Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drbkmurali/Archive

10 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Something very fishy is going on here with these three users, they are all new (2013 accounts) all SPA's on health and hospitals in Nagpur.

The latest David Levii starts with his very first edits to jump into fray with there first edits.

I have requested a CU check to check for a link as if they are the same as if they are they are circumventing the consensus processes and in the case of the last two WP:3RR.  LGA talk  edits   04:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

No, I do not have any other account. I will not edit articles about myself, my business, my clients, or my competitors. The only interest i have in Hope Hospitals is that i stay in Nagpur and my friends have taken treatment in the hospital and would like to see some articles on certain places of interest of Nagpur in wikipedia. I totally realize that my role is to summarize, inform and reference the article.I have tried to state facts and statistics in my articles. Third opinions being an excellent venue for small disputes involving only two editors, I have requested some editors having interests in healthcare, hospitals and staying in Nagpur in noticeboards to contribute and join the discussion. I dont think this is an act of circumventing the consensus processes. Requesting a CU check is totally unsubstantiated.

I reverted the edits in Hope Hospitals for a reason. I was reverting presuming it as a case vandalism. When reverting, I indicated my reasons in the edit summary and talk page. My presumption was that this was a likely case of illegitimate blanking of Hope Hospitals. Referenced information or important verifiable references were deleted with no valid reason given in the summary. The text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view over a period of 3 months.--Neutral C 07:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it, you say that "a CU check is totally unsubstantiated", the main reason a proposed target of one would not want one run is if they fear it might show a link either to the account listed above or to other blocked or banned accounts, which reinforces in my mind why it is needed.
 * You only made those requests after this SPI was filed and after the third of the new editors had started to edit.  LGA talk  edits   07:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia protects the privacy of registered users by concealing their IP addresses, which can reveal their physical locations and other identifying information. This is the main and only reason why I would not want one run. The CheckUser tool will only be used if a Checkuser believes there is clear evidence of likely sock abuse and also good reason why Checkuser is needed to resolve the matter. Since there has been no sock abuse as substantiated in the discussion above, I request you to close the issue immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral contributor (talk • contribs) 07:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For an editor with only 107 edits and less than two months on your account you seem to know a lot about the Checkuser policy. As for the sock abuse I contend that there is, I am not going to give all the evidence here in a public forum (read WP:BEANS) and give helpful hints to help those socking. There is clearly something fishy here with the close coloration on the accounts.  LGA talk  edits   08:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Editing overlap among the three accounts is substantial. Neutral contributor and David Levii make the same revert and same type of edits. Drbkmurali has a more diversified history, but still significant topic overlap considering the obscurity of the topic area and the editing specially to put information about awards in the Hope Hospital article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ to each other:
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indef'd the socks, gave the master a week A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

27 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New user (Redasabeet) account created 8 April, did not edit till the 22nd then started editing the same day that Drbkmurali returned to editing after a his block for socking.

Users both have interest in Nagpur, and health services in the area.  LGA talk  edits   22:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Special:Contributions/Redasabeet indicates that Redasabeet only seems to edit articles in which Drbkmurali has taken an interest. I would post diffs, but the edit history of Redasabeet is so short that simply perusing the contribs is quite easy. Considering that fact that Drbkmurali has already been confirmed by a previous checkuser to have abused three sock accounts other than his original Drbkmurali account, it seems reasonable that this now be checked out as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As per DoRD's request :
 * to article created by Drbkmurali that Drbkmurali other socks have also tried to keep in.
 * into a AfD threaded conversation of Drbkmurali.
 * Hope Hospitals a hospital founded by.
 * to give just a few examples and mindful here of WP:BEANS.  LGA talk  edits   20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redasabeet's contributions may make this a clear-cut case for CU to some, but not being familiar with this user myself, I'm going to need to see diffs. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The added diffs were enough to convince me that a check was warranted. Redasabeet is a ✅ match, but I did not see any other clear sockpuppets. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both the sockpuppet and the sockmaster indefinitely for continued sockpupeptry. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)