Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBlaze Lightning/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both users have a big interest in editing Indian military related articles. MBlaze Lightning also has a long history of socking.

MBlaze Lightning and Adamgerber80 appear to work in tandem. Their edit interaction is huge. Many of their edits happen at close to the same time.

Behavioral evidence


 * Just 45 seconds after Adamgerber's previous edit MBlaze Lightning appeared and fixed the dashes of a reference added by Adamgerber, even though MBlaze Lightning had no previous edit on that page. Adamgerber80 next edited the same page 2 days later. Probably  to avoid suspicion.


 * On Fali Homi Major MBlaze Lightning appeared just 2 minutes after Adamgerber80 on 12 February 2017, with no prior edit history on that page, and restored Adamgerber's version of the page after Adamgerber reverted an IP twice.


 * Both MBlaze Lightning and Adamgerber80 also have a habit of requesting semi-protection for India-Pak-China military related articles and other India related articles.


 * The nature of their edit summaries are similar too.


 * MBlaze Lightning: Blog site.... And Wikipedia does nott allow blog sites to be cite as source.
 * Adamgerber80: IDRW is not an acceptable source. It is a defense blog.
 * MBlaze Lightning: Last good
 * Adamgerber80: Reverting back to good version.
 * Adamgerber80: I do not see any reference for this. Please add it right next to the content you edit.
 * MBlaze Lightning: supply ref This was just 21 minutes after Adamberger's similar edit summary
 * Adamgerber80: You cannot add this on the article page. please make conensus with the other editors on the talk page. (TW))
 * MBlaze Lightning: Please get consensus on talk first. (TW))


 * They also have an extensive habit of restoring each other's edits.


 * MBlaze Lightning:


 * Adamgerber80:


 * On 13 April 2017, just 15 minutes after Adamgerber80 issued 4 cautions/warnings to PakistaniGuy MBlaze Lightning appears to give the 'Final Warning' despite no earlier presence of MBlaze Lightning on that userpage.


 * Both Adamberger80 and MBlaze Lightning have faulty grammar.


 * Adamgerber80: Defense,pk is considered a blog and not a reliable "soruce"
 * Adamgerber80: There is no "referece" for this huge increase
 * Adamgerber80: Please "refere" the "associaed" PIB new release which terms him 27th
 * Adamgerber80: Please discuss this on the talk page. Tyler Durdan has raised some "importnat" points
 * Adamgerber80: "Rverting" random edits and poorly added content
 * Adamgerber80: "Unexplined" removal and adding uncited info
 * Adamgerber80: We need reliable soruces for "this numberss"
 * MBlaze Lightning: Also, do see the "Neural" "Assesments" here Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 !
 * MBlaze Lightning's old sock KnightWarrior25: Where "did it is" written that Army Chief Said about point 5353? See the Talk:Kargil War it is been already discussed. May be any users "writed" this and no one paid attention.


 * They both struggle with using capital and lowercase letters correctly.


 * Adamgerber80: Discuss on "Talk Page" if you have further questions
 * Adamgerber80: Discuss this on the "Talk" page
 * Adamgerber80: New Surgeon "vice admiral"
 * MBlaze Lightning: Also, do see the "Neural Assesments" here Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 !
 * MBlaze Lightning: Added "Neutral Claims" (copied from previous edits of users) !
 * MBlaze Lightning: Remove WP:FICTREF "Addition" ! The "Source" URL is missing ! Moreover "The Source" given is not at all "Viewable" !

If these 2 are innocent they might ask for a CU to be performed upon themselves. On the flip side it is also possible that these accounts are used on separate devices from separate locations to escape CU. Which is why a behavioral evaluation is needed. Sardeeph (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In my view your unsubstantiated thought is incorrect. You should not just assume that all us newbies are clueless. You can't just always think a new user has no idea about Wikipedia and how it works. That is breaking WP:GOODFAITH. It would help Wikipedia if you could take a look at all this massive behavioral evidence which points to only 1 thing. Even a CU will not hurt. One of these users has a confirmed long history of socking, unlike me, so we can't put it beyond them to disrupt Wikipedia like that. ::  since they have studied MBlaze Lightning's previous socking habits.Sardeeph (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't shoot the messenger! Focus on the message. There needs to be a more solid reason to discount such strong evidence. I do not see how it can be a reasonable conclusion to ignore all this behavior as a coincidence. Look at how closely they edit with each other on the same pages and restore each other's edits and interact with other users in a similar vein. Combined with an interest in similar pages this suspicion stands justified. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Sardeeph (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Can't help but question the filer's motive for doing this. I don't believe Sardeeph is their first account. Sro23 (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Commenting here not specifically as a clerk, but has 20 edits in barely two months, and half of these involved accusing other long-term editors of one form of misbehaviour or another.... meanwhile the alleged "similarities", especially the edit summmary and grammar, are in no way unexpected or suspicious for any two users for whom I assume English is a second language (both userpages say they are Indian). That two editors of a similar culture might somehow edit similar articles in a similar fashion is hardly out of the ordinary.  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  03:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Marvellous Spider-Man  11:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for pinging me. I was not aware of this since I was neither notified nor tagged. I see that many neutral editors have already raised good points and I do not wish to reiterate those. All that I have to say is that yes, and I do have an overlap in the pages we edit because (based on my assumption) we are both interested in Indian military related pages. But based on that and that sometimes I misspell in edit summaries (a by-product of haste and an absence of spell check in twinkle) is not a reason to insinuate Sock-puppetry. I will leave the decision up to other senior editors involved here if they would like to pursue a CU or not. I am confident that both  and I are not the same person and thus it is highly unlikely that we are editing from similar IP's for the past 2(almost) years that I have been on Wikipedia. Lastly, just as a comment to, it is a matter of courtesy to click on the small checkbox at the bottom of the SPI which notifies the users (especially those ones which have been around for some time) that they are being accused of Sock-puppetry and can comment on the investigation. The very fact that you did not choose to do so makes we wonder of the real intentions behind this investigation. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sardeeph is not a baby. Close this: I see no evidence of collusion--a person who confuses grammar with spelling has no business making an argument based on either, and the linguistic analysis is unconvincing. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing as per request. GABgab 04:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)