Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jivesh boodhun/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
And others in the same IP range

Evidence submitted by Kww
Jivesh boodhun has been edit-warring through this anonymous IP range for a considerable period of time. Take a look at February 4, 2010 on Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)], for example. Unsupported and fraudulent charts were added by 41.136.75.146, which were then reinserted by Jivesh boodhun, then by 41.136.75.18, then by 41.136.74.52, and, after the article was semi-protected, by Jivesh boodhun again. We had similar problems on Sweet Dreams in late October, with anons and Jivesh cooperatively edit-warring bad charts into the article. I can find evidence of this IP range edit-warring over all of the Beyonce articles.

Currently, Jivesh is blocked for edit warring, and restored all of the material Jivesh was edit-warring over.

I think the correlation between Jivesh boodhun and the IP range is established beyond any reasonable doubt. My investigations show that he seems to be the only editor on 41.136.74.0/23. I am requesting a checkuser to confirm that. If he is, I would like to see a hardblock placed on the range. In any case, I think indefing Jivesh and softblocking the IP range for a month is in order: his IP hops continuously and the contributions he makes anonymously greatly outnumber those made by his named account, so the named account block is fairly ineffective.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with the addition of 41.136.53.145, and note that it represents a slight range expansion from Jivesh's usual territory. I'd reinstate the checkuser request to examine Jivesh's edits and determine the appropriate expansion, but fear that might be viewed as edit-warring with a clerk, so I'll drop him a note.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I have added 41.136.53.145. I fully that this editor is being very disruptive, and a range block is needed, the sooner the better. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Kww (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

decline I don't really think there's a real need for a hardblock here as the user is not a long term sockpuppeteer, a short softblock on would seem to be the best course of action per HARDBLOCK. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

per discussion with Kww and the addition of a new IP. Can a checkuser please check the feasibility of a hardblock on 41.136.0.0/16; see whether or not 41.136.53.145 was simply a static office IP that can also be blocked and check for any sleeper accounts. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 41.136.0.0/16 softblocked for three months. No other accounts are being used by Jivesh, however a number of other accounts are present on the range. As for the "is this an office IP" question, anyone can check that with a WHOIS report. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Kww
Pretty clearly Jivesh: first three edits restored all the material that Jivesh was blocked for edit-warring over. Requesting checkuser because we have extensive IP blocks in place, and we need to understand how he got back in and block that access.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further edits make relationship clearer: Beyonce Love vs. 41.136.74.198&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Post-archiving comment for history: was blocked as a result of this report.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

to confirm the link and look for any more possible rangeblocks. SpitfireTally-ho! 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently, the /16 rangeblock can likely be substituted for with two /20's which would cut down the number by a factor of 8. I will make the changes but if the user starts taking IPs outside the smaller 8196 IP range, it could be re-expanded to the 65536 range. -- Avi (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

and nails it for me behavior-wise. Beyonce Love indefinitely blocked and tagged, and Jivesh boodhun's block has been reset for the block evasion. –MuZemike 19:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

25 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I had no prior contact with User:Start Over and Party (which has since been blocked as a sock of User:Brexx). Yet this user invited me via posting on my talk page here to participate in a discussion which was initiated by User:Jivesh boodhun here. User:Jivesh boodhun previously contacted me on my talk page here because of the NFCC enforcement I was conducting on the article 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album), where the user undid my NFCC 10c enforcement edits here and  here. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

This is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen on Wikipedia. Why will i have more than one account? Compare my contributions to that of pretty... something and you see the difference. I say it loud and proudly. I just do not care if you will criticize me. I am on Wikipedia only for Beyoncé Knowles. The user you mentioned above edits Britney Spears, Lady GaGa (i saw if from his contributions) and i simply do not give a damn care about these two women. Well, i admit i love Lady GaGa but the love i have for her is just a few dust particles compared to how much i love Beyonce. You want to carry your investigations. Go ahead. Feel free. I just do not care. Because of your suspicions and lack in trust in me, from today you are not in my list of friends on Wikipedia. That's all. Thanks for your attention. Th truth always prevails. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
It's possible. When I blocked as a sock of Brexx, I scratched my head and wondered a bit if perhaps it was Jivesh. Finally decided the other way, but there's a case to be made that I was practicing excessive AGF.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Start Over and Party is the same as, who is tagged as Brexx. TN X Man  13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go ahead and close. No one could imitate Brexx as well as Prettybeautifulnailsalon. If that matches technically, then there's no reasonable possibility of miscategorization.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)