Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harsh7agl/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The suspected user was registered 10 days after blocked the master and recreated Trisheeta Tej. Also, I notice some similarities between the master and Themodernmonk which I'll be happy to share through email. GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC) (updated 09:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC))

Adding Uniquesweet, Untoldbastar and Untoldme who are editing in the same are. Uniquesweet and Untoldme both were registered the same day and Untoldbastar's last edit was in February and reappeared today to create Vivekanand Sinha just after Themodernmonk moved it to mainspace. GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please check your email; you've got mail! GSS (talk |c|em ) 20:06, 16 October 2018 (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 :
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and technically to the first group:
 * is to both groups, but.
 * I've blocked the first group with tags and the second without. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not minding my own business. In Group 1, if you've found the two accounts as likely, why have you tagged them as confirmed?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * happy to have someone checking over my shoulder here. I put more detailed notes on the CU wiki, but as to the choice of tags we don't have a "likely" tag and this is how I remember other checkusers doing it. Would you recommend otherwise? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised about the other CUs. I have seen other CUs doing the reverse, marking a confirmed account as proven, for example. In any event, I would tag the master as suspected and the sock as proven. I only use confirmed when it is confirmed (or tallyho). It's a pretty bright-line rule for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * is to both groups, but.
 * I've blocked the first group with tags and the second without. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not minding my own business. In Group 1, if you've found the two accounts as likely, why have you tagged them as confirmed?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * happy to have someone checking over my shoulder here. I put more detailed notes on the CU wiki, but as to the choice of tags we don't have a "likely" tag and this is how I remember other checkusers doing it. Would you recommend otherwise? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised about the other CUs. I have seen other CUs doing the reverse, marking a confirmed account as proven, for example. In any event, I would tag the master as suspected and the sock as proven. I only use confirmed when it is confirmed (or tallyho). It's a pretty bright-line rule for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

same topic as other socks e.g. Vivekanand Sinha. Please also check against user: Themodernmonk. mk in Workmk appears to have been used as a short form of monk.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Vanjagenije As I noted at GSS's talk page I think these diffs are enough evidence. Please check. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

I just added user WorkPKG for sharing the same username as Workmk who blanked the nomination page twice and  the article was created by WorkPKG. Both made the same error in the infobox please see and  as compare to their previous sock   plus not following the MOS:HEAD guidelines and the use of "in popular culture" section as compared to the master. GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare two socks to one another.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Workmk is to the second group ( et. al.) from the archive: they are on the same network and IP range; this is the best I can do because the previous accounts are stale and the range is very large.
 * WorkPKG is due to lack of data - their geolocation matches Workmk but that's all I've got for you.
 * For both, you should rely more on behavioural evidence than technical. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Both blocked and tagged with dual tags. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Appeared out of nowhere to remove speedy tag from a Harsh7agl-contributed article (Vikas Vaibhav) with a supercilious edit summary.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * see below. Dloh Cier ekim    (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Please also check who recreated Vikas Vaibhav that was deleted yesterday. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 12:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Also added who has joined the Vikas Vaibhav love-fest here & on commons - c:Special:Contributions/Mkjjh. is also identified on User:Workmk as a sock of who gamed ACPERM to create another senior policeman's bio. to check for sleepers (other members of the senior policemen's spam farm). Cabayi (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Like before, it's messy.
 * Universitydelhi is . you said "see below" but I don't see where you elaborated. The most I can say about this is I did not see the account in my checks of the other accounts.
 * Compared to :
 * is ✅
 * is
 * is to, not quite confirmed.
 * Njkklp and PhoneVKGG are to each other
 * is ❌ to everybody.
 * I have the confirmed account only. As before, other than the confirmed account, you should rely on behaviour more than these results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs)
 * I've blocked because . I'm not convinced on . Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

more Vikas Vaibhav spam. Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2020 (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

 * . Deleted edits of the Vikas Vaibhav article show a clear connection. Thanks for reporting this. —  Newslinger  talk   07:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)