Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr anonymousMr/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

On Articles for deletion/Tulu script, there have been several odd comments by editors made. I say this because they are all marking their "oppose" votes with the bolded comment on the front, which is a mistake that seems really odd to me for all of these users to have independently made. (Diffs: master, Blensonc, Iampuneeth, TULU PAATERO, ATuluveKulda.)

Let's call these five accounts above as "Group 1." Multiple accounts in this group can accurately be described as single-purpose accounts based of of their edit histories. TULU PAATERO and ATuluveKudla actually made their first edits (1 and 2 respectively) after the AfD was opened on 5 November.

Previous SPI reports have stated that it's possilikely that Blensonc is the same as Iampuneeth (see the relevant SPI Archive). I am requesting checkuser to see if these accounts (aside from Blensonc-Iampuneeth, for whom we already have results) are connected at a technical level, on top of being connected at a behavioral level, as well as to check for sleepers connections to Group 2, which I describe below.

There's also a "group 2" of editors that seem to have a similar single-purpose interest in this Tulu language script page. Many appear to have a desire to participate in the AfD, but are unable to actually find the correct page to leave a comment on (or were SPAs that only made comments prior to the AfD). These include:
 * , whose only edit was a November 10 oppose !vote placed on the talk page of the AfD for Tulu Script.
 * 1) *As a side note, besides myself, the only other account to have modified the talk page of the AfD is, who made this edit to actually create the talk page.
 * 2) has made a total of five edits to Wikipedia thus far, all of which have been to Talk:Tulu script. Much like, who made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulu_script&diff=1054519233&oldid=1054501905 this edit] to say that the page under consideration for deletion was a "good page" that "has good information} Tulunad channel's edits to the page seem to be very similar in approach and substance and refer to the page as a "super page" with "good information".
 * 3) has made a total of one edit, which is to the Tulu Script talk page. In that edit, the user appears to attempt to participate in the deletion discussion, but instead posts a !vote on the article talk page. The username contains the string "Tulunad", much like  and, which makes me suspect that there is something more personal tied between these editors other than their SPA status.
 * , much like the previous two editors listed, has only edited the talk page of Tulu Script. These edits all four of which can be viewed in this diff appear to be very similar in nature to previous editors listed in group 1, particularly, who made an edit on October 27 that has the verbatim same text as is incorporated into Vaishali Udupa's edits in the first full week of November. That text is TULU is an ancient dravidian language, It was well developed language, it's not dialect of any other language, it's exists directly from proto dravidian, and it also had own script, many were wrote in that script, tigalari and tulu are not same it is different, tulu helps to create malayalam script. All are agree to separate Tulu script wiki. It seems rather odd that another user would give the same verbatim comment as another. But wait, there's more!
 * 1) a single-purpose account, has made a total of one edit. And, that edit, which took place on October 26, is to add that exact same verbatim text.
 * 2) appears to be a Tulu-language speaker/writer, who made their first edit in June 2021. After Tulu script was nominated for deletion, Jtuluve sprung into action to oppose the deletion... on the talk page of the article. "Yes. Nice information.", the user wrote in response to arguments on the article talk page related to the script.
 * 3) has made a total of two edits thus far. Each of these edits came before the Tulu script article was facing a deletion discussion, but they (1 2) demonstrate a similar pattern of an SPA being a Yes-man to other editors involved in this sockpuppetry scheme.

There's clearly something inauthentic going on here; new accounts do not spontaneously spring up, insert the same verbatim text, and then all make the same mistakes when trying to !vote in an AfD. They also typically don't spring up to be yes-men on a random talk page, never to be heard from again. A checkuser may be useful in establishing technical links, though at the very minimum this looks like a case of WP:MEAT. I believe that I have been thorough in identifying all users that appear to be involved, but I may have missed one given the size of the sockpuppetry ring. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * They also all seem to have forgotten the four tildes and SineBot had to pick up the slack. Not just that, but they all speak in clunky english. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  21:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin Does that not count as meatpuppetry to a degree? That is also not allowed, and we should look into the possibility of this thing in a separate investigation. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  22:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.'''
 * Most of this looks like a pretty standard case of AfD canvassing with ethnic overtones, which often results in formulaic or similarly-worded !votes (perhaps because someone is modifying a template they were given in a Facebook post of WhatsApp forward or such). This is evidenced by the aforementioned repeated references to Tulunad, i.e. Tulu Nadu, further suggesting ethnicity-/geography-based canvassing rather than sockpuppetry or SPI-actionable meatpuppetry. Furthermore, since the disruption is confined to a single AfD, there's not much reason to do anything. The AfD's closer will be smart enough to discount SPA !votes, and usually in cases like this the SPAs go away after the AfD.The only thing that clearly suggests sockpuppetry or actionable meatpuppetry is the duplicated comments at the AfD and on talk, one case of which has already been addressed at Sockpuppet investigations/Blensonc/Archive. Thus, with respect to Iampuneeth (and by extension Blensonc), Vaishali Udupa, and Ganesh paner, in light of their duplicated comments.  with respect to the other eight accounts (although of course if there is sockpuppetry, they might turn up in the course of investigating the other four).  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that's consistent with a scenario of someone posting on Facebook "Wikipedia is going to delete the article on our script!!! Go vote no!" Which is basically guaranteed to happen if you AfD an article on a topic of significant ethnic pride. I know from experience on Wikipedia that Tamil speakers take their language's history very seriously, and I'm guessing that speakers of Tulu (a related language) do the same. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking only at Mr anonymousMr, Iampuneeth, Blensonc, Vaishali Udupa, and Ganesh paner, I'd have to say they're all ❌ on technical data. If I squinted real hard, I could see calling Mr anonymousMr  to Iampuneeth, but that might be a stretch.  On the other hand, there's a certain amount of proxy use by various accounts, so   might apply all around. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roy. Meatpuppetry falls within the scope of SPI, but we're more made for meatpuppetry cases like "User A always comes to the defense of User B's articles at AfD" or "New user B showed up to take User A's side in a dispute, but socking has been ruled out" than cases like "New users A-L all !voted the same way at AfD". In the latter kind of case, the only time SPI really has much to do, in my opinion, is if we can identify which user did the canvassing, in which case we may sanction that editor as appropriate. (See, for instance, Sockpuppet investigations/Ugeeeen/Archive, which I closed with a warning because I could reasonably infer that the alleged master had played a role in the canvassing.) When it's bunch of new users piling onto an AfD with no clear guilty party for the canvassing, that may technically be meatpuppetry, but not the sort of meatpuppetry we can really penalize. Keep in mind, there is no policy against being canvassed, just against canvassing.On that note, closing this without action. Mikehawk10 has marked the AfD with notavote, which I would have done otherwise; SPA comments can be tagged as per standard practice; and if things get too disruptive the AfD can be semi-protected. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

has been on a relentless 1,5 year long campaign to have the Tigalari script page moved to Tulu script. This user has performed undiscussed moves multiple times, such as 1 and 2, but also unsourced agenda pushing such as 3 (just one of very many similar edits). Many other users can be seen performing similar edits, often around the same time, such as 4, 5 and 6. Note also that all the listed account almost purely focus on Tulu (language, people, culture) related subjects.

's latest attempt to push his views was to create a content fork using the redirect Tulu script. On the history of this redirect page (since restored) you can see users editing the new content fork and Tigalari script as well. Such as [7] and [8] This latest attempt was then discussed to be deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulu script. On this page you can see many users also seen on Tigalari script and the redirect Tulu script, defending. Many of the accounts are completely new and seem to be created just to support. For example  with this edit: 9. Others can be seen copy-pasting the exact same comment, such as 10 and 11.

Finally, most bizarrely, on Talk:Tulu script, can be seen writing a long comment defending his statements. Following this, many new accounts can be seen echoing and backing up, even new accounts backing completely new accounts, such as 12 and 13. Three users can be seen writing the exact same comment three times: 14, 15 and 16. Another completely new account with only one edit, backing up the same view: 17. The accounts also comment on each other, writing things like "nice information", "yes" and "good information". The language style is always the same.

I hope after this investigation, the edit warring over the Tigalari script can finally be stopped. Please also consider further protections to the page.

(I did not realize an investigation was already created, but hope this information can still be useful)

Thanks. Glennznl (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'm noticing a lot of the same stuff addressed in my complaint (which is currently listed on this page above this complaint). Checkuser's already been run, and it's came back as unlikely (albeit with proxy use). Is there a particular group of users that you think is different than that which has already been checked by a checkuser? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my list I included the users Sudarshan Shetty9, Shravankudla, Chidananda Kampa and IP 43.247.157.20, which have not been included in your list. Perhaps investigating these users will bring up something on the ones investigated earlier. --Glennznl (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect Chidanada Kampa for contributions to attempted content fork, and other related edits contributing to the content fork, such as changing redirect pages, such as this one here. I suspect Shravankudla because this users very first edit ever was on Talk:Tulu script, correcting a typo from  shortly after he wrote his long post expressing his views, here. What is the chance a random user makes an account just to correct a typo in the middle of a long post on an obscure subject? After that, Shravankudla can be seen changing Tigalari > Tulu on Tigalari script as seen here, which  has been doing since May 2020.I suspect TuluveRai123 for performing the same behaviour as, unconstructive edits, changing Tigalari to Tulu, on multiple pages: 1 and 2. --Glennznl (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.'''
 * As noted in the previous SPI, this seems to me more like a number of editors with a shared ethnic POV, many/most/all of whom were canvassed, than like sockpuppetry or actionable meatpuppetry. If an account's only edits have been to the AfD and/or related discussion, I don't think there's much benefit in investigating them, especially since CU results will likely be muddled. However, I note four accounts here that do not appear to be SPAs and do not appear to have been CU'd yet: TuluveRai123 (currently tempblocked unrelately), Chidananda Kampa, and Shravankudla. . Could you please go into some detail as to why you think these three editors in particular are sox (as opposed to just sympathizers with Mr anonymousMr's POV)? I'd be open to endorsing checks on them.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Chidananda Kampa has made 1,600 edits in the past four years, and appears to have edited largely without incident since a block in 2019. Furthermore, their changes to the redirects appear to have been valid avoided double redirect corrections while the article existed. I don't see any reason to suspect them of sockpuppetry.TuluveRai123's actions are consistent with those of someone with the same POV; you will find accounts with that sort of dynamic in any ethnic/national/religious topic area. But I don't see any tells indicating sockpuppetry, and if anything the shared POV cuts against meatpuppetry (since it suggests they may have found the content dispute independently). Furthermore, they seem to speak slightly better English than MrAnonymous Mr.Shravankudla's initial edit, however, is quite suspicious, so with respect to Shravankudla and MrAnonymous Mr.  as to all other accounts, although of course something could turn up in a check of those two.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Shravankudla is or perhaps even ❌ to Mr anonymousMr.  As requested, that's the only check I performed. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roy. I think that, with this, we have now cleared (or, failed to find evidence against) all of the principal accounts here. It's possible that somewhere in this mess of accounts we do have a case of true sockpuppetry, but I'm not going to make a CU go dig for it, especially when the users who continue to edit have all been investigated behaviorally and/or by CU. Closing without action. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)