Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shrik88music/Archive

09 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The same kind of edits of actor Rajesh Khanna glorification. The second user is now blocked for repeated POV edits on articles related to the actor. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:37, 9 January 2011 (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

 * - Likely, but CU will confirm. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * , and  are all ✅. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked and tagged, master blocked a week for puppeting. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

10 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Same glorification of Rajesh Khanna, same unsourced POV. Any sleepers? Geniac (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2011 (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
✅ plus:



Shrik88music's block is now indefinite. One IP range has now been blocked. –MuZemike 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

05 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The primary evidence for me here is that - with no prior acquaintance - this user (who shares Shrik88music's intense interest in glorifying Rajesh Khanna; ) came to my talk page to ask me for assistance with a content dispute. For some reason, Shrik88 regarded me as his go-to person on these matters, and even recommended previously that one of his other socks (User:Quicklight) should come talk to me. Note their shared interest in labeling Khanna: ;. Paglakahinka certainly seems to have strong familiarity with Wikipedia; his second day of editing. Even his announced "reluctance" to directly save changes To Khanna's article on day 3 of editing suggests prior history there. Linguistically, their conversation styles seem similar enough. There's a lot of quacking here, imo. I believe given the sockmaster's history that a sock drawer check would be very useful here, as this person has shown a tendency in the past to stockpile them to try to bypass consensus. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Meh, I was coming to this page for the same purpose and found that MRG had just updated it. I'm just getting up to speed on the new account's edits (as it's been spread across quite a few on my watchlist) and Rajesh Khanna bit seems to seal the deal. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I'm not sure I did it correctly to request checkuser. I forgot to change checkuser=no to yes. (blush) Sorry! I'm still waking up. :) (Can somebody help fix it if I did it incorrectly?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The info on previous accounts is, but I can tell you this account is using the same IP range as previous accounts. TN X Man 14:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Blocked and tagged, based on IP + behavioral evidence. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

16 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The same kind of obsession with Rajesh Khanna and the same kind of edits on his article. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:31, 16 August 2011 (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 per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

31 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Last appeared as when they were tendentiously and disruptively editing J. Jayalalithaa. The pattern has begun again today: similar edits on the same article. I sense quacking. Sitush (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can a checkuser be done? Forgot to tick the box in Twinkle, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Passes the duck test, but we've unearthed simultaneous socks in the past, so I'll wait for the verdict on that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Maybe; this could also be Kumarrajendran. Endorsing for clarification. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ as being the same as, along with . TN X Man  14:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

09 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There's very clear quacking, right down to the verbiage in the single edit used by some of the previous socks. (, top comment) I think we need a sock drawer check, since last check pulled out an extra. I have not blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Looks OK to close and archive. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 14:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, along with. TN X Man 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

26 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Almost clearly a sock - the same kind of Rajesh Khanna fanaticism and the account was created soon after the previous socks were blocked. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Just cursorily looking at the edits, I'm inclined to think that this may just be coincidental... considering that the last socking incident was from almost a year ago. 81M (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to proceed, please provide some diffs. Thank you, Tiptoety  talk 03:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety is right, going through 12x contribs + contribs from old socks is a little much to ask. Please provide diffs. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing pending no further evidence presented. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

28 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The user shares same passion of glorifying Bollywood actor Rajesh Khanna as his previous sock User:Paglakahinka did. Paglakahinka has introduced some non-notable grading by "Bollywood Guide Collections" on many film articles of Rajesh Khanna. Example of Naukri and Palkon Ki Chhaon Mein. Similar such edit is done by Onceshook1 on Shehzada. It was also backed with a fake reference that did not support the claim in his later edit. Paglakahinka was also involved in glorifying Rajesh Khanna on biographies of other actors. Here he adds how Hema Malini's films with Khanna were hit. He also adds a lot of statistics like "A made 5 hit and 2 flop films with B", "C was lead actor in D's 12 films and played minor role in 3 films" and then lists down all those film. Such style is also seen in Onceshook1's editing here on Rakhee's article, on Asha Parekh, on Shabana Azmi and Poonam Dhillon. Note: Previous SPI against same user was closed as reporter had not provided any proofs for the claim. In case more proofs are required i can dig out in history. §§ §§ {T/C} 09:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I have had a very strong feeling for some time that Onceshook1 is a new incarnation of Shrik88music. In addition to the points made above, which I agree with, their writing style is very similar (though that could be due to them having the same first language, clearly not English), they both have real trouble understanding he concept of No original research despite both talk pages being full of exhortations to read WP:NOR, and they don't engage in discussions on article talk pages, taking the discussions instead to user talk pages (their own and other editors'). --bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that this is Shirik88music, I asked (if he was Shirik's sock) and warned him that if he continues his past behavior, he will be blocked. I believe it has come to that now. I think it might be stale for a CU, but I'm ready to do a WP:DUCK block if there isn't any evidence to the contrary. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no doubt it is Shirik88music - I have filed an SPI in the past, and since no one really took notice of it, and I had no time to go through the sock's history to provide links, I just let it be when it got closed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Contribs too stale to be useful for CU. Indeffing on behavioral evidence and closing.

07 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Greatwords1 was registered a few days after User:Onceshook1, the latest in the line of Shrik88music sockpuppets, had been blocked. Diffs provided here are compared to Onceshook1 rather than the original account (since Onceshook1 confirmed that they were the same person as Shrik88music). Greatwords1 focuses on adding a lot of details about the various roles of Indian actors, using the exact same kind of wording as Onceshook1: compare and, and expecially  and. Greatwords1 also displays the same indifference to the sourcing policies of Wikipedia as has been seen in previous incarnations of Shrik88music. On User_talk:Qwyrxian, Qwyrxian has been trying to explain to Gw1 that facts must be supported by reliable sources, but it's like talking to a wall, which also tallies with experiences from Onceshook1 and other S88M socks. In the now-deleted article Himansh Kohli, Gw1 added (non-reliable) sources to various BLP facts to the article's talk page, and argued that since the sources were there the facts could be included in the article. Adding sources to the talk page instead of the article is something Shrikmusic88 socks tend to do.

One of the most typical editing actions of Shrik88music is glorifying Rajesh Khanna, and this edit seems rather typical for that. bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 7 December 2012 (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 the sock. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

08 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

PrithviSanju exhibits the exact same editing behaviour as Shrik88music, Onceshook1, Greatwords1 and the rest. In addition to a strong focus on editing Rajesh Khanna with edits such as this one and this one, praise of Rajesh Khanna is inserted in other articles:, , (which is not so much praise as an irrelevant reference to Khanna stuck into the article)

In addition, PrithviSanju has an extremely similar writing style as the members of the Shrik88music sock drawer, which may in part be due to possibly sharing the same native language (evidently not English), as seen in  and. There's a number of both specific phrases/idioms and idiosyncratic grammar exhibited by these editors.

It's worth noting that this account was registered a few days after the previous sock was blocked. Previous accounts are probably too old and stale for CU to be useful, but it might be worthwile to check for sleepers, given how many socks there have been in the past. bonadea contributions talk 09:37, 8 March 2013 (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
--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No diffs, and it's not apparent. NativeForeigner Talk 06:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

13 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The behaviour of the suspect here (PrithviSanju) is quite similar with the behaviour of one proven sock who used to add non-important statistics in articles. The users mainly edit biographies of Indian film personalities and have filled their pages with trivial statistics. eg... A worked in B's 12 film, of which 7 were hit, 3 were moderate and 2 were flop. And then he lists down all these 12 films. Also, both editors have great affection with years. They insist on putting A worked in 16 film from 1967-1972 and 23 films in 1972-1982, etc. Examples from Onceshook1 are on Rakhee's article, on Asha Parekh, on Shabana Azmi and Poonam Dhillon. Our suspects examples are on Pran, on Mumtaz, on T. K. Ramamoorthy and on M. S. Viswanathan. Note: Previous report on PrithviSanju was archived for not submitting differences for quite a long time. In case more differences are needed, please let me know. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:05, 13 April 2013 (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; closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

12 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same quacks like that of previous socks of and. The user is very much interested in statistics and keeps adding all mathematics on biographical articles of Bollywood personalities; like A & B worked in 22 films, C & A worked in 13 films, B & C worked in 7 films and blah blah. Examples from Onceshook1 are on Rakhee, on Asha Parekh, on Shabana Azmi and Poonam Dhillon. Examples from PrithviSanju are on Pran, on Mumtaz, on T. K. Ramamoorthy and on M. S. Viswanathan. And now our suspect makes same edits on Pran, M. S. Viswanathan, Manna Dey.
 * Note: The user also seems to be interested in another TV show actor and has his article in user space at User:Lionbase1234/Himansh Kohli who plays lead role in Humse Hai Liife. The Tv show article is extensively edited by another sock in past. the article on Himansh Kohli has been deleted many times. Can some admin check if all the versions were created by some socks of this same user? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 20:17, 12 July 2013 (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'm not 100% convinced on behavioural evidence alone. There is certainly some similarity of editing area between the previous accounts and this alleged new one, but they could be controlled by different people. There are recent enough contribs from PrithviSanju for a CU so I'm asking for one to confirm.  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 11:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The following are all ✅ as socks of :

However, there's a proxy involved, and before closing this, I'd like another CU who's better at rangeblocks to see if there's a rangeblock we can put in place. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've blocked and tagged the sock accounts; I'll leave this open for someone else to take a look. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - I also found these accounts which are ✅ from those above:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

30 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editing articles about Indian actors, including Shashi Kapoor which was edited by several previous socks. Stylistically extremely similar to the earlier socks; there is also the same obsession with numbers, with listing every possible permutation of actors, and with labelling films as "hits", "flops", "failures" and similar. , and  are typical exx.

Since he has previously created many socks together, as recently as a month ago, I'm requesting CU to check for sleepers. bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 30 August 2013 (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

 * - Evidence makes me quite sure this is the same user. Very congruent due to writing stye and other tendencies. (diffs provided by bonadea) NativeForeigner Talk 19:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ as well as.
 * Following are :
 * . Tiptoety  talk 04:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . Tiptoety  talk 04:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the accounts except for Rajesh Khanna, which does not exist. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

04 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck, quacking in megaphone.

Three days ago, Geniac removed a lot of POV content that had been added to Rishi Kapoor, and this IP's only edits have been to restore that content (with lots of trivia details about numbers of films, whether they are "disasters" or "major successes", etc etc) , ,. bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

04 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK. Again. The previous obvious IP sock is blocked, and along comes this one and does the same thing: bonadea contributions talk 18:48, 4 September 2013 (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 agree. Blocking new IP for one week. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

08 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Tayyabalisnap:  Recently blocked IP sock:

Original research and POV language, as per usual. bonadea contributions talk 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Another one (Gearaid), reinserting original research in Asrani - CU requested since there may be other new accounts as well.

Diffs: old blocked sock, Gearaid. Asrani has been a frequent target for several different Shrik88music socks.

Would there be any point in asking for a community ban, seeing as how the person has no intention of ever adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? (I know this is not the place to request a ban, I just wonder if it would be worth the effort starting the discussion at ANI). bonadea contributions talk 13:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a third account, Goodydowel, in the list above. Diffs: recent sock, this account.

Spitfire - thanks, I suspected as much. No point in wasting more time on this guy's account, is there. --bonadea contributions talk 13:31, 8 September 2013 (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

 * the diffs provided show a clear connection. Endorsed for a sleeper check and to see if anything can be done to hit the underlying IP addresses. Bonadea: there is not much point requesting a community ban as it won't in practice change anything in terms of how this user is dealt with. The discussion would pretty much be a waste of time. SpitfireTally-ho! 13:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No sleepers. Tiptoety  talk 00:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Rschen7754 06:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

11 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

IP editor, only edit so far is, which was to restore blocked sock Tayyabalisnap's edit. bonadea contributions talk 14:45, 11 September 2013 (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

 * Obvious sock is obvious. Given the IP is dynamic I only blocked it for 24 hours (CheckUser was not used). Tiptoety  talk 18:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

19 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Recent, previously blocked sock:. This account:

Previous MO has included creating a number of accounts, so CU requested to check for sleepers. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 19 September 2013 (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

 * Not that the technical evidence is strong, but this one quacks. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

06 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Standard operating procedure at Rajesh Khanna, unfortunately diffs are not effective as one sock comes with an edit, another comes with a support, another comes with a different supporting viewpoint and so on -- the individual contributions of each sock, mostly 2-4 edits matches with the history of the SPI archive. I've had to protect the article now, but there's too much noise on the talk page too. A lot of different IP ranges being used, so a range block doesn't appear to be feasible. If there aren't any counter viewpoints I will block these on behavioral evidence. However, a CU for sleepers is requested. One IP range used is a /19 around 120.138.125.44, trying to figure out the rest. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:39, 6 October 2013 (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

 * Your better using behavoir, CU is not of any help, though I did not check Mohammedanirfan due to apparent lack of direct evidence. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks DQ, already blocked two on behavioral, and a few IP socks across different ISPs and ranges. I added the third account based on a comment from another editor, while the posts elsewhere are in line with past behavior, the presence on the main article hasn't happened yet, so I'm not blocking that. Marking for close. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

25 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

And s/he is back. edit by a previous sock, edit by this account. Also edited as an IP. Because of S88m's tendency to create batches of socks, I'm requesting CU. bonadea contributions talk 09:53, 25 September 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

 * is ✅ from, who themselves share many similarities with the suspected master. For example, the edit summaries here are very similar: Preferubs this edit summary from a sock and this edit summary from the master account. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both and . (Note: ShairU and Preferubs aren't registered.)  Mike V  •  Talk  22:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

29 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The MO is the same as ever: editing Hindi film articles (in this case M. S. Viswanathan), adding trivia and original research such as the number of films Viswanathan has composed for - adding the number of films an actor has worked in is something of a trademark of S88M's. The few edits he has made have been large sweeping changes, mainly restoring material previously added by at least one previously blocked S88M sock: cf  and. bonadea contributions talk 20:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment to clerk note - the current account added the same text to the same article as a previously confirmed sock did eight months ago, per the diffs I posted above. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence. --bonadea contributions talk 05:32, 3 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

 * Old material (from the sockmaster and his past confirmed/presumed sockpuppets) is over eight months old, and the new suspected sock edited on a different article. I just don't see a strong enough link here to carry a socking accusation.  This could be a sock, or it could just be a different duck of the same species (someone else from the same area and similar background/interests).  If there were stronger evidence, I might support a CU (which I recognize was not requested here), but a CU is impossible in any case because all the old accounts are stale.  Unless someone else objects, I propose to close this one without taking any action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When considered in their entirety, the two diffs provided are not really that similar. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

08 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Previous socks, , kept adding a lot of trivial statistics in articles related to Indian film/tv celebrities. For example "A made X number of hits and Y number of semi-hits and Z number of flops in the year YYYY". (Their differences are shown in their respective SPI cases.) Our current suspect has made same such edit introducing such unsourced trivia at Jeetendra. This is very much Wp:DUCKy to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:37, 8 December 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

 * I'm closing this for the lack of evidence. There is only one edit from this suspect, and so it's hard to conclusively connect him to the master.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

30 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Previous socks, , kept adding a lot of trivial statistics in articles related to Indian film/tv celebrities. For example "A made X number of hits and Y number of semi-hits and Z number of flops in the year YYYY". (Their differences are shown in their respective SPI cases.) Our current suspect has made similar edits on Rajesh Khanna (diff), Lata Mangeshkar (diff), Laxmikant–Pyarelal (diff) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:01, 30 December 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare Ajay2211 to if possible. There is certain similarity in style and theme ( vs. ), although Ableobsrve made just one edit.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ajay2211 and Ableobsrve are ❌.
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I've blocked the confirmed accounts without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.
 * I've blocked the confirmed accounts without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.
 * I've blocked the confirmed accounts without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.
 * Tagging and closing.