Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Himesh84/Archive

28 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The account has started to edit articles in which the sock master keeps reverting (to bypass the 3RR rule). Previously this account has been inactive for a while. The IP address added comments to a deletion review I started. See here for articles:1 and here. Please see here for the AFD discussion Articles for deletion/Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  21:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please investigate, Jimmy has started to revert at Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka also.Sudar123 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am Jimmy. Please don't delete my new account. Please delete Himesh84 account. Himesh84 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs)


 * I've not reverted any of the articles Himesh is involved in. Why am I being brought up here? SinhaYugaya (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Related: Dispute resolution noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: NO EVIDENCE against me. I'm randomly listed although I have not edited anything Himesh and his socks have edited. SinhaYugaya (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Himesh and his sock have been blocked. Since I'm still editing I'm obviously not the same user. Also, Himesh never signs his posts and writes in broken English because he's illiterate or something. I've signed every one of my posts and have an adequate grasp of the English language. SinhaYugaya (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Even Himesh can be purposely illiterate with the application of broken English for masquerading.Sudar123 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. I have been in Wikipedia for reasonable period. Why you saying so ? Administrators, do you leak user's IPs to ordinary users like sudar123. Or is this user a puppet ? (Himesh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.165.48 (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * SinhaYugaya, please see my message for you on your talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP addresses, , and  are obviously Himesh84. In particular, this edit is very interesting. (On the other hand, he has claimed on his talk page that several unrelated accounts are him, so anything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.) I have reset the block of User:Himesh84 for avoidance of block and lying during investigation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Add.
 * It's so cute when they think that nobody can read their MAC address or track them as they use dynamic IP addresses. It's as if computer forensics was stuck in the 90s. For the record, the best way to avoid leaking information about yourself is to register and log in with a username. Also, the poor English skills appear to be faked. He gets big words and complex sentences right and then makes "errors" on the simple words and sentences. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike Rosoft, those are not accounts. Those are just IPs. It is not a problem of him. It may be a problem in his Internet provider or our system. In Wikipedia for easy management of users we consider IPs as accounts. "Micro Soft" repeatedly asking me to change your user name due to decreasing of their brand name value.
 * I also found that you angrily go against Himesh in here. I found that none of the Ealam supporters asked such a thing in that discussion. Stay cool. (Wikipedia Director) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.163.26 (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * User is continuing to evade block and attack people indirectly see here  Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   17:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been fairly established that Jimmy and the various Ips are Himesh. He's requested a permanent block. I suppose an admin can fill his request and block his ip range (to avoid future abuse) because he seems to be operating over a wide network. Is that enough ground to close this case? SinhaYugaya (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * First off, is ❌.
 * Secondly, is clearly ✅, but there (a) dozens of  sleepers on the range, and (b) the range is also used by legitimate users (including a fair number of legitimate edits from anons). I'm going to give a short softblock to the range to alleviate the current pressure, but there's not much more that can be done.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those users should be warned IMO as well. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   17:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet has already been blocked, so I'm closing this case. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)