Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pnranjith/Archive

01 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I asked Deskana for a sanitycheck of Unblockranjith, just in case he was getting framed. He came up with Amal_folsom as Confirmed. Amal89 was created right around when Pnranjith was created blocked, and based on name seems to be similar. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC) fixed created->blocked Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added three more names - Keepwalkingji, Irajeevwiki and Vineethsat - due to an idiosyncratic use of the "." and similarity of expressed views. Give me a few minutes and I'll provide some diffs - these are SPAs, so the comparison report is not going to reveal much. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Irajeevwiki - use of ".." to end a sentence, , , ,
 * Pnranjith - ditto ,
 * Keepwalkingji - ditto, ,
 * Vineethsat - ditto
 * This is not an exhaustive list of occurences. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since posting the above, based on several weeks of talk page activity, Amal89 has just seemingly said something that opposes a position taken by Irajeevwiki, as noted in my reply here. I've no idea what is going on now. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When did I say something that opposes Irajeevwiki? I guess, we both have been saying the same thing that thiyya and ezhava are different and not same. I merely explained it, because the article says ezhava and thiyya are same, and also that ezhava support untouchabilty. I proved to you that since thiyya doesn't support untouchabilty as evident from history and the proofs I gave, its obvious that ezhava and thiyya are not same. You are the one who interpreted it wrongly. Amal89 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add to the list, yet this is after CU was endorsed by the clerk, and would like to note that Amal89 confirmed using, which, in case he is cleared of socking, was rather harmless, and does not in itself warrant a block IMO.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: another sock of Pnranjith has been found, tagged and blocked. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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

What am I supposed to do? Do I have to check myself or someone else will check me? If yes, you are welcome to run a checkuser on me. ya, the part of the world where I come from, this is a very common name. You don't have to go around accusing people of this. No one is jobless here. Cynicism? Go to a psychologist. Amal89 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Amal89, someone else does the check. We have trusted people who have been granted specific powers to do this, called CheckUsers. See WP:CHECKUSER. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a controversial article. Any person with a little knowledge of it knows that the article is based on very poor/bad sources. What do you expect- People to come and say that the article is perfect? I had actually given an email complaint to Wikipedia before even signing up ( for which I got a reply). I don't wish to reveal the details, but whoever checks, if they have access to it, it will be of help to them in sorting this out. Amal89 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont personally know any of these other accused users. I am from Australia and come across this Ezhava article a few months ago, when i noticed the majority of the article content is wrongly written and there were many issues with sources, I firstly tried to post an edit warning (it took couple of days for me to learn wikipedia language) a contributor called Sitush declined to edit and asked to provide sources. I started supplying sources but every time i supplied a valid and genuine source, Sitush declined by saying Not Reliable !!!. The whole discussion took around 3 months I think, during this period many other contributors joined in the discussion some of them were supporting Sitush and some of them supporting me. Finally a few days ago they started blocking people one by one. I tried to leave messages on some of the contributors talk page and found out that they are blocked. It is unfortunate that some admins misusing their special privileges to block or ban those contributors who have a different opinion. What actually I need to do as a contributor, just keep quiet and ignore those articles even though they are completely written based on wrong and poor sources ??? Now they have listed all the people here to do CheckUser. If some people have a different opinion does that mean that they are socket puppets ??? Or may be this is a new way to divert attention or to block contributors forever so that there is no one to question them !!! irajeev wiki  talk  07:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * irajeevwiki, here's one thing you should not be doing - throwing around accusations that admins are "misusing their special privileges to block or ban those contributors who have a different opinion", as that could be seen as a breach of Wikipedia's WP:AGF and WP:NPA policies. I know of only one contributor to the current dispute who is blocked, and they were not blocked for their opinion - they were blocked for making nasty and repeated personal attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What about my account. It was blocked for 48 hours ??? for attempting to submit Thiyyar article for review. Did anyone investigate before blocking my account. The reason for blocking was submitting an article which was blocked from creating by a "POV Forking". I am not blaming any admin here for blocking me but you said no one blocked here before, there was a discussion in progress in Ezhava Talk Page when i got blocked for 48 hours. How would you justify some admins still defending their stand even after providing reliable sources to remove POV Forking of "Thiyyar" and redirection of "Thiyya" to Ezhava article. Why they are still reluctant to take any action to remove the POV Fork of Thiyya. As per Wiki rules if you find a bad forking you should start discussion in the Article Talk page, thats what i was doing there but some admins there very stubborn and not even ready to accept that they wrong. irajeev wiki  talk  08:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look Amal89 talk page you can see a warning placed there ? Why, because he had a different opinion ? irajeev wiki  talk  08:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had not been aware that you had been blocked, but having looked at it I can see that you clearly were not blocked for having a different opinion - you were blocked for repeatedly resubmitting the same article to WP:AfC despite having had it rejected and having been asked to stop. Warring over contested material rather than seeking consensus through discussion or using the dispute resolution process is disruptive, and I think your short block was justified. Also, the warnings on Amal89's talk page were not for having a different opinion, they were for making personal attacks on other editors. Now, irajeevwiki, the more you go on attacking other editors and failing to follow accepted Wikipedia standards of behaviour, the less people will take any notice of you - it's really up to you. (Oh, and if you do feel you have a genuine complaint against any specific admins, please do report me/us/them at WP:ANI and the Wikipedia community will be the judge) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Zebedee, Kindly explain to me, i have supplied a book in Ezhava talk two days ago published by Pluto books London, with ISBN and google link to claim that Ezhava and Thiyya are separate castes why some editors saying that the book is not reliable. The book clearly says that These two castes were separate castes and an organisation called SNDP merged them in 1903. Why some contributors reluctant to agree that book. Does that mean these editors will only accept those books which come inline with their views. How come you are saying me to stop attacking other editors, who did i personally attack ?? Whats the meaning of discussion. If i have a different opinion in the talk page does that mean i am attacking other editors ????? You have blocked a user just 30 minutes ago and reverted it after realising you were wrong !!! Qwarxian was doing personal attack to me, what have you got to say about that ! Didnt you see that in Ezhava talk page. He asked me to use a different language to contribute in wikipedia... why ? isnt it WP:BULLY ? irajeev wiki  talk  11:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to continue the disagreement over content and sources - you know where to do that. Regarding your allegations of admin misconduct, WP:ANI is the place for that - you will simply be ignored if you carry on complaining in inappropriate places. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am open to investigation and I am gonna stand up for my rights :) :) Keepwalkingji (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can investigate about me as well, i have no problemRammanohar83 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Not sure if these are socks, or just a bunch of people from the same region and with similar views. CU might tell, but if not, the connections here are probably inconclusive. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * From a CU perspective, this is a complicated case because the networks involved seem to frequently assign new IP addresses to users.
 * ,, and  are all editing from the same corporate shared IP ranges and are otherwise ✅.
 * and are ✅, but the connection to the previous group is.
 * The remaining three accounts are probably ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking and tagging remaining socks. In addition to the possible/inconclusive connection between Amal89 and Pnranjith, I notice that Amal89 was created during an ANI thread on Pnranjith, at the same time that he stopped participating in the content dispute. On a behavioral level, I consdier this confirmed. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)