Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prakash Kumar Meher/Archive

18 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Puppeteer has mainly contributed articles about himself and his family. His autobiography Prakash Kumar Meher was speedy deleted twice in February 2013, then after re-creation on 29 March was immediately prodded for notability. IP sock 117.200.227.55 removed the prod, after which it was redirected to Kailash Chandra Meher. Puppeteer reverted the redirect at, and it was then redirected again by another editor in April. In September 2013, sockpuppet Anandratan attempted a change of the redirect to Prakash Meher, an identical article created by sockpuppet Aamarbhagwan, with subsequent edits by Anandratan.

Sockpuppets all joined at Cleanup/Members as one of their first edits in August 2013. Anandratan joined 8 minutes after Durgapatiomm:. Durgapatiomm's next edit seconds later was to post an invitation to himself at his own talk page to join Wikipedia:Cleanup: All have since done almost nothing but edit articles created by puppeteer, and are now engaged in adding identical promotional language to Kailash Chandra Meher, and removing maintenance templates, often adding their user signature to the article. Many SPAs have posted at Talk:Kailash Chandra Meher asking for the maintenance templates to be removed using similar language, so I've probably missed a few. Checkuser should spot the ones whose contributions aren't stale. Ruby  Murray  13:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Pediamade added this request at Talk:Kailash Chandra Meher last September for templates to be removed, and then at 13:36 15 Jan, sockpuppet Aamarbhagwan removes one of his posts, along with one of Durgapatiomm saying "I completely agree with User:Anandratan...", and tries to change the signature from Pediamade to Aamarbhagwan in this edit. Pediamade's first (and only other) edit was to add this to his talk page: compare with Aamarbhagwan's only and current edit of his user page at.

Half an hour after Aamarbhagwan refactors SP comments on the talk page, Anandratan does something very similar at 3 minutes later, evidently realises his mistake and tries to blank Pediamade's comment with his signature at. An hour after I reverted the blanking, Durgapatiomm deletes his own comment, perhaps because the wording was a bit too close to that of the now-unblanked post from Pediamade:   Ruby   Murray  13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

15 Jan I tried removing promotional language from Kailash Chandra Meher. That evening, Aamarbhagwan restores it in this edit. Two minutes later, Anandratan removes the BLP sources tag:. The following morning, another editor restores the tag, after which Durgapatiomm removes it again along with the COI tag, with edit summary "Why are u increase the issue ? Plz check the references & you can see this article is 100% correct. If any doubt plz ask me,", in. IP sock 117.200.224.76 then removes them again, adding his signature to the article:. After this is reverted, Aamarbhagwan re-adds a subset of the promotional language at, and 40 minutes later 117.200.227.112 removes the tags again, adding references at the top along with his signature in. At around the same time, Anandratan posts at my talk page asking for the templates to be removed, noting that "Because all data & information about Mr. Meher is 100% true of my knowledge. Or please tell me for which point this article need additional citations." at. I replied at my talk page about the need for templates to flag unfixed issues, and then went to the page to fix the COI tag by removing promotional language. An edit warring fiesta followed for an hour by Durgapatiomm and Aamarbhagwan, restoring the promotional language as I was removing it, and removing maintenance templates:, , , , , (note refs at top of article in that edit, like IP socks), ,. Ruby  Murray  15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing admins might also wish to cast a quick eye over Talk:Kailash Chandra Meher, a blizzard of WP:SPA posts from August to today, all complaining that the article class should be higher, and that the maintenance templates should be removed, since the information is all 100% correct to their knowledge. Signatures are a complete mess, and without some careful backtracking through the history it's hard to tell from all the signature-swapping malarkey which sockpuppet wrote what. My favourite talk page of the SPA socks has got to be this one. Ruby  Murray  15:17, 18 January 2014 (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

 * ,, , and are all ✅.  is  as far as technical evidence goes, and as usual, .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Master and confirmed socks all blocked indef and tagged, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)