Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ravisharma2019/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ravish was reverted several times for adding this utter garbage/spam to several articles when this sock popped up doing the same. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2019 (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 . TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Re: Same Spam, same article but added ref per my instruction: (same temp). Siddiqsazzad001  '''  06:25, 16 January 2019 (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

 * No comment as to if there's any relation to this case, but I've blocked it for a month for disruptive editing. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same crappy spam link but now with a shortener. Praxidicae (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2019 (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
—&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The first three accounts were spamming links to namesbiography.com and a generated shortcut lnnk.in both domains which have subsequently been globally blacklisted by me, as there has been issues of such spam previously. Today, there has been an email to me from  requesting removal from the blacklist. I am totally suspicious of a new account finding me so quickly, so I would like to have some knowledge to whom I am replying. If complainant account is truly independent from the spamming accounts, then my method of response will be different from where they are aligned. You can see a copy of the received email at User:Billinghurst@meta. Thanks for your assistance. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Would it be please be possible to get a quick check for user account "Namesbiography". So I came frame the global spam blacklist response. Thanks if you can. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Comment reached out to me on my user talk page about the blacklisting of their domain due to spamming from the accounts listed above.  As I noted, there are a couple of oddities here that are interesting.  This is a new website (whois says the domain was created November 2018) that clearly doesn't meet WP:RS criteria.  Namesbiography posted on my user talk page shortly after I requested the url shortener be blocked asking why their domain was blacklisted.  I find it very unusual that 3.5 hours after the domain was blacklisted that a person claiming to be the owner asks me why it was blacklisted, less than 30 minutes after I requested the url shortener be blocked (where I did mention that it was being used for links to their site).  I'm trying to envision a scenario where it would be noticed that quickly outside of an active campaign being run by that site to add links to Wikipedia (otherwise known as spamming).  They mentioned it was possibly competitors doing this, but this feels unlikely given the timing.  Regardless, this is a new website that clearly doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria and it was being spammed, regardless of who is doing it.  This SPI may be helpful to link the spammers together, I'm not sure how much it matters if there's a link to Namesbiography or not.  They spammed and were blocked for it and the site blacklisted. I don't see how that will change (or should change).  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Please merge this case into Sockpuppet investigations/Ravisharma2019.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the above are ✅ to Ravisharma2019 and is, which given that all they've done is try to add the blacklisted site means I've gone ahead and CU blocked them. All . TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)