by posting here as an IP. Mayalld (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do I do that? Even my talkpage is blocked!
 * Dilip Rajeev
 * 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can guive me a half an hours time, I can get a encrypted key generated to indentify myself. Could you at least block the talk of my original account so that I may protect my identity with the key. Dilip Rajeev 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because my talk page is blocked to edit from inside blocked account, I must use Deelip rajiv account instead, using talk page of original account. Deelip rajiv (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Mayalld (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) to determine whether the various imposter accounts are being created by the user who originally filed the SPI case, to seek out the true master account, and to determine the potential for rangeblocks. Mayalld (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Yeah, I think this account is an impersonation operating under the IP 83.25.255.142. See this. I blocked it indefinitely. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Could you kindly check this impersonator's IP with That of "User:Drpms" who first raised these baseless sockpuppet allegations against me? I think it could well be the same person trying to get me out of Wikipedia.


 * Dilip Rajeev
 * 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am adding a CU request here. I must ask that until this case is resolved, you communicate ONLY whilst logged in via your original account, and (consequently) only at your talk page. Both Peter and I will watch for your messages there.

✅ Deelip rajiv = Dilip Rajiiv = Dilip Rajiivv = Dilip Rajev = 216.246.23.90. Note that it is blocked as a proxy already; it is impossible to establish whether it's related to the original Dilip rajeev/218.248.69.23 (though that seems unlikely), or Dprms. I have checked Dprms' range, but can't find the main account right now. Dominic·t 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * depending on the outcome of this case some moves and renames may be needed here Mayalld (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Dominic and Mayalld; now that it's been established that the accounts Deelip claimed were not his were created by the same individual, I've declined the unblock request and consider this matter resolved. AGK 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AGK reversed himself after a re-read of the case, upon realising that the original account was actually unrelated.
 * original account unblocked per reasonable explanation of alternate accounts, and advised as to future conduct. Imposters indefed. Mayalld (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 18 2009, 09:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by User:Ohconfucius

I am rather baffled by this case, as it appears to be the centre of a cult war between devotees of Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba which makes little sense to me. started editing under, and has been engaged in occasional edit war at Satha. Then, there was a recent case filed by apparently malicious persons, where Rajeev was accused of socking. The previous investigation closed on a conclusion that it was a smear campaign. In fact, it appears that retribution was possibly a motive.

was a shell account. The actual account used to edit-war and point push on Sathya Sai Baba was, but all the offending edits were signed the former for reasons which have not been explained. So no puppeteering was found with White adept. I am not suggesting that there has been any wrongdoing, but all this is just too curious for words. I hereby seek formal confirmation as to whether 'Inactive user account 001' (not mentioned in the investigation) is an account belonging to, and furthermore whether there has been any breach of WP:SOCK.

Ohconfucius (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rajeev operated User:White adept
 * William M. Connolley blocks 'Inactive user account 001' on 7 March 2009, citing WP:3RR violation on Sathya Sai Baba
 * Link established between Dilip rajeev, Inactive user account 001 and White adept when Rajeev signed a post created by User:Inactive user account 001 which had an automatically generated signature of White adept
 * PeterSymonds blocks the Inactive user account 001 account indefinitely on 1 May 2009, citing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dilip rajeev. However, the account was never mentioned in the case. The account remains blocked.
 * PeterSymonds blocks Dilip rajeev indefinitely on 1 May 2009, citing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dilip rajeev.
 * Rajeev explains that his different accounts can be explained by lost passwords, but does not mention or disavow.
 * AGK unblocks Dilip rajeev on 7 May 2009, concluding "that this account has not, in fact, operated any abusive sock puppets".
 * Rajeev had User:White adept deleted on 7 May 2009 per U1


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims. :

I had User:White_adept renamed to the account mentioned above, following suggestion of an admin. I have not logged in to that account since. I had intented to delete the alternate account but GDFL issues kept the account from being deleted and the admin suggested a rename. Hence, I had User:White_adept renamed to User:Inactive_user_account_001. Hoping that clarifies the issue. Thank you. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The other allegations "cult"-war etc are absolutely ridiculous, baseless and intented to mislead - if anything it just reminds of the the above users' baseless, constant repetition of the CCP stance on Falun Gong. I am the only user on wikipedia who probably has been active on the set of pages the above user mentions. It is a very sensitive issue here in India(Ref: Secret Swami,BBC) and I thought it best to use an alternate account to protect my identity. The very majority of my edits there have been sourced from the highest quality sources - such as The BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The DTV etc. I sincerely hope admins will carefully analyze the case and let my contributions speak for themselves than judge me by these allegations and distortions. To other allegations like years/months old 3RR vios that are being brought up to attack me - I'd rather refrain from responding unless asked to clarify by an admin. I sincerely request the above editors to focus on my contributions and edits and not on making such allegations, trying to dig something up to attack me. Sincerely,Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Within days of his unblock, dilip_rajeev resumed edit warring on the Sathya Sai Baba article, as well as edit warring on several of the FLG articles over my changes    with several other FLG activists. Since then, AGK has sent warnings over edit warring to dilip as well as to me and several other users. With him being blocked an total of nine times on both of his accounts   for a repeated habit of engaging in edit warring, perhaps some administration measrue should be sought for his repeated behavior.--PCPP (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * After some confusion that was later resolved, it was concluded in the last archived case that Dilip rajeev did not operate the accounts abusively. It looked abusive when the case began, and it looked exactly like tag-team edit warring, so the case looked open-and-shut. As per my findings in the archive before last, comments were being signed as White adept from Inactive user account 001 as early as 2006, so it looked incredibly odd.
 * It should also be noted that my findings were to establish whether the accounts and the IPs above were the same person, and from the evidence submitted in the first case, it looked like there had been a violation of WP:SOCK. However, it was later revealed that his accounts had been declared before to the Arbitration Committee, so these were in order.
 * Referencing AGK's first decline of Dilip rajeev's unblock request, it appears that the Arbitration Committee was aware of both accounts: "The Committee's knowledge of your other alternative accounts is all in good order, but you were blocked for using an anonymous account to evade your block on this, and other, accounts..." (bolding mine). It was already established that Inactive User Account 001 = Dilip rajeev based on the evidence of the case (the account was subsequently renamed, adding a little more confusion). However, Dilip rajeev's subsequent explanation of the Inactive User Account 001 has not been sufficient for me to unblock it, but as his main account is currently unblocked, it shouldn't be an issue. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * This is not a sock case as the two accounts are already known to arbcom. If there are issues take it up with arbcom enforcement, or ask for a clarification from arbcom. If future accounts are found, a new case can be opened here, but otherwise this process really has no bearing here. ——  nix eagle email me 15:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 10 2009, 19:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by User:Onopearls

The ip edited the Sathya Sai Baba page today, twice re-adding info that was removed per a consensus vote. user:Dilip rajeev was almost involved in a edit war yesterday over the same images, but stopped at two reverts. . He used the anon IP to avoid breaking the 3RR rule.

The IP edited Sathya Sai Baba, which is one of Dilip's (under the sockpuppet white_adept, now "inactive user account 001) most edited pages, and the teachings of Falun Gong, which has Dilip as the user that has edited it most.

the IP is located in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India, which is where Dilip says he is from on his user page. 

More detailed information about the first sockpuppet case can be found here.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

note: I brought this case up because Dilip has been warned to edit only through his account, and not through anonymous ip's. I believe it was a condition of his initial unblock (after he was banned indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts). And if checkuser confirms that he is the same user, that means that he switched to an ip to continue an edit war.  Ono pearls 


 * Do you have a diff to that effect? It's not in the block log or the prior cases. Nathan  T 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "I would suggest that as your editing of the controversial articles is now well and truly exposed, the reason for having alternate accounts is long past, and it would be better to stick with a single account from now on. Mayalld (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)" This user was not the blocking/unblocking admin, as I initially thought. However, the fact remains that he switched to a anonymous IP to continue an edit war (as it would be four reverts if he had edited the page under a single account). Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like high speed editing on that article and some intermittent edit-warring by a few parties, but associating the IP above and Dilip doesn't amount to a 3RR. Not the only measure of edit-warring, to be sure. Another clerk will come along to make a call about the outcome of this case. Nathan  T 03:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

That IP edit on SSB article was done by me. I would also like to point out that it was a shared IP and that there has only been a single, minor revert( which involved no removal of content and just merely attempted to restore a few .ogv images which were present in the article since January, but was removed around June 4th ) from that IP in a 24 hour period on the SSB article. I have not edited any other article from that IP. The edit absolutely was not disruptive in nature - though the user who raised the accusation may have issues with the bit of content which I attempted to restore( a few .ogv images, all of which are well sourced). That, pages were taking time to load( on the slow connection I was on) and I was in a hurry was the reason why I skipped logging in (when I realized I was not logged in). I have also been discussing whatever changes I intent to make, in detail, on talk and have not engaged in any form of edit warring - either from any IP or as logged in.

The content I attempted to restore from the IP was immediately deleted by [User:Sbs108, citing the reason that the "moderator" User:Onopearls had agreed to him removing the content. I was hearing the term "moderator" for the first time on wikipedia - but still I preferred not to engage in any contentious editing and have been attempting to resolve the content dispute through discussion on talk.

Again, I would also like to emphasize that the IP is a shared IP - in the past few months, the only two edits I have done from the IP ( logged in or otherwise) has been the ones that has been pointed out here. That IP is not that of the connection at my home, but that of the connection at my grandparent's place.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also the "edit war" which the above user claims I was engaged in and then "continued" from this IP, is something completely non-existent - as may please be verified from the edit history of the article Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * I'm not seeing the need for an SPI case at this time - a single edit by that IP, right? Has there been 3RR? Given identical and otherwise unlikely edits, we can probably assume they are related, but that isn't really relevant unless a policy has been violated (which editing while logged out is not, on its own). Nathan  T 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments in relation to the prior case concerned the fact that this user had been operating legitimate alternate accounts, but due to his not managing to keep the edits distinct had actually rendered the separate account useless. As such, given that he was now exposed as being behind those edits, there was no ongoing purpose of the alternate accounts, and his inability to operate them meant that it was unlikely that further alternates would work. Here we have a single logged out edit. We are not in the habit of punishing people for forgetting to log in, and this user was NOT unblocked based on any conditions regarding alternate accounts, or logged-out edits. He was unblocked because there was no abusive socking going on. As over 24 hours elapsed between the accounts final edit to the article and the IP edit, there can be no question of the IP edit breaking 3RR. SPI exists to deal with abusive sockpuppetry. It does not exist to be used as a tool to gain ground in an edit war by failing to assume good faith about a single logged out edit. Mayalld (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions