Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2

3 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This isn't the first time was convicted of sockpuppetry,  see the archive, and block log, but in any case, it is important to mention some context:

Context: The following observations were all made based on one article and its talk page, namely, List of expeditions of Muhammad, I will not cover many edits made in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of expeditions of Muhammad" ‎since I was not very familiar with the lengthy discussions there, maybe some more experienced user will shade more light on that. In any case, I thought it would be necessary to first include some context. In the #Multiple Issues section of the talk page of the List of expeditions of Muhammad article, a consensus was reached on February 26 (go there for complete details), which lead me to make some heavy changes to the article in question, e.g. 1, 2, 3, all of whom were made in the 26th of February 2016‎. These edits were left unchanged, and no one objected to them, based on the consensus in the talk, until the original creator of that page, namely,, (re)appeared after a 3 months and 28 days (14 March 2016--16 November 2015) absence. So on March 13, the article's creator (Misconceptions2) reverted the agreed changes, claiming a muslim conspiracy and pinging dozens of users to rescue his article. Now there is one important point that should be mentioned, and I think it is a central piece of evidence, which is that before (re)coming, no reverts, no flow of suspicious accounts making blanket reverts and personal attacks, happened, actually no objections were ever made in the talk. (That fact can be verified by looking at the respective page history of the meant articles: 1, 2) It was only after his coming that all these suspicious things happened. Following observations will build upon that,

Connections:
 * After the initial revert by, that was reverted by , a suspicious account appeared that also made a revert, , who was created on the 4th of March 2016. He only made 1 edit then, before making two reverts: 1, 2, with edit summaries, respectively, "no consensus" (05:52, 14 March), "I saw talk page. But not all will agree with change. I dont agree with delete." (06:03, 14 March 2016), note that these edits were made exactly right after re-coming. Meanwhile, in the talk page,  stated, (20:43) "Cant you see as of RIGHT now there is no consensus. This will turn into an edit war the way its going. I have invited many people who edited this article to comment here. I hope it does not turn into a big edit war." These reverts and edits in this article were amongst the last edits made by , meaning the account was used to push certain changes in a specific situation, and it's not a regular user.
 * Later on, another account, titled appeared (who was created in 25 November 2015, with this edit), he made two reverts 1, 2 (19 March). DJ SG Gayashan, Sajithgayashan and SG Gayashan seem to all be related. In one edit summary, Sajithgayashan states: "Created page with 'Why delete my userpage? My other Account DJ Gayashan, also delete?".
 * user page has: "My other Account DJ SG Gayashan, and SG Gayashan"
 * The user seems on a number of occasions to suggest using votes to settle disputes, e.g. here, stating, "Why dont we do a vote on which version should be kept? The longstanding version or the highly redacted version.", since only a minority in the talk subscribe to his handful suggestions, it would seem irrational that he wants to use votes without knowing à priori that he can gather enough through socks, this shows his confidence in recourse to using votes, i.e. his confidence to making enough accounts to fulfill his purposes.
 * 119.30.32.120: Another IP address who made only 4 edits, speaks in the talk of "Muslims only want to censor wikipedia", subscribing to 's conspiracy scenario.
 * 103.41.212.74: This is basically the IP used before the account AmitPaul23 was created, the proof can be seen here (See the signature, add to that the fact that AmitPaul23 edited the article created minutes (22min to be precise) after that, as we will explain). Furthermore, that user is not as new as one would think since the AmitPaul23 account was actually created January 2, 2016 and the first and only thing the user did back then was create a substantial (albiet off-topic) Talk Page section on our beloved Main Page[257 ]. I think it is also notable that this single edit was done twenty-four days after creating the account, very non-typical behavior. (Observation by: Koala Tea Of Mercy)
 * The following event, is without doubt one of the weirdest ones I've seen on wiki, in it,  "coaches" AmitPaul23 on how to become a canvassed edit warrior who knows how to game semi-protection. (c.f. [8 ], [9 ]): "Also to be able to edit you need to make 10 edits and become auto confirmed.", stated, it should be mentioned that the article was at that time semi-protected.
 * AmitPaul23 made personal attacks, in addition to the blanket revert (link), such as in this edit "Muslms cannot be trusted" and a personal attack "What kind of name is Andalusi, seems ISsupporter".
 * himself made personal attacks, from the beginning with his Muslims conspiracy theory, to his last attacks like "When religion is invovled and you have religious users with names like "XtremeDood" engaged in a conversation I find it hard to imagine there to be compromise", so it is natural to see the same pattern with those other accounts. Similarly, we asked from right the beginning to participate and discuss in the #Multiple issues section in which we reached an actual consensus (for e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, implicitly: 1, 2), but to this day, he never participated nor replied there, just like all the other involved IPs and suspicious accounts.
 * stated once, "Who is this Sajithgayashan who is speaking in broken English ? Sounds like a sockpuppet for someone", immediately replied, "If your trying to say his my sock then your wrong. [...]" Even do  clearly never meant that.
 * See also 's comment here.
 * I tried to mention only some observations, to keep the list short enough.

CounterTime (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)