Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jujjavarapu mohith/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Same style of vandalism in articles SP013 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2022 (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

 * IP has likely changed hands. Close as no action needed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Same style of vandalism in articles SP013 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2022 (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

 * Rangeblocked by Dreamy Jazz. Closing. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Same evidence as usual vandalizing with 0 given sources SP013 (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2022 (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

 * Rangeblocked by Dreamy Jazz. Closing. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Seems like the user made this account due to his 2 week ban as the style of editing is the same SP013 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2022 (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

 * ✅ to the master. Blocking sock indef and re-blocking the master indef for evasion. Tagged. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Same interests. Recreated Bhala Thandanana that was G5ed at Draft:Bhala Thandanana because it was created by the Bumchik babji sock. Pika voom Talk 11:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Khiladi King could be doing the same UPE job as Bumchik babji. But recreating the same article 18 days later is not a coincidence and is proxying or meatpuppetry, and if this ties via CU to a different master who is known for spamming could be tied to that master. Pika voom  Talk 06:36, 17 February 2022 (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

 * - to my eyes, this is at most to this particular master. However, I note that Khiladi King is operating out of a stable, fairly narrow range, which they share with several accounts blocked for spamming, and at least one CU-confirmed sock of a different master. Comparing the deleted Bhala Thandanana draft to the new one, there are some differences, but also some identical (and rather awkwardly phrased) sentences - that could be two UPE editors working to the same brief, or two innocent people closely paraphrasing/translating the same source. In short - I'd like a second pair of eyes. Happy to discuss thoughts over e-mail.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My conclusion is leaning more towards  for basically the reasons you lay out + being stable on two different networks. Obviously that's only a technical analysis though. --  Amanda (she/her)  10:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . e-mailed me with similar conclusions as well. I'm going to close without action because I don't think there's enough here to conclude anything from a sockpuppetry perspective.  Girth Summit  (blether)  10:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)