Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Subhayan Mukherjee/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I've already blocked some of them as a sock. PIN 712201 is being more subtle this time around. For past socks, usually they would upload and use copyrighted images. Get blocked. A new user pops up trying to upload and use the same copyrighted images. Rinse and repeat. Other calling cards are only editing Serampore, Serampore College or anything Serampore related. Moving pages so Serampore is in the title. I also see similar edits via 117.194.x.x subnets. was blocked by another admin while only editing Serampore articles. has been dealing with this sock too. Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 25 October 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

 * - I blocked and tagg all except PIN 712201 for whom I'm not sure. PIN 712201 should be compared to .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 12:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These accounts are ✅ to each other:


 * I'll block them shortly and let the clerks tag. Katietalk 13:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but may I ask what's going on? Thanks, GABgab 17:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - So I need a second opinion here. There are possibly more accounts related to this SPI, and maybe even possibly another SPI. I would just like to make sure they get looked at. I can't see clearly on possible connections with these, so I ask that another CU take a look. The accounts are labeled in the CU log quite clearly what I need a second opinion on. It could just be a second sockmaster on this range. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've marked this case "relisted" to highlight DQ's request for a second (third?) CheckUser opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the checked accounts as proven since the CU check didn't establish a connection to the sockmaster directly. I guess we should mark all of them as proven, clear behavioral proof, and a definite link between the oldest checked account and the sockmaster. It was a bit messy, so can someone check after me to make sure, thanks.  QEDK  ( T  &#9749;  C ) 20:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears to be done, and the tagging looks fine to me. Closing the case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)