Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smart.maverick/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Edit-warring and POV-pushing on 2016 Uri attack:


 * Master:.
 * Socks:.

Since this is such a common subject for POV-pushing, I think there's a real chance of additional socks, or even a link to another master. Some of the edit summaries might also need revdels. Thanks! GABgab 21:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * edit warred at 2016 Uri attack, and after he received a 3RR warning, entered the scene and reinstated his edits . Smart.maverick posted on my talk page  and the discussion was continued by KnowledgeSearcher, . Then Smart.maverick came back and tried to erase the automated signature. Clear WP:DUCK. --  Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Moved from duplicate. GABgab 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If these possible socks do get blocked, please look into pages they've edited or created to check whether or not they should be deleted. (For example's 's userpage can be taken as offensive by some people. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Fapple's 'smart.maverick fan club post' on the latter's talk page quacks loudly to me. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing my own request. GABgab 21:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Moved Kautilya3's comments from the duplicate SPI, which I've reformatted. GABgab 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * and are ✅.  appears  to be directly related. My guess is that it's a troll just trying to get attention.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked now. Tagging sock and closing. GABgab 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sorry to be opening a yet another SPI case so soon after the previous one closed. I wasn't sure at that time, and I thought CU might bring up the other socks. Anyway here it goes:
 * The account Rugby9090 was created at 10:21, 21 September 2016, soon after Smart.maverick deleted the SPI notice from his talk page.
 * Both the users are essentially SPA's, focusing on 2016 Uri attack and the surrounding topics, focusing especially on international reactions: ,
 * Both the users often put their signature on a new line ,
 * Both the users cite policies randomly, without any appreciation of what they say: WP:RNPOV, WP:QUESTIONABLE
 * Both the users make much of editors/edits being "biased": "biased and prejudiced", "WP:BIASED".
 * Both of them are highly impatient, editing at superfast speed (perhaps 5-10 minutes per edit). reminder in 4 minutes,  DRN request filed in nine minutes!

I get the funny feeling of talking to the same person as I interact with both of them. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 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

 * . Same POV-pushing and characteristic use of passive voice ("It is requested") - . Admin action requested: Please block this sock, for starters. As per evidence above, the master clearly understood that a block was imminent, and so they decided to WP:EVADE it. The smoking gun is when the master requested an unblock, saying that they want to "initiate COIN / Dispute Resolution in proper forum." The sock subsequently filed a DRN request. Thus, please extend their block to two weeks. Thanks, GABgab 00:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * sock indef blocked. Master block extended to two weeks. Next block is indef. --regentspark (comment) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Per your CU request on the Rugby9090's talk page, the technical results are as the editor is using a webhost (and appears to be using a remote desktop/open proxy as well). If the behaviour is a strong match, and they appear to attempting to obsfucate their true location, that's telling. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am convinced - should this be closed now? GABgab 19:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, so ✅.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)