Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indguyintx/Archive

09 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The same edits revolving around Aishwarya Rai and similar interest in other articles. The previous socks of this user have been blocked after a report here. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:32, 9 April 2011 (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 for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ that is the same as .  TN X Man  13:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

14 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Same edits, same pages, clearly not new to the Wikipedia editing process, and this account was actually created right after the block of the previous account. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:04, 14 April 2011 (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
✅ TN X Man  18:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

23 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Similar edits. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  11:16, 23 April 2011 (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

 * Likely, but CU to confirm. (And Shahid, maybe you could give some specific examples next time?) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ as being the same as . TN X Man  13:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

06 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The same edits on Aishwarya Rai. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  03:40, 6 May 2011 (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
✅, no sleepers,. TN X Man 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

15 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Makes similar edits and created the account just a day after the last sock was blocked. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:42, 15 May 2011 (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

 * Adding a CU for confirmation, and also to see if we can renew that IP block that Muzemike did last time. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. -- Luk  talk 08:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, alright. I think I've identified another case involving this sock, so closing here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

08 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Same edits. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:07, 8 June 2011 (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

 * I'm not seeing it. Can you give some diffs? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ TN X Man  17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

21 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Very similar edits on articles related to Aishwarya Rai and Telugu films. The account was created in October, when the previous socks had been blocked, but the individual is clearly not a new user. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:04, 21 December 2011 (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

 * Sorry, I'm not seeing how this account is connected to Indguyintx versus any of the myriad other accounts that edited on the Rai article. Can you give some more evidence? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, his constant addition of positive (or fan-led and biased) commentary regarding Rai, and most of his other edits are related to Telugu films, are very similar to the edits of Indguyintx and the many of his blocked socks in particular. Also, if you check his first edits in October, you can see he/she was clearly not a new user on WP. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We need some actual diffs to see what your talking about, we don't just block for similiar edits, and we shouldn't have to search through the contribs to see what you see. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not ask for a block based on similar edits, I request that a check user be made. There are too many socks to cite all of their similar edits, and the edits are never identical but similar. As I already explained twice, their edits on the Aishwarya Rai article are fan-led biased (just like the socks'), and they edit mostly articles related to Telugu films (again, just like the socks did). And you also see WP is not new to this user, as right from their first edits they have shown to be quite experienced in WP editing - I don't quite understand why this has to be so complicated (if you see the archives, there was never a problem with my not citing diffs, and the queries turned out to be valid). All I want is to have socks, if there are any, blocked, and we have an appropriate way to check that. I've nothing to win from it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not wish it to be complicated, but CheckUser is not a request to be made lightly. CheckUsers and the Wikimedia Foundation take the CheckUser policy to be important. Part of requesting a check is that the burden of proof for making a check valid by CU policy and the privacy policy is that the person requesting the check provide information, such as diffs and a general case.  All you have provided in the request is one sentence.  If you could please detail your suspicions so clerks and CheckUsers can evaluate the case, that'd be great.  Otherwise, we can't check.  Keegan (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given enough details, and I said citing diffs would be almost impossible as no edits are identical - my suspicions derive from the overall management. If you see the previous archives, my citations were exactly the same and yet they were respected and endorsed. I'm sorry, the decision is yours now. Right now I feel my good intentions are thrown back at my face, frankly, can't help it. If you want to let a possible sock edit WP, then I can do nothing about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 18:10, January 4, 2012‎
 * Three clerks now have asked you for clarification. We're not trying to be belligerent - the fact is that, per the CU policy, there needs to be sufficient justification in order to run a check. We've told you that we don't see the connection, so the burden is on you to point it out. If you won't do that, then there's nothing else that can be done here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I did point out the connection and explained that no diffs show exactly similar edits. I've explained that the edits are similar and the subjects they seem to be interested in are practically the same (Aishwarya Rai, Telugu films) - the edits are different, but their nature is similar (here's one example which is so familiar). I explained that the account is new anyway, while clearly it does not belong to someone who is inexperienced in Wikipedia editing. Now I also notice similar involvement on Kajal Aggarwal - this and this. What else do you want me to do? There's also such thing called commnon sense. Had I been able to prove it with something precise, I would not have kept replying to your messages with plain explanations, and actually that's why I find SPI so useful at times, it helps you go beyond the suspicion. Now you sound as if this check costs money to the system. People, this is Wikipedia, don't forget it. HelloAnnyong, you've regularly endorsed reports which not always were detailed. Anyway, you still can't help with that, then close it, I will turn to as checkuser myself. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

← I agree that the contributions of Ssg2442 show a couple of tells that make me suspicious too. I have a different question though: The Indguyintx account was initially blocked due to persistent image upload problems. When I look at Ssg2442, the three uploaded images were apparently properly FURed, and his user talk page hasn't received any warnings during his three months and 300 edits. While block evasion is a problem since it allows a person to continue with the problematic editing that lead to the initial block, I don't think it should be the sole reason for a block; turning a blind eye here may actually be the more constructive solution. I've only looked at Ssg2442's latest dozen edits and they seemed fine and constructive to me. Shahid, I assume you've followed their edits for a bit, did you find them problematic by themselves? Amalthea 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well his edits are definitely not vandalism and are constructive in a way, but once I suspect someone is a sock, I feel I have a certain duty to report them. If the admin feels they should be given a second chance, then in this case I don't think I'd object; then again, will we just go and choose to spare each one of those who create one account after another, evading their block and refusing to accept the norms? Well, I don't think so. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so either, accepting block evasion in general would be harmful in several ways. But this can be an IAR situation: If letting him continue to edit improves Wikipedia and doesn't have hurtful side-effects, ignoring the norm in this particular case may be the better solution. FWIW though, the longer I look at this account, the more certain am I that you're right and that this is a new incarnation of Indguyintx. Amalthea  18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well now, this just became a really tricky situation. It does seem as though their editing has improved, so perhaps this is a place to invoke WP:ROPE? I'm really not sure what to do, to be honest, but I think this sort of judgment, i.e. whether an account who was blocked for basically a lack of competence and has socked before can be allowed back by socking and demonstrably showing an improvement, should be discussed on a larger scale. Having said that, I don't really want to add to ANI's woes. I'm going to close for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)