Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ForeverKnowledgeSeeker/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Installed quotes (partly doctored), which were previously claimed by the previous sockpuppet.

I think talk page access should be disabled for all these accounts too because the user talk pages are being abused. Note also the removal of the block notice. Kautilya3 (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the CU check hasn't settled the matter, I am giving more evidence so that a behavioural investigation can be carried out.
 * A bit of background: Kamma, Reddy and Velama are three castes in South India, and they compete for power and influence. The editors we are dealing with want to pump up Kammas and also demand the same kind of treatment for Kammas as given to Reddies and Velamas. Quoting
 * The Reddies have phrase “analagous to Kshatriyas”, but the Kammas, despite having the same social status don’t have it on their Wikipedia page. The same thing goes for the Velama article where it proudly mentions their zamindari ancestry (though Kammas have them do to) but neglect to mention to their agricultural status. Why can’t the same standards apply to both communities? Why can’t we cite the historians who believe Kammas are descended from the Kamboja Clan or a mixture of Haihayas, Durjayas, Chalukyas, and Chodas... :


 * was blocked on 16 April 2019. quite clearly appears to have been created at 23:48, 21 April 2019 to carry forward the agenda.
 * The first substantive edit made by at 00:35, 22 April 2019 is trying to do at Velama, what  was demanding in the above quote.
 * said 15:13, 16 April 2019: I will see if any exact quotes or documentation exist about the Musunuri Nayaks. (to the effect that they are "Kamma"). At 19:04, 19 April 2019, he claimed to have evidence, on his own talk page. (Three citations: Prasad, Rao and Sarma were given). In his second substantive edit, at 02:35, 22 April 2019, installed the very same evidence on the Musunuri Nayakas page in a slightly different order (Rao, Sarma and Prasad).
 * The Sarma quotation was very heavily doctored by : Prolaya Nayaka or Prolanedu of the Musunuri Family was a young and darling chieftain born in the caturthakula or the forth case. He was the grandson of a Kamma Nayakudu in the service of the Kakatiyas.
 * The same doctoring also appears in 's edit: Prolaya Nayaka or Prolanedu of the Musunuri Family was a young and darling chieftain born in the caturthakula or the forth case. He was the grandson of a Kamma Nayaka . .. (The same misspelling "darling" here, even though "Nayakudu" has been altered to "Nayaka.)
 * The source actually says Prolaya Nayaka or Prolanedu of the Musunuri family was a young and daring chieftain born in the caturthakula or the fourth caste. He was the grandson of Pota and the son of Poca Nayaka. He must have been a junior contemporary of the last ... . (There is no "Kamma Nayakudu" or "Kamma Nayaka" here.)
 * said that this quote appeared on page 38 of Sarma's book. also gave the same page number. (Now, Timmarasu claims it was an error.)
 * The Rao quote was also cleverly doctored.
 * The source says: Andhradesa was once again partitioned between four mutually warring kingdoms — Musunuri (Kamma?) kingdom of Warangal, Velama kingdom of Rachakonda, Reddi kingdom of Kondavidu.
 * In both and 's versions, the question mark following "Kamma" was removed, thereby turning the scholar's speculation into a fact.


 * I don't think we need to worry much about the remaining edits of since the first two edits already establish the pattern. But the later edits are also driven by the Kamma agenda. For example this edit in the last segment claims:
 * Historians view the prominent influence of the Kammas, who served as ministers, governors, and commanders, as the reasonable cause behind why Telugu was held in high-esteem at the Vijayanagara Court.


 * The level of competence exhibited by both and  are bascially the same. They both provide citations, often irregularly formatted, and include quotations. But they have no knowledge of finer points such as PRIMARY vs SECONDARY, or understand WEIGHT issues. Timmarasu certainly does not give the impression of a new editor.
 * has claimed he had seen other people's [talk] pages before making his edits. But this he has done within three hours of opening his account, which stretches credulity. There is also no evidence that he has read any talk pages other than those connected with.
 * He also claims to have access to the "University of Michgan system", but his edit at Musunuri Nayas page gave a Canadian Google link. With his tendency to doctor quotes and overweight statements made in books, claiming access to a special system that the rest of us don't have, woud be an easy way to ward off all objections. This is all the more dangerous.

Pinging, and  to take a look. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me note that Timmarasu said right here on 24 April 2019, "As I have access to the full book, I have verified it. I apologize for the numerical typo, but the quote is a word for word citation on that page." Enough said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Timmarasu has been claiming below that he made a mistake about Vivek987270's talk page posts, but he has been doing virtuous edits at pages like Battle of Raichur and Krishnadeva Raya. I have now looked at the edits made to the former, and find very similar problems. See Talk:Battle of Raichur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Dear Checkers and Kautilya3, I understand why Kautilya3 wants to ensure that I’m not a sock, given the recent activity in those topics. I joined Wikipedia with the intent of improving citations after I saw the state of the Battle of Raichur and Krishnadevaraya’s articles. While looking through historical areas I could improve, I came upon the flare-up with the citation issue of the Musunuri Nayaks. I then went through the conversation, and I checked out the feeds of both Kautilya and the sock-puppet. After reading everything, I began to check if I could verify the citations that were provided by the sock puppet, and his quotes were matches. I also did my own research and added a Deccan Chronicle Article that wasn’t mentioned in the socket puppet’s claims. If Kautilya could respectfully show evidence on why he thinks a citation is partially doctored when I verified the quote using the University of Michigan system that has the book, that would be most appreciated. The other quotes have clear google links that I linked them to, and just because google books doesn’t have the full version of this particular book, doesn’t mean it is doctored. I respectfully ask Kautilya to provide evidence for this specific claim. Moreover, I have spent countless hours improving the Battle of Raichur, Battle of Tallikota, Krishnadevaraya Wikipedia articles. It wasn’t simply the Musunuri Nayaks. I wasn’t aware that reading prior talk page concerns and looking through other people’s pages to verify quotes is against Wikipedia policies. I believe that this check is unnecessary, but I will fully cooperate and answer any questions that are asked. I understand why Kautilya is taking a precarious view and I probably would do the same. However, I don’t believe that merely because I verified and entered a citation, which is accurate (again if Kautilya has evidence to the contrary, he should have provided it or deleted the quote, neither of which were done.), and read the talk pages, that an action, which would allow an individual with my personal address and location, is an appropriate cause. I have committed no vandalism, abuses, or anything of the sort. The claim that I am a sock puppet is based essentially on one quote action, out of the countless I have provided in other articles. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to check my IP address, which is very private information, but I have no issue with if the checkers feel that evidence provided is sufficient. My IP Address is mine and this foreverknowledge sock puppet doesn’t use it. Period. Again, thank you all for your work. I hope to end this saga as quickly as possible and continue my contributions to Wikipedia, preferably without flimsy allegations. Have a great day. Timmarasu (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: Bbb23 I used a free proxy service as I was traveling the past week. For work reasons, I need to ensure a minimum level of security at hotels as data is prone to hacking. My current IP Address, which I have been making my edits with since April 22nd is my home address, where I’ll be making most of my edits from. There is no proxy or anything from the IP address since April 22nd and this post. It was for work reasons that I utilized it when I initially started. If need be, you can check my future edits, and it’ll clearly show that the IP Address I have is my permanent one.

Update 2: I have thoroughly re-checked the citation Kautilya3. I made a typo in citing the second digit of the page number. I have corrected it. But the quote is accurate and it can be accessed on Google Books. As I have access to the full book, I have verified it. I apologize for the numerical typo, but the quote is a word for word citation on that page. Perhaps this is where the confusion stemmed from. Feel free to check my other citations because such mistakes didn’t happen with the countless I added to improve the Velama, Krishnadevaraya, and Battle of Raichur ones.

Please consider this additional information in your decision. I still can’t believe that I’m being unjustly accused of a sock based on a flimsy evidence. I am of the opinion that this is not sufficient enough to have an Administrator access my personal IP Address. However, should they wish to go ahead and perform the check, I have no qualms, so long as the information I have provided about my internet and work status is taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmarasu (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Update 3: To refute Kautilya3's "Evidence".

- Wikipedia rules don't forbid reading talk pages. As an avid follower of historical related subjects, I often check in with talk pages of several Wikipedia articles to see what the latest discussions are. You can do so without creating a Wikipedia account. Moreover, 3 hours is more than enough time to read through a few passages of talk pages. I also read over Kautliya's talk page and others involved with that latest flare-up. Moreover, Kautilya states "there is no evidence that he has read any talk pages other than those connected with Vivek87270". Where is the evidence I didn't? That claim is a stretch, respectfully.

- I admit that reading Vivek's page was not a good idea. When I checked the source, I saw the first few lines and I assumed it was accurate because in the Rao and Sastry versions, the first couple lines were word for word. I wasn't careful with these two quotes, and as a new Wikipedia joiner, I apologize for the mistake as I should have thoroughly verified them. However, the Durga Prasad quote is accurate, and I have provided the link for that. I will be making edits and removing the Sarma quote and revising the Rao one. Even when I checked the page number, I thought that was were the issue of falsifying lay, as it was not specified, and didn't look farther as the number entered was inaccurate. I will be correcting my mistakes, and I will be careful in future not to put too much faith on talk page accounts. However, none of the quotes that I included are doctored to any extent. They are all exact citations, and I challenge Kautilya to find one quote, outside the two that I found when looking through Vivek's talkpage (so they weren't my work), that I doctored. The answer is 0. It was a mistake to rely on talk pages. As Kautilya didn't clarify where the issue was with the quote, I started by checking the page number, and when I found that it was not accurate, I assumed that that was why he said it was doctored, so I didn't look farther. I should have been more careful, but outside these two quotes that I should have checked more carefully, but were created and meddled with by Vivek, I don't have any connection with the doctored evidence claim.

- I don't have an agenda. Period. In fact, I deleted "Saluva Timmarasa took over as governor of Kondavidu thereafter. The Vijayanagar army then accosted the Adapa Kamma dynasty army allies to Gajapatis at Kondapalli area and laid another siege" from the Krishnadevaraya page when I couldn't find citations for it. Moreover, that Vivek sock had another citation claim, of an inscription (primary source), however when I went on the source he gave, I couldn’t find it so I never put that in. If I was really him, why wouldn't have I done that to bolster my argument? Interestingly, Kautilya left both of these parts out, though he clearly went through my Vijayanagara work and the claims of the Vivek sock. In regards to articles, I tried to keep intact the work of the original contributors as much as possible, so long as a source was there to corroborate. Adding that Kamma information in the Telugu literature was appropriate as the influence of Telugu Brahmins had already been mentioned and clear citations, of which are fully accessible online, show that the Kamma community also had that so that is why I mentioned it.

- The next complaint is about my editing style, which is more opinion than factual. This Vivek sock clearly had a pro-Kamma bias to his work, but I edited articles, such as the Battle of Raichur, without mentioning or adding the word "Kamma" once, when the opportunity was clearly present with Pemmasani Nayak. Moreover, if Kautliya can back up his claim that I don't know the difference between primary and secondary sources, that would be nice.

- Finally, I did utilize the UofM Digital Library system when I needed citations for several articles, including Krishnadevaraya. I also used Google Books. I am not aware that either of these actions are against Wikipedia policies.

- Conclusion - Was it a mistake to look at the talk-page of Vivek and act a bit carelessly in the verification process? Yes. No doubt. I will be correcting my mistakes right after posting this. I wish Kautilya would have specifically pointed out where the issue lied when he initially stated that the quote was doctored, so I could have addressed it, as I assumed that the issue lied with the page number. However, I don't have an agenda, didn't doctor any evidence myself, and vastly improved the Krishandevaraya, Battle of Raichur, and Velama articles (which by the way was an idea I got from reading Kautliya's talk page as he mentioned Talbot as a reliable source and a highly reputable source). I respectfully ask this case be closed. I have admitted my mistake in reading the talk page of Vivek, and I will correct it now. Outside of unfortunately and unintentionally spreading Vivek's doctored quotes, I have not done anything wrong. I will continue to contribute to the Wikipedia community and improve it. I request this case to be closed so I can continue my work in a mindful, careful, and detailed way. I respect all Wikipedia editors. Timmarasu (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Update 4: I very clearly mentioned where the disconnect lied. When Kautilya mentioned that the quote was doctored, I instantly began checking with the page number. When I saw the page number was wrong, I assumed that was why he said the quote was doctored, so I fixed it and didn’t check any farther. In my initial check, I read the first part of the quote and compared it to the book, and when I saw that that the part matched, I assumed that the entire thing was an accurate quote. I definitely made a mistake and I should have closely checked the entire thing. When I typed what I did about it being word for word, I was still working under the assumption of my first verification, which indeed was lazy and not properly done. But outside these two quotes doctored by the Vivek sock, not one of my own work is. I also didn’t include at least two of his citations on his talk page as I couldn’t find the source. I also deleted pro-Kamma baseless statements in Vijayanagara related Page, and I refused the chances to mention that the Pemmasani Nayaks were Kammas in the Battle of Raichur. The case is entirely built on the unfortunate and regrettable decision I made to read the talk pages. I respectfully ask this case be settled. My edits and my own citations (not the creations of this Vivek sock) are completely accurate and are open for anybody to check. Thank you. Now Enough is said. Timmarasu (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Update 5: Kautilya3 states that he, " find[s] very similar problems" with my other edits. If he can provide evidence of how any of the Battle of Raichur citations are an extension of doctored issue that would be appreciative. Otherwise, there is no evidence for that statement. The citations for the Battle of Raichur (the issue was purely in the context of Pemmasani Ramalinga, none of the other content citations I added) is more of a content and specificity issue in that the quotes were referencing Pemmasani Ramalinga, but they were more generically discussing his military exploits. In the new version, I specifically gave evidence for where it says he is a Chief-Commander and that he led the Vijayanagara charge. There was no doctored evidence nor were the quotes not factual. Rather the quotes were too generic, which I have resolved. I am a new editor, and I am learning the way around Wikipedia. I will continue to make contributions and improve them. Yes, I have made mistakes. I will admit that. But the issue at heart is the sock-puppet investigation, and I have no connection to that Vivek sock. Period. I again reiterate my request for this case to be closed since it is based entirely on the false premise that I myself doctored the quotes as Vivek and created a new account to achieve my "agenda". There is no truth to this claim. Timmarasu (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * / – the user uses nothing but proxies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User account Callofduty259 was created on 2 June 2019. The edits they have been doing are similar to those of User talk:NagarjunaSarma, User talk:Timmarasu and User talk:Vivek987270, all confirmed sock puppets of User talk:ForeverKnowledgeSeeker. Those accounts were blocked in February and April. Callofduty259's contributions are all revolving around musunuri nayaks, pemmasani nayakas, kamma etc. which were edited heavily by the above socks. They also created several new articles with a surprising degree of knowledge for a 2 week old account. User User talk:Vivek987270 was petitioning in april for adding the following content here and user Callofduty259 was essentially working on the same content here. The matter is both these accounts want "Kammas claim Kshatriya status" to go into the article. User User talk:Vivek987270 was petitition the following here where they can be seen repeating the varna classification stuff and mentioning "Fourteen Kamma zamindars became the biggest estate owners in the Delta Country" and also "Kammas have a lore that says they were Kshatriyas but when they were persecuted, they found refuge with the Kapus". They were banned for sockpuppetry before they could make those change. Now these exact same changes have gone into the article. They were added by Callofduty259 here and here. They have been very aggressively pushing their position at all those articles and this definitely needs some attention. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Sharkslayer87 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2019 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Posting in defence of the just blocked sock,, with the same BATTLEGROUND and the same POV. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I concur with Kautilya3. Adding to that, I strongly suspect the following two accounts viz., and  were in collusion with the now banned sock Callofduty259. Naucatcone deleted content from the Kamma page yesterday here with a fake edit summary "Moved to origin section". As a matter of fact they didn't move anything to origin section. They just removed particular content which interestingly sockpuppet Vivek987270 had issues with in April as can be seen here. Rajasekhar Naidu added content here which interestingly sockpuppet Vivek987270 was petitioning for in April here and the now most recently banned sock Callofduty259 was working on that inserted content here by claiming they were cleaning up the article. I don't think these both are sock puppets as the language they use is very different from that of the socks but it is very likely they are a meat farm. Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The three users - Andhra sepoy, Naucatcone, and Rajasekhar Naidu – are ❌ to each other and to the master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)