Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supriyya/Archive

Report date April 28 2009, 09:04 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by dab (𒁳)

staging a surreal sock show at Linguistics.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I just blocked one of them, the third today to revert to Supriyya's POV. kwami (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I just upped that block to indefinite per Mayalld's comment below. Obvious sockpuppets can simply be blocked without checkuser. —Angr 11:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Each of the socks makes the same edits on the main linguistics page (or very close approximations). The tone of the comments in the Talk:Linguistics page is the same (i.e. inappropriately hostile, such as filled with "ultimatums" and "threats"). I"m pretty sure that at least Jadoogiri, knightingale, stinguist and supriya at least are the same individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarnie (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by dab (𒁳) 09:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

user insists to uphold the pretension that they are all completely unrelated indivdials and to comically fail to understand what we even mean by "sock"

We can ban "them" just for assuming everyone is a moron, which will lead to more "experts", all alike, magically appearing as announced, or we can do the honours and make a show of WP:AGF in putting this through checkuser first. I would like to leave that call to other admins. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Water fowl are not eligible for CU. Mayalld (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * right. I take that as an endorsement to whack the socks as they come in. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Tagged and archived.  Syn  ergy 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * All named accounts blocked indef as well as 58.68.48.82 blocked for 2 weeks. (IP looks fairly static). Please tag/archive ——  nix eagle email me 16:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 7 2009, 23:25 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user. I don't think a checkuser is needed here because of the unmistakable quacking of the user in his postings to the help desk and Jimbo's talk page, as well as the information on Tsupre's user page. Deor (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Deor (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I blocked this one because of the loud quacking sound. Patently obvious, blocked and tagged as such.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All accounts tagged and blocked. Icestorm815 •  Talk  00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Rjanag
Most of the evidence is presented at Talk:Linguistics, and editors voicing opinions at Talk:Linguistics tended to agree that Alinovic is Supriyya. Basically, Alinovic has edited from an IP (59.160.104.20) that geolocates to the same city as IPs that Supriyya has admitted using (Delhi, India: 122.173.228.157, 122.163.195.90, 125.19.14.2), and the accounts' behavior is similar in some ways. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Diffs:
 * Alinovic has edited his/her userpage from 59.160.104.20 . IP geolocates to Delhi
 * Supriyya has used the following IPs (signing her comments from those IPs as "Supriya"): 122.173.228.157, 122.163.195.90 . Both geolocate to Delhi
 * In short, I'm not asking for anyone to check if Alinovic is related to Supriyya. I'm asking for someone to check if Alinovic is related to those IPs, which are used by Supriyya. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

. All accounts blocked as socks of Supriyya along with the sockmaster are entirely. This case will have to be decided on behavioral evidence alone. Tim Song (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand (pardon my unfamiliarity with how checkuser works)&mdash;are you saying that because Supriyya's account hasn't edited in a long time, you can't compare Alinovic's current IP to Supriyya's old IP? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically yes. The CU data is kept in the database for a limited amount of time. CU can certainly get the technical information relating to Alinovic's edits, but there would be no information in the CU database regarding Supriyya or any of its socks, and therefore it's not possible to link the accounts based on CU evidence. Tim Song (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the several IPs I listed in the statement above? Two are from a few months ago, but one is just 2 days old. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the diffs connecting the two sets of IPs to each account? And also, could you copy over the evidence from the article talkpage to this case page so we can have it here? (Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, if its huge you can put it in a collapse box). Thanks, Nathan  T 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added the diffs to the "evidence" section above. That is pretty much the evidence I presented at the article talkpage, so I didn't bother copying the thing over wholesale. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alinovic indefinitely blocked and tagged. FWIW the user admitted to socking. –MuZemike 19:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WHere did the user admit to socking?·Maunus· ƛ · 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user for now and relisted the case after what may have likely been an error on my part. I'll recuse myself from further participation in this SPI case as a result. –MuZemike 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . I was not aware of the IPs when I declined the CU originally. This case can probably benefit from a check. Tim Song (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - including the IPs, yes. Disclosing here per policy. Also, the following accounts;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NuclearWarfare got 'em. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Maunus
User:Supriya has a history of disrupting linguistic related subjects by by using sockpuppet and editwarring to bypass existing consensus about the connections of linguistics with the fields of semiotics and literary criticism. Her interest in this topic is combined with an interest in indian topics. Now User:Fellowscientist is arguing the same point on Talk:linguistics and is combining this with editing Indian related articles. The suspicion has been mentioned and in order to determine whether or not he might be a sock of Supriya his IP and editing patterns should be compared to those of Supriya's and her socks (User:Supriyya; User:Alinovic; User:Alvinpoe; User:Dolmagray; User:Jadoogiri; User:Knightingail; User:Stinguist; User:MotherFatherChild; User:TroubledTraveler and User:Simple._supriya) ·Maunus· ƛ · 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Fellowscientist. It was User:Taivo who suggested that you were similar to Supriya, I didn't think so at first but then I noticed the India connection and thought it might be, and thought it would be best to clarify for your sake if you're not and for the pages' sake if you are. Supriya has been rather shrewd in creating new identities for herself every time she comes back. Anyway you are misinterpreting my comment - I say that we need to resolve the issue - that means find some good sources once and for all that describe why literary studies and stylistics are not part of linguistics so we have something concrete to turn to when the argument reappears. It turned out that I was able to find such sources in less than ten minutes. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Thanks for the above note, Maunus. Over to the point I'd like to make now. I would like to explain that I have not been trying to argue any point like that on talk:linguistics. If you or anyone else do read the talkpage again or look at my comments, you will all notice that I have never, even once, suggested that we should draw a parallel between linguistics and semiotics and literary criticism. Why! The suggestion had been made by Maunus himself! Read: "We really should resolve the relation of linguistics to the literary disciplines, semiotics, philology, stylistics and all that. Has no one written about this?" ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I only responded to this comment of his, never suggesting anything of my own. In fact, if you read my talkpage messages, it is clear that I have said I am noone to question community consensus, if that be so. I had never, to begin with, even imagined that these fields are related. I had said, on the talkpage, that I have no experience of literature, and so if it happens that Maunus feels that the fields are related (as one would think clearly from his own messages!) then we must seek help from the talk:literature or talk:philosophy community, as they would be more experienced than any of us on talk:linguistics.
 * What's more, I teach in India, and it is obvious, as I explained to Maunus on his own talkpage, that my IP and Supriya's IP might resemble each other because I am currently on a research fellowship here. India is a growing hub for linguistics research, and everyone goes there. Furthermore, there is no user by the name of Supriya on any of the India-centric talkpages that I have recently edited. So I don't see how that allegation can be made.
 * I am most frazzled by all this, I must say. Fellowscientist (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem Maunus. I believe we have misread each other's comments and misunderstood a little. I am willing to move on and amicably continue editing the article. We seem to mostly be in agreement with each other. Fellowscientist (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem Maunus. I believe we have misread each other's comments and misunderstood a little. I am willing to move on and amicably continue editing the article. We seem to mostly be in agreement with each other. Fellowscientist (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - There's a history of socking with this editor, and it seems like there needs to be a check here to verify that these are socks. ( X! ·  talk )  · @234  · 04:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * . Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that as and all previously identified socks are, this will only be checking to see if a) these accounts are confirmed in relation to each other and b) if there are any other sleepers not listed here. The connection to Supriyya will need to be based on behavioral evidence only. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um. Wait a minute. All the socks listed here are the ones already blocked in January. I have nothing to compare to, so checkuser is useless. Please make sure when endorsing requests that checkusers have something useful to go off of. Checkuser request by default. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is specifically about the user User:Fellowscientist who is not blocked and not stale and any possible connection his Ip might have to any of Supriyas past IP's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs).
 * I have nothing to compare him to. If all of the other accounts are stale, I don't have technical data for Supriyya, and I'm not going to connect Fellowscientist to an IP address. There is no way for me to do what you're asking. As for the sleeper check, . Without firm evidence that Fellowscientist is Supriyya, there is no reason to assume he may have other socks. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that there are no IP's stored for old socks. And i didn't ask for any information about sleeper accounts.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean? I am not really understanding. I am not Supriya. Please help me out Maunus. I'm a linguist working in a place where there's little else to think about; I cannot be a sock. Fellowscientist (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this means that the suspicion may keep haunting you. I am willing to let it go and focus on improving the article on linguistics, I hope other users will extend you the same courtesy. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Maunus. I appreciate your maturity. I would be grateful if you could now remove FellowScientist from the list of suspected sockpuppets as I am not a sockpuppet. Thank you for your kindness. Fellowscientist (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It cannot be removed from this report. That is not how it works.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it has been proven that I am not a sockpuppet. Editors have agreed now. Isn't it unfair to have my name blacklisted for something I haven't done? Fellowscientist (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This report is an archive of a suspicion. You would not erase court documents, just because a person was found to be innocent.  Nor do you here.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the court documents should remain private. It is unfair to pull me up me here like this for what I have not done. Fellowscientist (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the purpose of my analogy. The fact remains this is an archive, and archives are not supposed to be modified.  Second, you were not in the least 'proven to be innocent'.  CU was declined because of a lack of evidence to compare to.  In other words, this has become a 'cold case'.  The only thing you get out of this, is a removal of a sockpuppet template from your user page, if one was posted there.  But just because a report is withdrawn, or declined, that does not mean it is altered from what it originally was.  That is not how it works here.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus, please ask them to take my name off. I request you. I request you all. My family logs onto Wikipedia, my boss does, and it will be very damaging for me. Fellowscientist (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its really not that big a deal, its not as if you were confounded with a criminal, just with an editor who has been annoying people at the linguistics article.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, she sounds like a criminal to me, from the above comments. There's this hushed fear of her in the community. What exactly did she do? I'm just curious. Fellowscientist (talk)`
 * This is not really the place to discuss that, or to have any extended discussion not related to running a checkuser. This section of the page isn't even for you guys to be commenting on at all, it's for clerk and checkuser comments. As this has already been closed, why don't you take the discussion elsewhere? <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

But rjanag, isn't the checkuser who we are talking about? Fellowscientist (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

16 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Behavior: Combines an interest in Indian movie articles with a habit of advancing highly idiosyncratic arguments on the Linguistics article talkpage. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * a blocked sock also edited Love Aaj Kal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * At my talk page while discussing some other issue this user made an offhand comment about functional linguistics, which I believe is an area that Supriyya and some of her socks have edit-warred about in the past. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Perhaps I missed something here, but I'm not fully convinced of the connection. Where did Surpriyya/their socks edit Indian articles? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the technical data will be, this case will, as it stands, have to be decided on behavioral evidence alone. WilliamH (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct that everything in the archive is . However, the following are the same as each other:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I split the case into two and give elbow their own case? Those socks are blocked and Elbow is for one week unless someone else feels that he's a Supriyya sock that much.  Alexandria   (talk)  00:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is Supriyya. Reblock indef and tagged all three accounts. T. Canens (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We're done for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is Supriyya. Reblock indef and tagged all three accounts. T. Canens (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We're done for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

22 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Suraduttashandilya was blocked in 2012 per WP:SPAM for being used only to add links to articles by Indian academic Debaprasad Banyopadhyay. In 2014 user:Suradutta (notice the similar user name) created an article about Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay which was deleted for lack of notability, and added links to articles by Bandyopadhyay to several articles. This account makes it last edit on september 5th 2014. On September 13th the account Debaprasad01 is registered, claiming to be Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay and begins adding new links to articles by Bandyopadhyay to articles, in many cases changing urls of links added by one of the two former accounts. I would say that this is a case of a bulletproof duck.

Note than when I notified Debaprasad01 of my intent to file an SPI they responded by blanking their userpages and moving them to  User:Hare krishna and User talk:Hare krishna andf then to User:Hare Krishna/User talk:Hare Krishna. And then retiring. This creates a bit of extra work for an admin. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles edited by all three of the accounts include:
 * Scorpion and Felix
 * Folklore

Articles edited by Debaprasad01 and one of the Suradutta accounts include:
 * Computational Linguistics
 * Anekantavada
 * Charyapada
 * Ramprasad Sen
 * Oedipus complex

·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact based on the coincidence in topic interests I am willing to bet that the accounts are also related to a notorious sockmaster editing India related topics, linguistics and post-structural theory.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:00, 23 May 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
Clear case of block evasion. All three accounts inserting links to works of Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay (probably himself), see:, also  etc. All should be indeffed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Case moved to master and Indeffing with tags. Closing.