Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shalini o Dubey/Archive

03 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All of the IP's and users are the only contributors to Dipanshu Tiwari and the only defenders on its AfD. They all edit Indian subjects or tech subjects and most come from India.|This edit also makes it seem like their is a connection Alexschmidt711 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, this IP is a known internet spammer, according to Project Honeypot. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2014 (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

 * I've blocked both accounts (one soft) and the IPs. There maybe some meat puppetry here, however given the amount of disruption I've blocked them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

13 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The IPs, who had previously been blocked for five days in a previous investigation, are at it again. The first one is adding refernces to Dipanshu Tiwari to Vishwanath Tiwari. The creator of the article, Don shyam, also tried to create Golu Tiwari. Wgolf reported him, but did not open the investigation. The other IP |added to Vishwanath Tiwari. Don shyam also added which I speedily deleted twice.Alexschmidt711 (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Don shyam is a sockpuppet of Shalini o Dubey. Not only did he re-add a fake photo of Dipanshu Tiwari (previously added by sockpuppet of Shalini o Duney Dailynewsworld) to Wikimedia Commons, but the article for Vishwanath Tiwari has no sources (probably a hoax), and the photo was captioned with "Own work" (which seems fairly unlikely for a billionaire) like Dipanshu Tiwari's photograph. I tagged the article as a hoax. He also created Golu Tiwari(which probably contained a photo of Dipanshu), which was speedily deleted. Vishwanath is also supposed to be Dipanshu's grandfather. An IP reverted my removal of this reference. I missed four accounts in the 223.176.x.x range that also edited the article. They are: 223.176.191.230 223.176.169.157 223.176.181.212 223.176.165.142 Alexschmidt711 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC) The current purpose of the sockpuppets seems to be to create a family of Indian billionaires known as the Tiwaris related to the real disgraced politician N.D.Tiwari for as-yet unknown reasons. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've no trouble believing that the IPs are being used by Don shyam, but apart from the previous block have you got any evidence which shows that they are socks of Shalini o Dubey? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's enough for me. Though in the future it would be very helpful if you include diffs as evidence. Account blocked and tagged, IPs for 3 days. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

06 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

WP:DUCK.I've been waiting for the Tiwaris to come back for some time. Swati Umrao recreated Vishwanath Tiwari. I first noticed the first two IPs' new edits, a long time ago, but ignored it after it went silent. The other IP added this about Dipanshu Tiwari. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (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
I blocked all of the above per WP:DUCK. The account I blocked indefinitely, the three IPs I blocked for a week. (Interestingly enough, the first two IPs were both blocked twice in the past, once each for 5 days, once again each for 3 days). I'm not quite sure how useful it really is to give these IPs short blocks, they'll probably be back in a month or so anyway, but I thought I'd follow precedence here. With all parties blocked, I'm marking this for closure.--  At am a  頭 18:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're comfortable that the IP is stable feel free to block for longer periods of time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)