Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imtitanium/Archive

12 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This user account was created immediately following the decline of User:Imtitanium's unblock request. The account displayed an immediate familiarity with Imtitanium's work. Its first activity was to add templates Imtitanium created to various articles (e.g.,       , …). Then it precociously requested unprotection of Imtitanium's favourite page giving much the same reason as Imtitanium did in his unblock requests ("I need to add current nominations to the Bigg Boss 7 page. No worthy editor edits the page except me. Please unblock me otherwise the page will go to the dogs." ). In the meantime they personally approached another editor to post complex, fully-formed edits to the article on their behalf. The behavioural evidence that the two accounts are operated by the same person is compelling. Psychonaut (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2013 (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

 * Behavioral evidence seems fairly compelling here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They are the same.  is ✅ from  and was suspiciously created at the same time. There are many other accounts intersecting with him, but most are definitely not this user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Socks tagged and blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

12 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Sock is already blocked. Reporting now for record-keeping purposes. Psychonaut (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

14 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Almost identical username as the previous confirmed sock. It made a series of null edits to become autoconfirmed and then resumed editing Imtitanium's hobby horse Bigg Boss 7. It even gave a barnstar to another sockpuppet account used to restore his copyvios. Psychonaut (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2013 (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

 * BakwaasNaKarr blocked for failing the DUCK test. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

15 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This new account closely follows the pattern of the previous socks. It's making a series of null edits to become autoconfirmed. Most of the edits are to articles recently edited by Imtitanium and his socks (Bigg Boss 6, Urvashi Dholakia, VJ Andy, Elli Avram, Tanisha). The only meaningful edit is about Imtitanium's favourite TV show, Bigg Boss 7:. The account also shares Imtitanium's penchant for creating meaningless user talk section headings: compare with. Psychonaut (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also compare (BakwasNaKarBay) with  (BabyTunTuni). —Psychonaut (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2013 (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 indef per DUCK test. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

18 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Like the previous sock, this account is new and started making null or trivial edits        before diving back into the Bigg Boss-related articles. Many of the edits it's making are identical to those of Imtitanium and his previous socks. Examples: and,  and. It's continued Imtitanium's copyright violations. Quack, quack. Psychonaut (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2013 (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 indef per DUCK test. Not sure if a sleeper check is merited. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, , , , , . -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All accounts already blocked, closing. Legoktm (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

28 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Imtitanium has a history of creating sleeper socks so I suggest a checkuser to confirm this one and uncover any additional ones. Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This account is freshly created, yet the only articles it has edited are favourites of Imtitanium: Bigg Boss, Bigg Boss 7, MTV Roadies (season 10).
 * 2) Imtitanium and his socks often singled out User:TanmayRaoM and User:In Transit to complain about their editing of the Bigg Boss 7 page (particularly their choice of colours for the tables), to threaten to have them blocked for this, and also (bizarrely) to request that they make proxy edits on his behalf:  .  This fresh account is doing the same thing:.

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

 * Named user is ✅ - no other accounts to report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Legoktm (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

03 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The usual story: new account created immediately after the last sockpuppet was discovered makes a bunch of null edits, then dives into Bigg Boss 7 with precocious table format twiddling and various other edits identical to those of the previous socks. Compare for example their edit with previous sock edits  and. Behavioural evidence should be sufficient to make a determination in this case, though CU might help flush additional sleepers. Psychonaut (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2013 (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

 * - Sleeper check is warranted based on history Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef under WP:DUCK  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * are all ✅ to the master and to each other. Some have no edits but they were all created in short succession. NativeForeigner Talk 22:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

30 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This freshly created account has a name similar to the previous socks such as User:KyaHaiTumhe. It immediately started editing User:Imtitanium's pages MTV Roadies (season 10) and Template:BBHM. It's also making copyright-violating edits which attempt to smear certain South Asian celebrities, which is a hallmark of User:Imtitanium (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814). CU requested as this user is known to mass-create sleeper socks. Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (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

 * . While this account geolocates to the same general area as the other accounts, it does not match the same pattern as the previous socks. The ISP is different and is editing within a different range. Tiptoety  talk 17:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account. It's a very close match behaviorally. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

25 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Imtitanium was largely concerned with recent seasons of Bigg Boss and MTV Roadies. Among his disruptive behaviour there was libelling the celebrities appearing on those programs with false claims of lewd or violent behaviour; he would provide plausible-looking sources but these would turn out to be completely spurious. The current account, TizSweg, has the same narrow editing interests, and is also posting spuriously sourced false accusations against reality TV celebrities. Compare for example this edit by Imtitatium and this edit by TizSweg. If you check the references you'll see the allegations are highly exaggerated or even completely fictitious. He even invented the same fictitious story in both cases ("Colors Viacom received around 560 complaints overnight regarding the issue." / "Viacom received a record of 5700 complaints from all over India"). The falsified allegations and references extend to many other edits (e.g., ).

CU requested as this user is known to mass-create sock accounts. We need to identify any others which are or were operating so that we can check the edits for BLP violations. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2014 (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 behavioral evidence looks strong enough to link TizSweg to Imtitanium. While the prior accounts are stale, I agree with Psychonaut's point and a check would help uncover any potential sock accounts. Mike V  •  Talk  01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the master and socks are, the geolocation and ISP(s) match previous confirmed socks from the archive. I cast a rather wide net and didn't see any obvious sleepers or additional accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, Ponyo. I'm closing the case as complete. Mike V  •  Talk  21:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

11 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another account with the following suspicious similarities to the previous ones: There's also the fact that the account operator boasts about having been editing Bigg Boss articles since 2009, even though the account was created only this year. (User:Imtitanium, the earliest known account, was created in 2011, but even that one may not be the first.)
 * It is a single-purpose account focused on Big Brother-related articles, particularly the Indian versions Bigg Boss and MTV Roadies.
 * It's been posting a lot of fabricated quotations and claims, backed up with spurious citations. (That is, the sources are to real news articles, but the articles don't actually say what is claimed.)  For example, this edit has two quotations, the first of which differs somewhat from the cited source.  More seriously, this edit cites three sources which don't say anything remotely related to many of the claims being made. And none of the claims made in this edit are to be found in the cited sources.
 * The account engages in copyvios—this edit, for example, inserts material copied from elsewhere without attribution. Compare with the umpteen other copyvios reported in the SPI archive and the CCI.
 * The account is particularly interested in tweaking the formatting of the Big Brother tables, and gets aggressive and confrontational when the changes are challenged or reverted. Compare, for example,     with the diffs given for this behaviour at Sockpuppet investigations/Imtitanium/Archive.
 * The account operator tries to get others to make disruptive edits on his behalf. Compare  with a previous sockpuppet's.

The old accounts are likely stale by now, but this sockmaster is known to create multiple socks at once, so I am requesting CheckUser. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Update – Here's pretty conclusive proof: Here's LulzWhateven inserting the same fake story about Viacom receiving complaints, with the same fake references, as the previous sockpuppet TizSweg: . See Sockpuppet investigations/Imtitanium/Archive for the last report about the same fake story. Psychonaut (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Bbb23: That's news to me; all previous CU requests in SPI reports for this user were accepted on the basis of one account, and most of them turned up sleepers. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks for the clarification. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume the protestation by LulzWhateven below refers to the fake Viacom story. An uninvolved editor is welcome to check his claim.  There was no mass removal prior to the diff I posted, and my own spot checks of the page history do not show the text having been in the article in the previous 500 edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just used a script to exhaustively check all revisions of Bigg Boss and Bigg Boss 8. The hoax was originally inserted in Bigg Boss 8 by the known sockpuppet User:TizSweg in this edit of 8 November 2014.  It was removed by me in this edit of 26 November 2014 (after having tagged the article as a hoax and including prominent warnings in edit summaries and on the talk page).  Despite almost a thousand subsequent edits, the hoax never again appeared in either article until User:LulzWhateven reinserted it into Bigg Boss with this edit of 5 February 2015.  In short, there is no way a good-faith editor could have mistakenly restored the hoax. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I mainly added the revisions during a check because it was massed removed by someone. I didn't even read any of the passage. I understand the issue and I was wrong to have overlooked it but this accusation is offensive. How do I contest this? I won't have someone blaming me for vandalism. I have been on wikipedia opposing vandals all this time and this is really offensive to me. --LulzWhateven (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I only vaguely remember shifting the controversy section to the main article when some passage from Bigg Boss 8 were removed/mass-removed(I can't tell for sure because I haven't perused the page history yet). I simply lined it with the criticism section from the previous seasons. I really don't know how to defend myself. I wasn't even given a notification that I am being framed in here until I somehow made my way into Psychonaut's contributions. Also I only said the 2009 thing to come across as bit of a 'know-it-all'. It did occur to me that Nauriya will question it and my solution to that was to ask him to take it in jest. I guess this is what it feels like to have a stalker on wikipedia. --LulzWhateven (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already emphasized that I only tried to restore the content when it was mass removed from one page. The criticism section is usually important in the articles so I thought moving it to the main page would help. Thanks Psychonaut for confirming that I had indeed done what I had said earlier which was "I only vaguely remember shifting the controversy section to the main article when some passage from Bigg Boss 8 were removed/mass-removed(I can't tell for sure because I haven't perused the page history yet). I simply lined it with the criticism section from the previous seasons." since I could not have had the stamina to prove it by going through the tedious page history. --LulzWhateven (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've declined the CU request. We rarely fish for other accounts based on a check of one account. Nor has there been any activity on this case since November 2014, so I'm not sure why the filer thinks it's likely there are sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The last one done in November 2014 was done after a clerk endorsed it, and, noting the staleness, looked. She found no sleepers. The one in December 2013 found no sleepers - didn't even find a technical connection. You have to go back to December 2013 to find sleepers, but that was when the accounts weren't stale. Therefore, it wasn't a check of one account. It was a check of that account against other accounts, which is normal.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The behavioral evidence here is pretty convincing. Blocked. MER-C 19:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

22 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another account whose only purpose is editing Big Boss-related articles. Created immediately after the previous sockpuppet was reported. Like previous sleepers, it made a few token edits to become autoconfirmed, including characteristically swaggering but brief user page statements to eliminate conspicuous redlinks (compare  with   ). Now that User:LulzWhateven is blocked, it's resumed activity by restoring the sockmaster's deleted edits. Psychonaut (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2015 (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

 * ✅ Let me know if more accounts pop up. The range is busy, there are several other accounts that could possibly be sleepers but I'm not sure, and won't block unless more accounts by the sockmaster pop up with similar editing. NativeForeigner Talk 10:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Close.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

22 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This IP has reinserted a blatant hoax posted long ago by a previous sockpuppet, and long since removed: compare  and. (Pinging User:NativeForeigner as requested.)

Please consider semi-protecting Bigg Boss, Bigg Boss 8, and possibly other favourite articles for a few months. (Bigg Boss 9 is already semi-protected.) Psychonaut (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (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

 * Evaluate on behavior. I'll check the protection request. NativeForeigner Talk 09:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stale. NativeForeigner Talk 09:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

26 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Fits the profile of many previous socks—namely, a fresh account, with a singular interest in Bigg Boss, asking other users to restore User:Imtitanium's deleted edits:  Pinging User:NativeForeigner as requested. Psychonaut (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2015 (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

 * CU is inconclusive. Blocked as a duck. NativeForeigner Talk 09:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

23 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

It's suspicious that this new account, created a few days after the last sockpuppet was blocked, has immediately dived into Imtitanium's favourite articles (Bigg Boss, Bigg Boss 9, RuPaul's Drag Race). Sandbox edits are similar to those of previous socks (compare and ). Also like previous socks, this one tends to approach other users for help in restoring deleted material to the Bigg Boss page:. Psychonaut (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had my suspicions about that account as well, though I didn't feel the behavioural evidence was strong enough yet to file a report. If you think CheckUser is warranted then I certainly won't object. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, you might want to check . I suspect Imtitanium might have created it and User:WeirdWaffle to use as good hand/bad hand accounts.  The former account was apparently used to vandalize Tyra Sanchez (another Bigg Boss-related article) and User:WeirdWaffle undid the vandalism soon afterwards. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello! I only updated an information on Tyra Sanchez's page. I wrote that RuPaul broke silence about a statement she made, and another user kindly wrote more infos about it. I didn't violate anything... I also tried to upload her photo, but it was blocked for copywrite violation... Maybe this is the cause for the suspicion? I'm new here, sorry! Regards. Elderfel 18:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I just visited here to defend myself as I can clearly say that am not a sock of anyone. I started my Wikipedia Journey with article Apra, Punjab that I created first. My edits on Bigg Boss 9 are only to update the status of housemates. Am also watching some pages for vandalism as i revert some vandalism on Prince Narula, Rimi Sen and Puneet Vashist. if you have any suggestion or question please ask me at my talk page. Regards S ingh talk to me 15:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As a note to future CU, seeing heavy proxy usage. NativeForeigner Talk 11:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've blocked the account as a suspected sock (the behavioral evidence is compelling, so a clerk/CU can feel free to change my suspected to confirmed tag if they see fit). Before I close this I wanted to check on as that seems to be a behavioral match with a focus on Big Boss (not sure if  just missed that while filing the SPI or I'm missing some context on this). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . NativeForeigner Talk 18:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action taken towards GSS-1987. Mike V • Talk 00:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

28 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

All edits are to restore material deleted from Bigg Boss 6, Bigg Boss 7, Bigg Boss 8, and Bigg Boss Halla Bol, including User:Imtitanium's contributions. Same ISP and geolocation as the previously reported. Psychonaut (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC) New SPA, same contributions as previously reported IP: compare with  Psychonaut (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2015 (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

 * - please, compare SahibColllege34 witj previous socks of Imtitanium.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The named user is reasonably . . Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * SahibColllege34 blocked and tagged. Ip not active. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

02 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Already blocked as a sock; reporting here for record-keeping purposes. Psychonaut (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2016 (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

 * Sock blocked and tagged. Closing. TDL (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

21 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Duck by name. Many of the other socks in the archive include SahibCollege prefix. Editing at Bigg Boss articles.. . Closing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK, username similar to previous socks. Mostly editing articles related to Indian television as previous socks. -   Managerarc   ™ talk  01:09, 5 August 2016 (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

 * ✅ against blocked account . Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)