Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smauritius/Archive

20 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I doubt these two users are the same. --     L o g     X    19:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This thought occurred to me as well after Aisha just quickpassed one of Smauritius's articles and opened a review of a second. It could just be a case of an inexperienced user wandering into a new area, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I second that; very suspicious, almost obvious. Also, Aisha has taken up another review for an article nominated by a now blocked user User:AniceMathew, in Talk:Shahrukh Khan/GA1. Should we add them to the check list?  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  19:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Endorsing request for checkuser per the behavioral evidence. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * is ✅ as .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * is ❌.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sock tagged and blocked indef, master blocked one week. Pending review deleted. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

09 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Smauritius requested semi-protection of Nigaar Khan, then removed the request and moved it to the article's talk page. I didn't see that he already requested protection before, so I added it to the RPP page, assuming he doesn't know where to add such requests. When I noticed that my assumption was wrong, I was surprised and messaged the user. I then also added a comment to the talk page of the article. Smauritius also added a protection template to the article while it wasn't protected ; I reverted that edit, assuming good faith. After that, one single IP, 180.234.81.77, started to vandalize the article by modifying the Date Of Birth, even after a final warning was given (see talk page of the IP), and continued to vandalize just that one article mercilessly until the IP was blocked and the article was semi-protected. In my opinion, this looks as if Smauritius would have vandalized this article using his IP address to force the administrators to protect the page. I also notified the user, informing him of my suspicion ; he hasn't answered yet. A quick CheckUser would clarify the situation here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AOHONA might also be a sockpuppet; it seems to have been registered by Smauritius just to make those two Date Of Birth vandalism edits; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AOHONA - but I'm not too sure about this one. The IP vandalism is more obvious. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Oh, really as far as i remembered, I had presented Nigaar Khan dob and Sofia Hayat dob. Both were simultaneously changed by different IP Users. I requested to semi-protect both pages. Which i was confused, later i had put it on talk page. Yeah, i agreed that actually i tried to protect the page but it was reverted by you and finally i thanked you for that which i know it was wrong. In further case, i actually don't know why you suspect me of having multiple accounts and making useless comments to vandalize Nigaar Khan to make an administrative registered my semi-protection request. If really i had to exercise destructive and vandal acts on Nigaar Khan, why would I actually clean up the article? You seem quite retarded, do actually all German behave like that?? I advise to spend a million times click the view history of the page, study well before accusing. My major contribution is for Shraddha Kapoor, I had recently contributed on the article using my IP address, please do check if this accusation is correct, check my IP address if they match??? Go ahead with it. I request to block the IP address (180.234.81.77). If it is me then i can't edit, if it isn't, then i actually can edit, that would be easy. At (17:27, 9 December 2013‎) IP user {5.108.234.33} and me, both contributed in the page together, (big question) how come that?? And if i am destroying Nigaar Khan via an IP address, on the other hand why would i actually semi-protect the article. That's so funny—LOL. ---  S mauritius '' diR mWa!! 20:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologizes are there, for exercising personal attacks on you but that make me mess up, accusing/suspecting baseless and useless thing. Sorry ('.') --- S mauritius '' diR mWa!! 04:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Due to privacy concerns, checkusers won't connect an IP to a named account, so no check is possible here. The evidence is pretty weak, as well. In any case, the IP has already been blocked. I think this can be closed now, I don't see the need for any further action. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

15 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I believe that this user has created another sockpuppet. The reasons being this user has previously created sockpuppet accounts. Also see this [] and []. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * SM has previously created sockpuppets. Now there is a new account that I have a strong suspicion it is a new sock. [] shows creation of his user page at 9:47am by SM and then a separate edit from the new account at 9:54 am by RPA []. The responses are odd too, [] which showed SM laughing about it (both are identical to this page []. Then SM goes to the page after it's nominated for deletion as a copyright vio and warns the new user []. Overall disruptive behavior by this editor including WP:POINT issues found [] and []. Overall I see continued disruption and the likelihood of this being a sock seems to be high. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking any action in this because I believe I'm WP:INVOLVED when it comes to SM. However, the SM user page and talk page stuff alone is sufficient in my view to endorse a CU. Also, when SM welcomed RPA, she thanked RPA for her edits at Jacqueline Fernandez, which is an article that SM herself has edited, as well as her confirmed pupppet, User:Aisha Sequeira (in October 2013).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain your case more clearly than this... Rschen7754 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to be socking again, this time with, , and the sleeper account .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the master and the confirmed socks indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

21 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New Account, created after last spi and first edit is to continue a dispute sock edit [] and original by master here [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted by User:Bbb23 in the last investigation also editing and continuing disputes found here []. I'd also like this edit noted in the investigation to show the honesty level of the editor [] which was then declined by User:Callanecc. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:41, 21 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

 * ✅ and blocked (not yet tagged). --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the account, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

03 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Evidence is mostly behavior. Has a poor level of English which is evident in phrasing while editing, editing interests match articles such as Jacqueline Fernandez and Shraddha Kapoor. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both accounts also being used to edit as seen [] by CD account and [] by MDB. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:33, 3 March 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

 * - There is a cross-over of edits on Jacqueline Fernandez which indicates that these two accounts are linked as well as the crossover better Smauritius and Cara desajeitado on Shraddha Kapoor. That looks like enough to justify a CU. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ to each other and master. Ranges are very busy, no obvious sleepers though. NativeForeigner Talk 11:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

06 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same reasons as last time, poor english skills, account creation also happened after last SPI. It also continues a dispute from the last editor on the DOB [] and [] literally the only editor pushing the previous dob which suprise uses the same rationale as found [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we also sleeper sweep too? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: I am sure that this, this, this, and this are all related. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  13:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Krimuk90, Checkuser won't comment on IP identities with named accounts however behavior evidence is strong and they are all located in the same area. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. But is there any way to stop this? -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We can request semi protection for the talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * there is also topic ban or site ban, which, while not physically eliminating the problem of the socks posting, will allow a wider range of tools in dealing with it quickly and efficiently. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking a site ban as part of competence and now evasion issues. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Block me again, i confess i'm Smauritius, enough of this game now, my friends was right i was the world's biggest fool, to contribute in this foundation, i wonder they were right only geek and idiots are interested on doing so? Hate everything the foundation and fellow users. I will try to defame the foundation if i can in social networking site. I was here for reasons not for disruptive, you guys can't even count how many useful edits i made so far... Anyway, the solo user was ABO1 so far who understand the rest RIP. forever. Everything is fake here completely. Wikipedia=to world of illusion. The Yellow Boot.
 * i hope that your future endeavors do not cause you as much frustration as you seem to have encountered here. Farewell. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I had already run a check prior to the confession above. Unsurprisingly is ✅.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged, already blocked. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * found and blocked in a followup check. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

08 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

IP edits to restore a previously reverted change to the nationality of article subject found here by a previous sock [] and here by the new IP sock [] and my subsequent reversion. Basically on this I believe it's a duck test and I know that checkuser won't do a check on IP so this will be purely behavioral. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:15, 8 March 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

 * Meh, as Writ Keeper would say. The article is now protected and the IPs seem to be of the throwaway kind. Don't know whether a block will do much good. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't Smauritius, and whoever was editing using the IP has likely already moved on. Closing.--Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

13 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Brand new user, made the minimum edits nec to eddit past protection on Shraddha Kapoor, edits match the series of edits made by the master, specifically in DOB tagging and English language problems[]. Shows a knowledge of rating categories [] which has been problematic areas in the past Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please also do a sleeper sweep Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have blocked this user indef for their other bad behavior. However, that should not impede any resolution of this SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is a ✅ sock. All the related accounts on the range I checked are already blocked.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Retagged as confirmed. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

15 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

these two are admittedly the same person as seen here []. editing the same pages where previous sock []. Edits on both accounts show an obsession with DOB's []. Creation on both coincide with the last sleeper sweep we did and were created the day after. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * User:Ponyo I'm assuming it's probably an active range? Is there a possibility of a range block would that help? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sleeper check. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both accounts are ✅. No additional socks found on the most common range used.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , the range is too large and has too much collateral to block effectively.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Socks blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

23 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See also reports to ANEW (permalink) and ANI (permalink). Also discussion on 's talk page (permalink).
 * AvNiElNi-nA has edited Shraddha Kapoor (1, 2) and Kangana Ranaut/Talk:Kangana Ranaut (1, 2) both of which have been edited by Smauritius socks (see diffs, first is AvNiElNi-nA and second is a sock).
 * Focus on dates of birth (on the same article/talk page): AvNiElNi-nA and Goandseepaul.
 * Using personal attacks, compare this section (particularly this edit summary) of the page history of this comment by AvNiElNi-nA.

There's not enough for me to indef them at this stage, so I've requested (and self-endorsed a CU request). Also noting that AvNiElNi-nA has been blocked for a week bt Hahc21 for disruptive editing and breaking 3RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Good call, I have been watching this account for a few days now. The evidence is there, poor english skills, personal attacks, edit warring, tagging that makes no sense. Good job to Krimuk and Callanec for the catch. I think what we are seeing here is an attempt to disguise his patterns and not be quite so obvious the problem is that the behaviors don't change just the articles. The personal attacks and English level betrays him everytime he starts and someone disagrees with horrible edits. = I'm sure it comes as no surprise he has been ip evading as well. The level of dishonesty sadly shows they are completely not WP:COMPETENT to be here and one of the reasons they were banned to begin with. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * for confirmation and to run a sleeper check. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * is a ✅ sock account.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Thanks, Ponyo.  → Call me  Hahc  21  21:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

02 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I'm not 100 percent on this one, both are new accounts, both are claiming that they have the maximum knowledge of the content [] [] very poor English, heavily promotional material being introduced and we have past sock involvement with this article through the Cara D account. Misty Ash seems to be more clear has invovlement with similar articles again with Shraddra Kapoor and Sidharth Malhotra, note the dob changes [] again another tell of Smauritius..both of which have been edited by the master and socks. All accounts made within the last three days of each other. Can we do a block evasion sleeper sweep too Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:56, 2 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

 * is ✅, the other two accounts are ❌.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mistyash has been blocked and tagged, other editors are apparently not socks, so this can be closed. --  At am a  頭 21:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

02 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

please see [] although it may also just be a mistale by a new editor too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC) User:Ponyo, The diff is above and a response to [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:17, 2 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 don't see any diffs that show how this user may be connected to Smauritius. In order to run a CU there needs to be credible evidence of a connection. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The diff you link to was in response to this message Katieh5584 left on Roxie123's talk page. I still don't see how this is supposed to be Smauritius other than the fact the new user didn't include a header when starting a new section (an extremely common occurrence with new editors). --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks like it's just a new editor mistake, so I'm closing this as no action is needed. --  At am a  頭 21:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

07 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

To evade age-related dispute at Shraddha Kapoor's page, started own separate filmography page here to push agenda! KRIMUK  90  ✉  09:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to show evidence when requesting a checkuser. In this case I believe it's fairly solid, it's a username combination of Shraddha Kapoor and Jacqueline Fernandez both articles edoted by the master and numerous socks. Also note the DOB in [] which has been a near constant area of obsession by Smauritius. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:49, 7 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

 * ✅sock has been blocked and tagged.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

29 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck test, same obsessions in editing, poor English, edit warring behaviors at Shradda Kapoor [] and involvement at Varun Dhawan as well which has also been a problematic area for them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest a sleeper sweep as well. To be clear the obsessions in editing is related to bollywood and dob arguments or edit wars. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:01, 29 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

 * ✅ sock, no sleepers found on the most commonly used range. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Courcelles 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

01 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

behavioral evidence of block evasion as seen [] and the most recent sock [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:40, 1 May 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

 * Probably good at the time, but stale now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

13 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Created after the last sock. Articles being edited are the same as master ie Shradda Kapoor, Jacqueline Fernandez, Katrina Kaif. Also cDOB obsessions confirmed sock hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aradhya_Rai. Also you can see [] which is the same source that the master likes using to verify DOB. I am mass reverting their additions at this time for ban evasion Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:13, 13 June 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

 * ✅ and blocked.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 23:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged and close. Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

12 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This is the first account since autoblock was disabled on this range. The first edits are to revert to previous versions by the master at 2 pages. The three page edited are also consistent with master's habits. Relevant diffs is my reversion originally at [] and then the revert more then a month later, also  []. Editing patterns also show not only an obsession with bollywood figures but also an obsession with adding gallery pictures and removing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we also sleeper sweep. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:43, 12 July 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

 * - No obvious sleepers. Tiptoety  talk 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged. Rschen7754 04:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

23 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The only person making the claims that about boston university [] has been Smauritius. please see master's edits [], [], I looked but there are loads of edits can't find the original insertion by the master but the edit summary on the last link is telling promosing sourcing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:11, 23 July 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 to be .--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

28 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

All the same tells as last time, some of their first editys are to reinstate their prefered dob [] last sock and new one [] if you also look at the history is obssessed with models and specifically pictures and dates of birth which a vast majority of these edits on the new aqccount are doing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:35, 28 October 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

 * From a technical standpoint is  to be a sock of .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe the accounts are different individuals. Omio Asad has added the birthdates to the same articles where Aradhya Rai (a confirmed sock) has been shown to remove the dates: Katrina Kaif (Omio Asad Aradhya Rai) Shraddha Kapoor (Omio Asad Aradhya Rai). Also I'm not sure if there's a consistent "preferred date" as a previous sock set it to March 3, 1989 and others to March 3 1988. (Mistyash OMGmelissa). Coupled with the checkuser data, I don't think the behavioral evidence is strong enough for a block. Mike V  •  Talk  19:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)