Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rvthkr4/Archive

06 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The suspected sockmaster, the oldest account among the ones I am sure about, uses Indian POV to edit Pakistan administered kashmir to Pakistan occupied kashmir. Two other POV edits include ... and just now this. Adityagangrade92, did the same thing more blatantly on Nov 4. Vissingdu has made the same edits to the same article as well. These three are an obvious WP:DUCK whether, technically, they are meats or socks. For other two suspected users, Showmethedoor seems to be related to these accounts (and seems to be the oldest) but I don't know for sure if he is the master. But it seems to me that he might have called in these meat puppets in anycase. His edits on the same lines are:. I am also not very sure about Jinishans as his note to Showmethedoor was not probably the best way sockmasters leave notes to themselves but he has been canvassing other editors, in addition to Showmethedoor, he thought would support him as well. And then he has been the major proponent with a long winding debate on talkpage of the same POV as all these users. However, I kept assuming good faith all along and other than for obvious canvassing with diffs, I did not accuse him before of sockpuppetry. Now that I am seeing a pattern, I think this is evidence enough to get them all checked out together. lTopGunl (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a genuine reason to believe this as those new / single purpose accounts are doing the same thing as you (Jinishans) and might be the same as you given that you previously also informed other users on wikipedia of coming to help. It does not mean that I am maligning you. Investigating it is the civil most way of handling this by letting a checkuser confirm it. I did not accuse you in speculation, instead I gave editing history as evidence (it might be so that it is a co-incidence but it does not happen much) and this has nothing to do with your opinion on the content you want to add per se. I can agree to disagree on a content dispute. The problem is that new user accounts are adding the same thing into the article and gaming the system. If you are not using multiple accounts, you really have nothing to worry about as a checkuser has the ability to identify accounts being used by the same person. You can only be held responsible if you actually are using them. For the other accounts, it seems too unlikely that they are not related some how atleast to each other anyway. All editors commenting on the talk page are long established wikipedia editors, some of them I did not even know before, so their support for me has nothing to do with using multiple accounts. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added : Second edit and he's back to the same WP:DUCK editing; changed to occupied Kashmir. lTopGunl (talk) 6:54 am, Today (UTC+5)

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


 * TopGun, what's the problem with you. You're trying to malign people to push your agenda of not including the word 'occupatin' in the Azad Kashmir page. I don't even know what you're talking above, but let me tell you, I don't have multiple accounts. I might've done some mistakes due to the fact I even don't know what's a TalkPage before you told me that I need to post it there. I that I've to send a mail untill you requested to post it in Azad Kashmir Talk Page. I still respect you, but you're degrading yourself by maligning a genuine Wikipedia user and a novice contributor. You're trying to Defame, Threaten, and I can even accuse you (i don't even know what Wikipedia rule is) offline, hence suddenly 4-5 folks came to support your Point Of View in Azad Kashmir Talk Page. I still respect you, but you're degrading yourself by maligning a genuine Wikipedia user and a novice contributor. Please try to correct yourself and hope you know the rule Please do not bite the newcomersJinishans (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Checkuser should be endorsed. WP:DUCK Fai  zan  18:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * TopGun, I'm not sure what Wikipedia Rule should be applicable to you, you can tell me, but I strongly feel you're an proponent of removing 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' word in every article in Wikipedia related to Pakistan or on the J&K issue, which is a POV again. I can see you're targeting articles and users who try to add this term wrt J&K issue in whatever page it may be. You're fighting tooth and nail and trying to pull support offline i feel from other like minded people supporting your POV and opposing to just a word Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in Azad Kashmir first paragraph with me for the last 1 month. In that regard, you've blamed me Edit War though I've just edited and reverted 2-3 times (as I'm a newbie to Edit in Wikipedia) and blamed me of having multiple user (here). Wikipedia is for providing information to the world on a topic, not what you/me feel or think is right. Why not just have this term 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' is mentioned in these few relevant articles and move on. Just think about it. We already have few consensus from few in Talk:Azad Kashmir that we should have Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as it's been re-directed in Google, Yahoo, Bing search engines, even within Wikipeida as well. Above all, we've the Instrument of Ascension by Raja Hari Singh as well given to India to be part of India, and we know the history.Jinishans (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * From CU data alone I see no obvious relation between any of these accounts, except that = . Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of any convincing CU data, I see no reason to conclude that sockpuppetry is going on here. It could be sockpuppetry, but possibly meatpuppetry, or it could simply be a case of several people all holding similar views (i.e., multiple "ducks" of the same species, but not the same individual duck).  I'm closing this on grounds of insufficient evidence.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)