Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harshil169/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

At Articles_for_deletion/2019_Delhi_Temple_attack the three suspected sockpuppets (one IP and two users) have all popped up within a few hours of the AFD being posted to object, and all within an hour of each other. In all three cases this is the only edit they have ever made. (edit - apologies, not strictly true, had also made three edits to the 2019 Delhi Temple attack page itself but I don't think that really alters my point).

The suspected master is a more established editor with edits other than to this page, but is the creator of the page in question and the three suspect socks all posted within an hour of him/her. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Added an additional account who has since edited the same page. Not quite an SPA but one of only two edits they have ever made. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks for opening investigation. None of the accounts mentioned belongs to mine. Just that IP address is mine as I was forgot to login from my account at that time and I just posted comment which was posted on the description. Let the discussion and investigation held on. Thanks!--Harshil169 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Update:- I can wonder why so much comments are coming here. I’ve mistakenly posted the link of talk about deletion page on my Twitter handle and traffic are coming here from there. Only one IP address is mine and that was just used to transfer comment of description to talk page. I appreciate your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that's likely a form of WP:Canvassing. Are you okay with linking to the tweet? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No! I’m not okay with it. I’ve deleted the tweet long ago as it contains link which can be considered to be canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have removed it long ago. I just added the Wiki page link on my handle and traffic is coming from there as the page is in the deletion mode. People are triggered due to event and that's why influxing was done by some users. I have removed it too. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * don't canvass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

First, I has a lot of talk with the main suspected sockmaster user:Harshil169 but somehow there is always someguy who make his account recently directly in support of Harshil169. And trying to manipulate the issue somehow. But the main suspect is Rutvik P Shah by manipulating (something like this). Second, my suspicion is about user Krishna's flute. This account was made some days ago too and voted in favour of deletion of my article.( Voting is not the evidence). My evidence is that th user Krishna's flute opened the same discussion i.e. crticism of Swaminarayana Sampradaya sect, same as that which is advocated by Harshil169. Check this  by user Krishnas flute and this discussion on merging of criticism of Swaminarayan Sampraday to main article of Swaminarayan Sampraday by user Harshil169. These account has similarities with Harshil169. Like specifically attacking my edits and voting for deletion of my article(I am not saying voting against me is an evidence) but involving in same discussion like Criticism of Swami Narayana Sampradaya. Third, the IP adress is also involved in the same discussion trying to manipulate the views(check here ) on talk page, same like user Rutvik P Shah. These are the evidence that I have provided against user Harshil169 for sockpuppeteering. Edward Zigma (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Please let me check how to do it. Then I will do it.Edward Zigma (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Rutvik P Shah didn't create an account recently; they registered back in September. Part of the charge against Rutvik is they were being manipulating I guess by telling Harshil169 to calm down. They also clearly explained how they found that thread. As for Krishna's flute... well there certainly are similarities, but there are some pretty important differences between the two. Harshil169 uses a lot of gadgets like Twinkle, HotCat, Wikilove, and Shortdesc helper. Harshil frequently makes advanced mobile edits when not on desktop. Being a former 3-year IP user, Krishna's flute does everything by hand which would make sense if that's what she's used to. Further, the one time the two seemed to have interacted Harshil169 got her name wrong. / &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed the refs to diffs. I will change them to normal diffs when I find how to do it. Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Defence:- I never used any other account for editing. This is my only account. My previous account was User:Harshil s mehta and it has been deactivated. Though, I once logged in but declared it on the user page about my main account and logged out. None of these accounts are mine and I know only one Rutvik P. Shah who did some changes on my article of Gujarati Wikipedia and voted in support for me in Project Tiger. About rest, I don't know.-- Harshil want to talk? 17:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note:- Same editor had filed SPI report against me without any evidence here and got warning and was blocked because of edit-warring. Same user has filed blank AE against me without any evidences. And these differences will be really helpful to understand user's behaviour and tone towards me.   . Also, note that these were the oldest versions in which User revealed my Twitter accounts, tweets, Quora account and outed me which are oversighted now. Thanks!-- Harshil want to talk? 17:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, page Morari Bapu and Swaminarayan Sampraday were target of IP and newbie vandalism and disruptive editing. — Harshil want to talk? 01:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved comment. I still had this page in my watchlist from ages ago back when was a wee WikiInfant (see this post at WP:CEN) . I really haven't been following what's been going on between these two, but on the face of things I'm pretty sure there is little merit to Edward Zigma's accusation.
 * I also got to know about page because it was in my watchlist. I indeed did a mistake previously by putting link of deletion discussion instead of wikipedia page which attracted lots of other users. I remember your guidance even.-- Harshil want to talk? 18:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC).
 * No intention to brigade. But the link which resulted the sockpuppet were"Muslims Christians have taken over wikipedia,We need to act"....and many moreEdward Zigma (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant they were hisbwords when he linked his wikipedia page on other social networking site and saying others to vote in his favour.Edward Zigma (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Apart from his bio is there any proof that he edited for 3 years.Edward Zigma (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean her bio, and no there isn't. That's why we assume good faith. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Please change your report to diffs, not refs, and do NOT use mobile diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The way to fix that is to remove the ".m" in the hostname, and change "MobileDiff" to just plain "Diff" in the URL. I've gone ahead and done that for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The filer requested a CU. There is obviously a lot of bad blood between the filer and the alleged master. I would like a clerk to analyze the evidence and decide in the first instance whether there is enough evidence to move forward, and if the answer is yes, whether to endorse a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no traction on this report in the last few days. I am therefore closing it with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)