Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanathndk/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Kas, Hehsan and Sanathdk are all relatively inactive accounts who came back to disrupt the Tamil Eelam article, as obviously seen by the history. I am not sure however, if this is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. I am also not sure if I got the correct master. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They also seem to all have a relation editing Nepal related articles. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As to what Nthep said, see 2016100510016078 as an example (for anyone with OTRS access). Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Based on the number of OTRS tickets demanding deletion of Tamil Eelam I have seen I suspect this is meat rather than socking. Nthep (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * these three accounts were all created within a few minutes of each other and are clearly the same user:
 * The others are much older accounts but were participating in the exact same vandalism at very nearly the same time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The others are much older accounts but were participating in the exact same vandalism at very nearly the same time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The others are much older accounts but were participating in the exact same vandalism at very nearly the same time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The others are much older accounts but were participating in the exact same vandalism at very nearly the same time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would have declined this CU request (and, indeed, I was about to do so, but got in his endorsement first, and I won't presume to start a clerk war). IMO, it's far more likely to be multiple individuals here than a single person creating multiple accounts. Even if a CU does find a connection to be possible / possilikely, it may be difficult to distinguish separate users in a small country (Sri Lanka) with relatively few Internet users who may be using the same ISP (or a very small set of ISPs). And given the extremely polarized nature of the topic in question in Sri Lanka, it's highly possible that multiple users would all hold the same view, meaning that a pile-on could easily occur with little or no active efforts at meatpuppetry. In cases like this, the DUCK principle can be hard to apply — these are more likely a flock of ducks of the same subspecies, rather than a single duck. And even if some of these accounts are in fact socks, that doesn't necessarily mean they all are. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at these accounts, I'd bet most are unrelated. Most of these accounts have long (if sparse) histories predating this particular edit/vandalism war. I suspect it's just a half dozen random Sri Lankan editors drawn to the article by something outside Wikipedia. Tamil Eelam does feature in the news quite a lot, so there are plenty of opportunities. A couple are drive-by accounts (Pathum199 and LK anonymous), and it may be worth checkusering just these two to see if they are bad-hand accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They *could* be each other. Regardless, I see no related accounts or sleepers on the IPs. NativeForeigner Talk 03:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is old, this may be unrelated per OTRS (I don't have access), full protection is working, and individual sanctions may still be applied to disruptive users. Closing without action. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)