Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive

08 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Prashantlovehimself was blocked indefinitely for vandalism on Priyanka Chopra. After his account got blocked, the user was using random Ips to do the same. When the page was protected, this user is continuing the same thing with multiple accounts. The names of the accounts are also similar. -   Managerarc    talk  13:00, 8 March 2011 (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
All three named accounts are ✅ matches to each other. TN X Man 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All Blocked -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

31 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Looks like an obvious sock – same areas of interest (PC related articles). What made me really suspicious is the gross similarity between his earlier signature and the username of previous puppet &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The user in question underwent a name change from Prashant! to Krish! a few days ago. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I wasn't aware of this history when there was an earlier edit war going on at Deepika Padukone and Kangana Ranaut, the action may not have been page protection if the history was known at that time. Neither of the editors hands were clean in that matter, but it appears that the behavior hasn't changed since the early socks. However, like says there's a lot of reform, but as seen on the history of Padukone and Ranaut, the underlying problem still exists. Like Courcelles mentions I think this matter is more appropriate for ANI at this point or even WP:ARBIPA which is broad enough to cover even such stuff. It would have been more appropriate for SPI last year. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just came across this from less than twelve hours ago. Since it's here and there's a discussion, I'm hesitant to take any action immediately, but no objection if someone else does. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Got to know about this while browsing through the history of Kaminey. I was in two minds before opening this SPI. Kinda agree with both of you. Here is the latest one. I don't know much about his previous accounts, but his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:OWN issues cannot be totally ignored. Despite being knowledgeable about 3RR, he has violated the rule multiple times – I don't think he has really reformed, especially when he does something like this even at this stage. However, this isn't the right place as both of you say. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Pks1142 was another rename, done in 2013. Are there any other problems with the editing of this account other than a couple vandalism-only accounts from four years ago?  If so, I agree the evidence is there to make it a plausible connection.  If not, I'm really not inclined to do anything. If someone has reformed from 2011 indiscretions, I really don't care about those ancient blocked accounts. My quick review shows someone who is trying hard, and with help doing good work -- evidenced by six FL's. If I'm missing real, current problems (which I, of course, would care about, though ANI might be a better venue than SPI), please show me evidence.  Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think I'm going to close this out of the SPI workflow soon, thanks for understanding that this is an ANI matter. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As Courcelles noted, this vandalism from 2011 is no reason to block him. Edit warring should be dealt at a separate venue. I'm closing this with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)