Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saleemsinghbhaikhan/Archive

24 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Article in question is Chhota Bheem. Suspected master made this edit to it, complaining about the article and the show. They were CU-blocked in December 2015 by for similar shenanigans with other socks; there are lots of examples, but here is a random sample to get the idea of the pattern of disruptive editing and POV-pushing:.

Compare to these edits, which have all the hallmarks of someone who hates the show for alleged commercialization and poor quality. I think the case is fairly cut-and-dried. GABHello! 20:48, 24 February 2016 (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 are technically ✅ when compared to blocked socks in this category.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

26 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same sort of edit on Chhota Bheem as previous socks. Duck. GABHello! 18:16, 26 February 2016 (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

 * Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

19 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Still complaining about Chhotta Bheem, criticizing it as poor quality, a flop, artistically bad, etc., just like the last socks:. Requesting CU to confirm this and look for sleepers. GABHello! 19:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just found more suspected socks. See these edits: . Here are some edits of past socks to compare: . GABHello! 19:52, 19 March 2016 (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

 * - Please, compare those two with previous socks (diffs: ).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, and  are extremely ; when combined with the behavioural evidence it tips it to ✅. All have been blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

24 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The same disgruntled culture critic complaining about Chhota Bheem on Rajiv Chilaka (the show's creator), just like the last socks:. Pinging, who is familiar with this case. GABHello! 19:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added Colonelization to the list, who is doing the same thing today. Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the edits of the most recent socks: . Thanks, GABHello! 20:04, 26 April 2016 (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

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - per provided diffs.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The three listed accounts are ✅ to each other and are .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I noticed a lot of worrying sockpuppetry in the revision history of Chhota Bheem. I think there might be more than one group of socks currently active (for example, Special:Contributions/Mizilshah and Special:Contributions/NozzelShah appear to be the same), but more noticeably it seems User:Saleemsinghbhaikhan has returned. These SPA have all been complaining about Chhota Bheem, claiming it's inappropriate for kids and relating it to Bollywood, restoring each other's edits , and calling it a flop, much like socks in the past did. Sro23 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2016 (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

 * CheckUser for the master is stale. However, we have three groups here that are ✅ to each other, and each group is ✅ from the others.
 * Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:


 * I think I got all the sleepers but it's possible I missed one or two. : all are blocked awaiting tags and behavioral analysis to determine if this sockmaster has returned or if it's a new one. Katietalk 01:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , doesn't seem to be blocked. Thanks, GABgab 21:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User is now blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I had some trouble calling this one, but the behavioral evidence clinched it. Tagged and closing. GABgab 22:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

More griping about Chhota Bheem on Rajiv Chilaka, just like the previous socks:. Requesting CU to confirm and look for sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 22:17, 20 January 2017 (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

 * - Self-endorsing. Thanks! GABgab 22:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * all other accounts are stale. No sleepers -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a suspected sock based on behavior -- content and language. Closing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)