Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashant!/Archive

09 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * In the 3rd FLC nomination of Priyanka Chopra's awards page nominated by Prashant, Daan0001 gave a no-comments added "support" here. This is exactly the same as the 1st FLC nomination of the same page in which supported the list. To establish a background, Green Parakeet was a confirmed sock of Prashant.
 * Also suspicious is how Daan0001's contributions were limited to a maximum of 2-3 edits since October. Their contributions here increased in late-March/April, which is when Prashant nominated the Priyanka Chopra awards page at the FLC.
 * Not the only failed FLC of Prashant in which Daan0001 gave such a support. He did so here as well.
 * Another similar pattern between Prashant and Daan0001 is to give a straight-out oppose to my FAC nomination, despite them already having supports from established users. Prashant did that here and Daan0001 did the exact same thing here.
 * Notice how the previous sock Green Parakeet awarded Prashant with a barnstar for their edits on Priyanka Chopra. Daan0001 gave Prashant a very similar-type of barnstar here.
 * And as expected, they have both made significant edits to Chopra-related articles, in particular her film Mary Kom. Look at this and this.
 * To conclude, neither of the users are proficient in English, and struggle to string together grammatically correct sentences, as apparent in this thread. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Soon after opening this investigation I received a barrage of personal attacks from both users. I have summarised it at this ANI thread. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 03:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Don't you think Krimuk when you frame to innocent people for sock with no connection, they will be hurt as you are wasting their as well as wikipedia's time clearing everything. Your claim to threat doesn't prove that aacount as my sock! So, don't act like a child and stop manipulating things. Exchanging greetings and supporting an article of same interest cannot be a usee for proving something. So, please.— Prashant 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re below, why should this be merged with Sockpuppet investigations/Pks1142 when CU in that case showed no connection between Pks1142 and Prashant? Squinge (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Duh! Thanks :-) Squinge (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this investigation will take a year. No? LOL! The investigators can give Indian police a run for their money. — Prashant  18:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - By the way, this should be merged with Sockpuppet investigations/Pks1142.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because and  are the same person.  was renamed into, see: .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * From the best I can tell (there are a lot of IPs), these two accounts are ❌. Tiptoety  talk 17:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the checkuser results, I'm closing this with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 14:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)