Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kailash29792/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User was blocked for one week from contributing to the article College Kumar (2020 film) by admin. This was due to disruptive editing. The long and short of it, Kailash created his own version of the article and tried to state his version was "far superior". They even went as far as creating an AfD found here in an effort to get it deleted. When the AfD was speedy kept, they then just completely removed and overwrote the content of the existing article with their own. They were warned against this and they did it again resulting in Cabayi issuing the one week ban. Discussion surrounding this between him and Cabayi can be found here and here. The user has now gone back and attempted to add back in their own info in defiance of the block. The evidence is clear. They attempted to add in info that is word for word the same and references the same exact references: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_Kumar_(2020_film)&diff=944647466&oldid=944579932

Something needs to be done as this user clearly has no interest in respecting the rules or wishes of admin Cabayi and to be honest, I'm tired of having to babysit this guy's disruptive editing. A more serious punishment is likely needed to get the message across. If this isn't the proper outlet, then let me know. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I already told an admin about this here. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  07:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The idea that an unnamed user would decide to start editing yesterday and stumble upon an article made just two days ago is incredibly unlikely. Much more likely is that either you or someone at your direction made these edits. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I wouldn't say that its what started this. I think he tried to use that as justification of deleting the College Kumar page, but that investigation has nothing to do with Kailash abusing a sockpuppet to circumvent a block on editing a page.Sulfurboy (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , Sorry, I"m not quite sure how to post revisions as links,

This revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_Kumar_(2020_film)&diff=944647466&oldid=944579932 Adds and removes almost the same identical content as Kailash did on multiple occasions such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_Kumar_(2020_film)&diff=944368573&oldid=944360195

While more stuff was added and removed in Kailash's edits a large grouping of the same stuff was added and removed in the ip edit. This is almost as if Kailash was finally getting the message that he should be more careful in what is being removed and added.

The notion that an ip user would decide to start editing one day after Kailash's block from the page and remove and add the same stuff he was trying to do is pretty absurd. If the IPs don't match this leaves us with the conclusion that he is either using a VPN or was having someone he knows make the changes.

Also, is it okay for me to change the article back? I didn't know if changing the article while this investigation was going on would effect anything.


 * , thank you (side note: this is my name)., if it had been a legitimate, good-faith non-socking user, I would not have requested an AfD or G5 in the first place. But now that I did, I apologise. I believed once Bhargav would inevitably be exposed as creating the article via IP, it would be deleted anyway, so I went with G5. But I admit I went overboard without fully understanding G5. Also, if one carefully analyses here and here, there is less content deletion, only more addition. The production section, as created by Bhargav, currently reads "Rahul Vijay's poster has been released on 8 June 2019 on eve of his birthday.[10] College Kumar team greets birthday wishes to Rajendra Prasad on 19 July 2019.[11] The film teaser released on 9 December 2019,[12][13] trailer on 21 February 2020.[14][15] and it is scheduled to release on 6 March 2020.[16]", all almost unencyclopedic content violating WP:FILMMARKETING and not covering the film's production. My edits erased that and replaced the section with actual details about the production, along with properly quoted reviews (they are not copyvio since they are within quotes and attributed). But I'm not gonna fight further, I'm gonna patiently wait till my block on the page expires and properly add the content again, step by step. , despite all that happened, I have no grudge towards you. Forgive and forget. Long story short: the only mistakes I made were the AfD and G5, so please forgive me for them. Continued, while content blanking is bad, it didn't happen here; there was only addition, but Sulfurboy misunderstood. Once again, forgive and forget. -- Kailash29792  (talk)  16:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure why you're pointing out that I can contribute to the article as I see fit or work out the details with the other editor. I've never contributed anything to it. I approved it out of AfC and then noticed it was brought to AfD by Kailash in an agenda to have that article deleted so his (in his own words) "far superior" article could be put into place. The only editing I've done on the page is to revert his edits when he basically blanked the page as it existed and put in his own which should be considered vandalism since he was repeatedly warned against it. I have no interest in expanding or improving the article. My only interest is to stop the disruptive editing by Kailash. The amount of time I've had to sink into babysitting this (especially compared to how many article I monitor coming out of AfC) is pretty absurd. I have zero doubts that when the block on the user is lifted, he'll once again make disruptive edits to the article to put in his version. But I guess we'll see. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The SPI case that started this... Sockpuppet investigations/B.Bhargava Teja, and my request for fresh eyeballs at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics Special:Diff/944443488. Cabayi (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The only evidence tying Kailash to the IP are Kailash's edits to the article on March 7 and the IP's edits to the article on March 9, but I don't see any significant similarity between those edits. Please address this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are same diffs I've already looked at, and other than both Kailash and the IP edited the infobox, the material they changed in the infobox is very different. Nor do I buy your imputed motive that Kailash was intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny by making the IP's edits different. Such an argument is specious and presupposes your conclusion. Closing for insufficient evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional note: I'm not really clear about how or where Kailash was educated on the appropriate way to improve College Kumar (2020 film) that would have been satisfactory to or . Anyone else, under most circumstances, could create an improved article and incorporate it into an existing article, either by editing the article directly and renovating it in real-time, or working on a better version in their sandbox and incorporating that into the existing article. While Kailash's AfD attempt was not the right way to go, even his attempt to propose a content merge was rejected. So can someone please tell Kailash the best way to proceed, so that he's being set up for success, not failure? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not my responsibility, but... First, both editors should forget the history of the article and whether or not it was created by sock. The point is now moot. Second, both editors' edits to the articles should be focused only on improving the article, not on historical procedural issues or any lingering animosity. So, if Keilash's edits are good, they should remain. If the IP's edits are good, they should remain. Sulfurboy may edit the article freely as long as they keep these provisos in mind. Any dispute between Keilash and Sulfurboy over content should be ironed out on the article Talk page. Finally, Sulfurboy, any comments you want to make here should be made in the "Comments by other users" section, and please remember to sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Kailash's version as of here is technically better. Not much changed in the infobox or cast sections, but the lead is a bit more succinct. He's expanded the soundtrack section to reflect two languages instead of one. His production section doesn't focus on posters, trailers and birthday wishes, and Kailash added a Release and reception section, which might be a bit quote heavy, but it's at least a good start. This whole thing seems a missed opportunity to guide him with specific steps, rather than going straight to admonishment and sanctions. Now I'm even questioning what *I* would have done in his place. And Sulfurboy, I've read Cabayi's talk page interaction with Kailash and I'm still missing the clear instructions on how Kailash should have submitted his improvements. If you'd be so kind, could you point them out to me on my talk page, please? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)