Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumarila/Archive

08 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The above mentioned users have been making the same type of disruptive edits over the past few days, in the Katrina Kaif page. Diff of edits made by -, ,.

Diff of edits made by -,.

Both users have been toying around with article, by making "exactly identical" edits that are disruptive, probably to tip off the balance in an edit war. Although the contrib's were well sourced with reliable neutral party citations, these users have been removing sourced contents, by giving false edit comments. It is evident from the diffs provided that the two users are one and the same. Hari7478 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2012 (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 edits are the same because both are reverting back the same material. They could possibly know each other, or simply both have the same idea.  I don't see enough linkage to declare this a sock situation, or to justify a CU at this time. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing. If more info surfaces in the future, feel free to refile but I can't make a linkage based on the same revert, far from 3rr. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

05 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Seems quite ducky on the face of it, suspect sock removes content from Modi article, please not the edit summary. Master removes same content, please note the edit summary. We also have the Sock account adding this to the Ghandi article, it was reverted as a copyvio by RegentsPark and then reverted back in by the master. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 5 August 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

 * This is so obvious it doesn't need a checkuser. Sock is blocked indefinitely. Master's block (originally for 3RR) is extended to a week for socking. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

12 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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


 * Proofs:diff, diff, diff, diff Same revert and same edit summery. User logged in with old account to edit the Bengali scientists article and change open para to Indian from Bengali. - Rahat (Message) 17:42, 12 April 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 may not be used to link named accounts with IPs.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "same edit summery [sic]"? All four diffs you cited have different edit summaries?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean all of them reverting the same edit by quoting the WP:OPENPARA policy. - Rahat (Message) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the IPv6 is the same editor. They first cite OPENPARA on April 9 and I believe this picked up by the master and IPv4s. Master and IPv4s blocked 1 month. Closing.

03 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Activity in Sabujeinstein increased after the block of Kumarila. Master:Special:Contributions/Kumarila, Sock:Special:Contributions/Vivekmandan and Sabujeinstein:Special:Contributions/Sabujeinstein  edited in Narendra Modi article
 * Edit warring in Jagadish Chandra Bose and referring to Encyclopedia Britannica while reverting.
 * Kumarila: diff, diff
 * Sabujeinstein diff, diff, diff
 * - Arr4 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deepmoriarty was created to avoid block of Sabujeinstein due to 3RR. It was created to revert on Jagadish Chandra Bose article after I posted the last warning on Sabujeinstein's Talk. - Arr4 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and are ✅ to each other. It's technically  that they are, but a behavioural comparison will help determine if there is a connection.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffing Kumarila and sock. Closing.

24 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Detailed evidence is below, but in summary, all four of these users have a tendency to push a Hindu-nationalist POV in a very similar way. This behavior is centered on a few related pages; 2002 Gujarat riots, Godhra train burning, Narendra Modi, and Bombay riots, though not all users are present on every page.


 * All editors except Sdmarathe have been around for a long time; between 3 and 10 years; but have all made less than 500 edits during this period Kumarila, Puck42, Unbiasedpov. All of them have very scattered time stamps Kumarila, Puck42, Sdmarathe, Unbiasedpov.


 * Kumarila, Puck42, and Unbiasedpov all have attempted to remove scholarly views on the 2002 Gujarat riots (and the closely related Godhra train burning page), often with the intent of replacing them with court findings; Kumarila 1 2 3, Puck42 1 2 3, Unbiasedpov 1 2.


 * Probably most demonstrative; Sdmarathe and Unbiasedpov have indulged in lengthy battles to add the sidebar Template:Violence against Hindus to the articles Bombay Riots and 2002 Gujarat riots (and its subsidiary Naroda Patiya massacre. Failing that, they try to remove the Template:Violence against Muslims, or edit-war over the equivalent categories. The behavior in talk page discussions of these edits has been similar, including a refusal to find reliable sources to back up their insertions (note; I am not interested in criticizing that behavior here. The point is that it is common to both.). This is amply on display at Talk:2002 Gujarat riots and Talk:Bombay Riots.
 * Sdmarathe; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
 * Unbiasedpov; 1, 2, 3.


 * A quick glance at the contributions of these editors shows that all have indulged in some disruptive behavior. A CU is necessary to conclusively demonstrate that these are related, because in my opinion, the behavioral evidence is strong enough to justify a CU, but not quite enough to justify a block in and of itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I'm not certain I understand. At least two of the suspected puppets have edited in the last 24 hours; what do you mean by stale? I did notice that their first edit was prior to the supposed masters', but the "master" already had an open SPI, so I listed it here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * just to close this issue completely in my head, does the check that you performed include possible sleepers for any of the three non-stale accounts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you for clarifying. I was unaware of the technicalities. I suppose this can be archived now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:42, 1 September 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

 * There don't appear to be any non-stale puppets to check against. Thus, the best that could be done would be a CU comparing the three listed puppets. All of the puppets are older than the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The puppets you suspect are not stale. However, in the classic CU one is attempting to establish a technical connection between a suspected puppet and the master. In this instance the master and any previous puppets are stale, so that's not possible. So, as I stated, all you can do is compare the suspected puppets against each other to see if they are connected. That's sometimes done, but the two earmarks here combined are a bit unusual as you don't often find a new master in a long-standing case. Usually, they're discovered earlier. All that said, I'm not declining the CU. I'll let a clerk decide whether to endorse it.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Is there some data left from the May check to compare those three to those previous socks?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything from the previous SPI is stale. Are you endorsing a check on the three suspected accounts listed above?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, yes, I think those three should be compared to each other.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no technical overlap between the three listed accounts and therefore they are to be related purely from a technical standpoint. If there is strong behavioural evidence then it is likely to be a result of canvassing or WP:MEAT as opposed to outright socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no separate type of check for sleepers, they either turn up in a check of an account or IP range known to be used by the sockmaster or they don't. None of the three accounts I checked shared any technical overlap with any likely related accounts. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's a common misconception. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Behavioral evidence is not strong enough. Closing this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)