Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajpurohit-Veer/Archive

20 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I blocked Rajpurohit-Veer for repeatedly dropping huge chunks of poor tone, unsourced, non-NPOV, etc. text into the Rajpurohit article; see this edit for an example. Georgewilliamherbert recently blocked Enclipse as a sock after this edit (check the page history; you'll see that it's precisely the same as far as number of bytes), and I've just blocked Pitush (a mockery of User:Sitush) after this edit (again, precisely the same number of bytes) to the same article. An IP has also been doing the same thing, although of course I know that you're not going to link IPs and users. I'm just coming here to request s search for sleeper accounts. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 20 February 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

 * - For sleeper check per Nyttend's comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. No sleepers found. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, good to know. I suppose we'll see more created before long, but with this kind of user, it won't be hard to detect them, and the article will make a convenient honeypot.  Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Re-blocked as puppets of each other and tagged. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

03 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Repeated reinstatement of the same unreliably sourced information at Rajpurohit, as per prior socks.

Examples include this from Urfatherepicgenius compared to Arunsingh2, compared to Pitush and Rajpurohit-Veer.

Note that Pitush was a play on my username name and that Urfatherepicgenius looks to be some weird play on that of Epicgenius. Sitush (talk) 12:17, 3 March 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

 * is ✅. is technically ❌, though WP:MEAT is a possibility.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the technical evidence, and the comment on Arunsingh2's user page, I believe that the editor is a different person but may be colluding with Rajpurohit-Veer and their socks. I don't see enough to warrant a block, yet, but I've left a strongly-worded warning on their user talk page since they've continued their edits after repeated warnings (a level 3 NPOV warning). I think that's all that's necessary at this point unless they take this up again. --  At am a  頭 22:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)