Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64/Archive

09 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This entire request centers around - COI editor on Shekhar Chatterjee. Behaviourlly his method is to remove any article or claim that there is an Indian entrepreneur who would have become a CEO at a younger age than Mr. Chatterjee. Examples include:
 * Claiming "Editing Capitalisation" when it was actually removing "worlds youngest"
 * Refuting the claim that that Sindhuja Rajamaran holds the Guinness World Record for the title of youngest CEO and removing it from the article here, despite it being sourced from the Hindustan Times.

As for the suspected socks
 * makes a near identical claim regarding the Guinness record at Talk:Sindhuja Rajamaran
 * makes edits to Chatterjee's page adding "worlds" and "youngest" to the page
 * adds Chatterjee to List of Indian entrepreneurs, removes notability tag from Chatterjee's page here
 * Removes AfC template in order to move to mainspace (according to summary) whilst Chatterjee's page is in Draft space.
 * blanks the Shekhar Chatterjee AfD page. Also makes an edit to the long closed Articles for deletion/Sreelakshmi Suresh (4th nomination), using the signature of another editor here, this is something that Sanjoy has done in the past, for example here, here and here (IP currently blocked)
 * (blocked by has made only one edit, and that is to the Chatterjee AfD here
 * has an exact duplicate of the Chatterjeee article in userspace at User:Tsouti1979/sandbox, which Sanjoy has edited. Tsouti has also edited the Chatterjee Article while it was in draft space.

I would also encourage and  to have a glance for anything that I may have missed. I have requested Checkuser review, although I don't know what a CU would be able to add given the broad range if IPs, other than confirm that the users are geographically similar to the IPs. I do think this is pretty obvious. kelapstick(bainuu) 15:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * There is a huge range of IPs used by Sanjoy64 and/or his socks, I started noting them but most only have 1-2 edits on the Chatterjee page (or the pages mentioned by kelapstick above) so I've decided to leave them out unless requested. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just coming here from Nick's talk page. I'm not involved in this nor am I a CheckUser, however personally I find the note left for why User:Tsouti1979 is suspected, as more coincidental than suspicious. After all, the user sandbox is meant as a playground of sorts, whether to test things with or to do actual work at--both can be done at a regular playground, no? If this SPI ends up with a block towards the accounts, I personally think that User:Tsouti1979 should be left alone, and if it comes back to doing what Sanjoy64 did, then we may have grounds to add it to the block list. -LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 19:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
to compare Tsouti1979 with Sanjoy64 and/or WinkieFreez. Having the Shekhar Chatterjee article in the sandbox (User:Tsouti1979/sandbox) is highly suspicious. All those IPs look like WP:DUCKs to me.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CheckUser isn't going to be too helpful here because there are open proxies and webhosts being used so this will need to be assessed by behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

10 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All the above unregistered IPs are single-purpose accounts whose only edits have been to approach other editors seeking support for Sanjoy64. CU could help identify other active IP accounts for the purposes of a rangeblock. Psychonaut (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Adding: JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It would seem to be easier and more effective to simply page protect the AfD and subject article rather than block a wide range of IPs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree, I protected the article a few days ago. It doesn't seem like page protection is required at the AfD at this point. The most recent IPs, were mass posting on Bureaucrat talk pages (among others).--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I blocked all the canvass IPs for 2 weeks (same period as Sanjoy64's block). These are likely public computers so long term blocks would not be appropriate.  Hopefully this guy moves on to something else and leaves Wikipedia alone once the AfD is over (which will happen before the blocks expire). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. CheckUser may never be used to link named account with IPs because of privacy concerns. But, since all the edits of those IPs are identical, I believe some blocks are needed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All IPs are blocked. Closing this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

02 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Sanjoy64 was blocked after disrupting his Wikipedia to make a point about his son's biography being deleted. One of the articles he disrupted was Suhas Gopinath. Yesterday that article was nominated for deletion by User:Preeti Sharma's Knowledge. Although Preeti is recently registered, it is probably good faith and not related. The nomination spurred User:Dormantos to register and immediately leave a long diatribe on the Gopinath AfD talking about the subject's claim to have been the World's Youngest CEO - the exact claim that Chatterjee was supposedly notable for and cause of Sanjoy's disruption. Dormantos then asked me to comment on the AfD and gave me a Barnstar for being kind. In the Chatterjee AfD, I had voted for keep and otherwise had shown kindness to Sanjoy64 (both on and off wiki) who was obviously frustrated about his son's AfD. The only explanation for why a new account would target me is previous interaction.

Although Dormantos' userpage claims to be a Brit who attended an American university, he writes like someone who knows only Indian English. To me it reminds me exactly of the style of writing and argumentation of Sanjoy64.

Also of note, Sanjoy64's most recent unblock request was denied March 31. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added above.  It is much older account (2012) who's only focus has been to target the deletion of Sreelakshmi Suresh (or the youngest CEO/web designer reference), which was another article that Sanjoy had disrupted. Sanjoy left a talkback message on LVerina's talk page here. Account recently became active again at the end of March after a near two year hiatus. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Is that quacking, honking or tweeting that I can hear? No idea, but there's some sort of avian species involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He appears to have copied the biography on his user page in part from User:Shirik. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While theoretically everything on my user page is released under GFDL/CC, you're right that the user page does bear a level of uncomfortable similarity to mine. Since I was asked to confirm, the account is definitely not operated by me. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been the target of these editors due to my involvement at the article Sreelakshmi Suresh. Sanjoy64 copied my user page, a seemingly pattern of these sock puppets. I was very surprised to see LVerina return to editing after a two year hiatus, and at the same time Sanjoy64 made some big edits to the article, namely removing content, and then my restoration of that content. I definitely feel that in this case if the editor appears to be technically indistinguishable then DUCK does come into play. It's something I brought up on the talk page on why an article about an individual in a relatively obscure context receives so much attention. Mkdw talk 22:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Dormantos has almost exclusively edited AFD discussions, voting "strong delete" every time, on the grounds that they "fail BLP" (including a company in one case), which certainly suggests an intention to disrupt. The knowledge level shown (starting an SPI etc.) also suggests that it's not their first account. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comments below by and, LVerina's focus has been entirely on Sreelakshmi Suresh (that is the only article/talk page the user in question has edited on). That is really the basis of my suspicion, however I concur with Bbb23 regarding the English usage/proficiency. Of note I have removed the suspected sockpuppet template from their userpage (Added by ) as unlikely.  As such, I take no objection to closing this out with no further investigation into LVerina, it looks as though I am simply mistaken.  Cheers,  --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've indeffed and tagged Dormantos. I found the substantive evidence and the stylistic evidence persuasive. I had a harder time with LVerina. I found the overlap suspicious. I found the timing suspicious. I found the substantive evidence suspicious, but I got hung up on style. Sanjoy and Dormantos's English are very similar. LVerina's is much more fluid and they consistently use exclamation points. An editor can make good English bad, but it's hard to make bad English good unless you very carefully plan the deception from the get-go. Notwithstanding my hesitation, I have a great deal of respect for, so I will ping another member of the team to see if he wants to look at it: ? Although none was requested, I thought about running a CU, but based on the archive and the general difficulties with Indian IP addresses, I decided not to even try. (Doesn't help that I'm new to the CU business, but if that were the only problem, it could be remedied by a more seasoned checkuser running it.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I ran a check on Dormantos due to their unblock request and found that they are a ✅ match to Sanjoy64. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just a bit behind DoRD with the unblock request, but for what it's worth I'll second that Dormantos is ✅ to Sanjoy64. Presently, I think the evidence presented for LVerina is on the slim end of the spectrum, so I have not performed a check. Could you provide more evidence that would establish a stronger connection? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 17:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. If there's further information down the line that connects it to Sanjoy64, please feel free to re-open the case. Mike V • Talk 18:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

18 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Urbantown recreated Sanjoy's article Maraju Sumanth in the same form as when it was deleted, which shouldn't have been possible as it was deleted before Urbantown even registered. Like the previous confirmed socks, it demonstrates a precocious familiarity with Wikipedia alphabet soup and project space discussions.

The IP account has awarded Urbantown account fake barnstars in the name of other editors, and is from the same range as the previously suspected IP socks. Psychonaut (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2015 (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 ✅ to . Blocked and tagged. I blocked the IP for one week. Deleted multiple pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

22 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-admitted sock of Sanjoy64. Psychonaut (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2015 (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
, user admits socking.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a self admitted sock puppet. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

11 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Created page, which is currently up for A7 deletion. The contains text that is very reminiscent of Sanjoy, as are the  they made on the nominating editor. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Quack quack. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked, but would appreciate a final confirmation and quick check for other socks. Thanks CUs. Nick (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nick, from a purely technical standpoint these accounts are related to one another.  Tiptoety  talk 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  07:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

18 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-admitted. , filing just for archival purposes. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:30, 18 June 2015 (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

 * Closing. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

09 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The primary evidence is recreation of Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee, which has only been edited by sock/meatpuppets of Sanjoy64. There's also their admitting to having a COI on the draft. Additional evidence comes from similar editing patterns - adding advert, COI, and A7 tags (the A7s have mostly been overturned, similar to Sanjoy's nominations). Primefac (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2015 (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 ✅. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

11 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Evidence:
 * Sanjoy's last sockpuppet "Seawarm" was blocked at 23:26 on July 9th, UTC. DeepikaDash was created at 16:06 on July 10th (the next day).
 * DeepikaDash recreated the same "Shekhar Chatterjee" A7 article that past socks of Sanjoy has, and even did so in the last confirmed sock's userspace. ~ RobTalk 10:16, 11 July 2015 (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

 * Admin action needed - . Block the obvious sock.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed this account in another context without seeing this report. is ✅. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)