Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Socking on the AFD of the the article he created. Same style of vote "KEEP"(in caps) Singing praises about Michael Jackson contrary to WP:ILIKE. Violating copyrights like Akhiljaxxn preferred to. Incompetence in English, as well as signing comments without giving a space bar. Clearly one person. Excelse (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DoRD alright, consider blocking confirmed accounts indefinitely since they are only here for WP:FANPAGE, and copyright violations with extreme WP:COMPETENCE issues. Excelse (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Myself Ranjtihsiji(Admin in Malayalam Wikipedia). I personaly contacted Akhiljaxxn and discussed this issue. He told that Edwinbabu is his friend and both are editied from same andorid phone. That is why it appeared as a sock. These students are editing from mobile most of time. Akhiljaxxn is a good editor with more than 4000 edits in various wikis. He is a trusted user and have no intention to destory an article. He is not much aware about the rules of wikipedia. So plz consider him once again the revoke the block. Hoping for a positive action. May be this revoke will give us a good editor again. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * EdvinBabu is ✅, MariiMariiii is ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , unless there is an immediate concern, I leave blocking to clerks or patrolling admins. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all three accounts based on account creation time and similar writing styles. GABgab 15:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

If you look at the edits made from the dates 22nd April 2019 and onwards, you will see there are a lot of overlaps and same interests [] Like one edit made by user Padavalamkuttanpilla on 25th May on Upendra Singh Rawat was immediately taken over by User:Akhiljaxxn you will find a lot of similar interests for the pages of Kerala, Rajiv Gandhi Sashi Tharoor Nehru-Gandhi Family. My primary intention was to report User:Bharat Ka Wikipedian but after looking at all the co-ordinated edits on so many new draft pages to New Pages, I suspect a lot more user names involved. Angus1986  TALK  16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is a ridiculous false accusation, and to be quite frank, it makes me very angry and upset. This user has alleged that I am an editor who I suspect of being a SPA and meatpuppet. To the nominator, I reported the problematic behavior of the editor padavalamkuttanpillai here on this SPI. Here are my votes on the different pages created by this editor 1, 2, 3. Here you can see that I nominated one of the pages created by this editor for speedy deletion. There are many other pages where I find the user's behavior to be very suspicious and here are a few instances. 1, 2. See how I helped to save/keep one of the pages that this user nominated for deletion here: 1, 2.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Akhil, I have gone through your comment, true I find to be very suspicious like you do, but what is your relationship with this editor?  Angus1986   TALK  19:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because if you take a look at the link over here [] there are a lot of pages that you and have in common. Angus1986   TALK  19:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been editing Wikipedia for more than 6 years now. That includes all of the pages mentioned above long before padavlamkuttanpillai ever started to edit Wikipedia. I only have the same relationship with that editor as I have with you. I have no problem with a SPI, but I would also like to suggest you to leave sock hunting to more experienced editors for the time being like you have already been warned/adviced here and here.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure! I already wrote an apology on your talk page. To the admins, I would like to close/withdraw this investigation. Angus1986  TALK  20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing as withdrawn. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
and are very much related based on the similar interests like Michael Jackson-related topics, music in general, or sometimes cricket. Both are also involved in some COI work (AfC). Editor Interaction Analyser gives us some clue (link). Due to the meatpuppetry behavior, this has been brought to ANI before.

Their review process is quite similar (at least for the client they are interacting with based on the private evidence and onwiki evidence below). This behavior evoked my intention when I nominated Megan Euker for deletion (for obvious COI concerns). Later, found more problematic accepts and this eventually resulted in the removal of flag by. Same is true for TheWikiholic. This user accepts apparent COI articles within minutes (which gives us a hint that someone is communicating with them offwiki). Like, one example to prove connection between these two accounts:
 * Christel Quek, co-founder of Bolt (social network), was submitted by an editor at 12:34 24 January 2023 through AfC. TheWikiholic accepted it within a minute (without doing a detailed analysis of sources, if they actually meet WP:GNG?) at 12:35, 24 January 2023.
 * Bolt (social network) was submitted it at 17:10, 6 February 2023 and this time it was accepted by TruthGuardians at 17:51, 6 February 2023 and then reviewed by TheWikiholic at 18:07, 6 February 2023(using NPR flag) This is already very suspicious.
 * And then they reviewed spam like Living Vehicle at 19:04, 14 March 2023 (within 16 minutes) which was submitted by an editor at 16:46, 14 March 2023 and accepted by TruthGuardians (within two minutes) at 18:48, 14 March 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by US-Verified (talk • contribs)

Then TheWikiholic have accepted more spam in quick session:
 * Forsight Robotics submitted at 13:40, 19 October 2022 and accepted by TheWikiholic at 13:47, 19 October 2022 (within seven minutes they discover this new submission and approved it)
 * Oak Street Health submitted at 14:51, 3 July 2022 and accepted by TheWikiholic at 14:52, 3 July 2022 (outrageously within a minute!)
 * Guy Scheiman submitted at 18:13, 12 September 2021 and accepted by TheWikiholic at 18:16, 12 September 2021. This three minutes difference was suspicious enough that S0091 inquired about it.
 * Sharon Tal Yguado submitted at 05:33, 7 October 2022 and accepted by TheWikiholic at 05:43, 7 October 2022.
 * Omaha Productions submitted at 17:10, 11 February 2022 and accepted by TheWikiholic at 17:29, 11 February 2022. This, by the way, has a history of UPEs, see this.
 * And then how on earth you can accept a non-notable marketing person, Scott Hughes (writer) (link) that was draftified by  immediately due to SEO/PR refs concerns.

Also, compare these accounts (possible client they're interacting with) i.e., , , that submitted these spam drafts, editing style looks similar (especially edit summaries).

Please check thorougly if there are any additional 'sockpuppet' accounts associated with this user. US-Verified (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 *  Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm a proud volunteer who has been editing Wikipedia for many years and this allegation against me is absurd. It is quite evident that we both have similar interests in many related topics. That doesn’t break any Wikipedia policies. I think there were already similar SPI regarding me and/or Truthguardian in the past. I have been accepting articles through AFC for quite a long time. I’ve done many reviews over the years. I'm not arguing that all of those are perfect. I probably made mistakes. I always reviewed the article based on either created date or the submitted date because I find it easier to review. After all, the oldest created or submitted drafts have already been abandoned by other reviewers. I think it's common to accept the article in this case. I was also blamed for moving the pages into draft space very quickly in the past. I know I was sometimes in a hurry, but I always attempted to make sure the article meets WP:GNG.

Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that this user has had multiple accounts. This user began using Wikipedia in June of last year with this promotional edit by using some deprecated (unreliable) source. This was later tagged for COI by "". Even though he tried to remove the tag through this edit it was reverted by. He then left a message to delete the page by saying "I decided to abandon the project". I've been editing Wikipedia for many years and I have never witnessed any editor claim his edits as a project. Since then he made more than 700 edits and while going through the edits of this user it's quite evident that the user is well-experienced at this point. Their edits on pages like Helen Doron and Jeanette Jenkins are highly promotional. They were also accused of UPE in the past. This is not the first time this editor is accusing someone of the same allegations as we can see here,  which was struck down by himself later. His edits on pages like Helen Doron, 1, 2 and Jeanette Jenkins 1, 2 are highly promotional and were also accused of UPE in the past by. This is not the first time this editor is also accusing someone of the same allegations as we can see here which was struck down by later.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Whataboutism... Ah, I see you have socked before under Akhiljaxxn alias. We all did some stupid mistakes and I did my fair share and really learnt from that. You're here since 2013 -- you can't label it just another mistake. My behavior is not repetitive, yours is. Frankly, you're digging a hole for yourself. We all know what happened in John C. case: autopatrolled was removed for advert-like creations. We need a similar action here. US-Verified (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That happened when I was not aware of sock puppetry. I intended to stop the deletion of a page created by me. If I recall that was the very first AFD that I ever participated in. I was not aware that we cannot use multiple accounts. To get unblocked I have to promise that I will never do such things in the future and I never breached my promise since then. All of these informations are available on my blocking history. If you check my edit history before and after that incident you can understand how seriously I began to edit since then. I was not even aware of most of the wiki policy and guidelines until then. I strongly believe that that incident actually helped me to learn more about Wiki. Since then I have also been promoted to an administrator on a local edition of Wikipedia. For me, it took a long period to learn about wiki policies but you know everything in such a short period. FYI, I have to change my username on privacy grounds. I used to get violent and legal threats through both Wikipedia and my social media account from pro-government supporters. TheWikiholic (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm only responding because I was pinged.
 * If anyone else involved (e.g. the person who filed this SPI report) has used sockpuppets, then I think that should be dealt with separately. The issue at hand here is whether User:TheWikiholic has been involved with sockpuppetry. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For more suspicions of sock or meat puppetry involving TruthGuardians, see Sockpuppet investigations/TruthGuardians/Archive and Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcastor/Archive. Personally, I remain convinced that they have engaged in at least meat puppetry as part of UPE. BilledMammal (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding TheWikiholic, I do not know enough to comment either way, but as in the recent TruthGuardians case I find it very unlikely that an editor will stumble across a AfC request within a couple of minutes of it being submitted. BilledMammal (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been reviewing articles at AFC for a while now. And I strongly believe that most of the articles that I reviewed including the one I Accepted and declined are either newly published drafts or newly submitted drafts. I always used filters to find these articles. I thought the old ones are already seen by experienced users and showed not having much interest in them. There was a similar discussion when I moved a page from the main space to the draft space as well. And during this discussion, multiple experienced editors also mentioned that they have also did the similar edits during the reviews.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ The use of proxies/VPNs are probably false allegations. I was in India (my home) until on Feb 15th. Then I traveled to the UAE. I was then in Oman for 4 days in April and I've was then back in the UAE all for work related purposes. I do not use any proxy or VPN for editing. Never have and never will. I've been editing Wikipedia since I was was in school and as I previously stated, it's been a passion for me since then. I would not like to have to, but I can share all my travel details including passport details to prove that my story is real. A far as reviewing my history at AFC is concerned, like I said before, the vast majority of that I reviewed, including the ones I accepted and declined, are either newly published drafts or newly submitted drafts. I always used filters to find new articles. This will include the one I reviewed during the AFC backlog drive as well. I was never informed by anyone ever in the past that it's not the proper way, and if the community feels it's better to revoke my flags, I prefer to request for the removal myself for that, because I find it quite insulting for me to lose this flag to these kinds of provably false allegations. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ I have been editing Wikipedia for almost 10 years now and TruthGuardian only started to edit in 2019. Many new editors participated in Michael Jackson-related topics then. I used to participate in Jackson-related topic way before that. Ever since they created their accounts there were similar allegations raised and I tried my best to not even talk to them even on their talk pages to avoid these types of allegations. I can assure you that I never even sent a single email also to them. If I ever noticed that they made any edits to those pages, I would have avoided making any edits on those pages if I can help to avoid similar false allegations as well, because as many editors pointed out there were already many discussions related to me and Truthguardian in the past. It should be made clear that I don’t know who that editor is in real life and never have communicated with that editor off of Wikipedia anywhere at any point ever. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I’ve avoided commenting here as to allow the SPI to do the talking for me. Enough is enough already. I would prefer that my editing history is not brought into a conversation of conspiracy. I’ve not broken any Wikipedia rules or policies and I don’t plan to. “Off-wiki coordination” is not true, never has been true, and never will be true. That’s the entire story. That’s the entire truth. Do what you will with it. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Before this is archived I would also ask that you look into the report at Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcastor/Archive. If this is improper off-wiki coordination taking place here then I believe it extends beyond these two editors. BilledMammal (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In particular, I would suggest looking into the list Black Kite provided; the concerns about inappropriate conduct involving TruthGuardians go far beyond what I directly presented in that report. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The CU data indicates that is ❌ to .  That being said,  is clearly making extensive use of proxies, so  is probably a better call.  Separate from the question of socking, I find TheWikiholic's judgement about what AfC drafts to approve to be highly questionable.  I'll leave it to somebody else to make a final call on this, but my inclination would be to revoke their AfC, page mover, and new page reviewer rights. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , while reviewing Sockpuppet investigations/TruthGuardians I also noticed several suspicious interactions between TG and TheWikiholic. Bolt (social network), Living Vehicle, and Megan Euker were all accepted through AfC by TruthGuardians and marked as reviewed by TheWikiholic on the same day - in fact, within about 15 minutes . Now perhaps that could be written off as a coincidence, but it's curious because TruthGuardians hasn't accepted a lot of drafts and TheWikiholic isn't an especially prolific reviewer. Also, the latter two articles are exceptionally poor and it's hard to believe that a competent reviewer acting in good faith would pass them without at least tagging for issues. Then there is the matter of the accounts' massive article overlap, near-exclusive dedication to the topic of Michael Jackson, and the previous suspicions of meatpuppetry in the Michael Jackson topic area. I believe it is appropriate to revoke TheWikiholic's advanced rights at a minimum. But the more I look into this the more I am convinced that these two accounts are engaging in inappropriate off-wiki coordination. Spicy (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with Spicy's overall assessment here. I lean toward these accounts probably not being the same person (maybe 55% confidence), but the volume and timing of interactions, both in content and administrative settings, simply defies what could be explained by coincidence. And if this was an innocent mistake in good-faith collaboration, both users have had their chance to explain this, and have not. I see sufficient evidence that these two accounts have, at a minimum, failed to disclose off-wiki coordination. There is a solid case that this has been done in service of undisclosed paid editing, but I don't think quite enough to justify an indefblock. In light of that, I have both for a month for meatpuppetry / inappropriate off-wiki coordination. I have also, per Roy and Spicy, pulled TheWikiholic's new page reviewer and autopatrolled rights. (AFCH happens to have been just removed as now included in NPR. Roy, if you think pagemover should also be pulled, I have no strong opinion either way.) TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians, I want to be clear, the only reason these are not indefinite blocks is that I feel the UPE case is not quite proven and because there's no evidence either of you is currently evading a block. Going forward, you must treat these accounts as if they were alts of the same person, whether or not you acknowledge meatpuppetry has occurred here. In particular see WP:ILLEGIT bullets "Creating an illusion of support" and "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". Further tag-teaming will likely lead to indefblocks without further warning.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no particular opinion about page mover. AFC, NPP, and autopatrol seem to be the important ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - Before this gets archived, take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Akhiljaxxn. It's the same user, after a rename.  It makes sense to merge the cases. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that TheWikiholic has sent me photos of his passport appearing to verify his claims about his travel schedule. As I am not privy to the CU data, I have no way of knowing if this would refute the claim of proxying, but either way, that claim did not significantly enter into my decision to block. As I said, I tend toward thinking that these are different users. This block is based on a finding of meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll look into the broader case once the unblock requests are addressed. . --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, TW's unblock request, which is the one I knew would be addressed pretty quickly, has been declined. So here's where I come down: I don't see evidence of ongoing misconduct beyond what I've sanctioned for above. If you see further instances of potential misconduct among these users in the Michael Jackson topic area, please let me know. TG had already been alerted to the MJ GS, and I've just alerted TW as well; feel free to alert anyone else as you feel appropriate (not that you need my permission). Simply overlapping on articles isn't sanctionable, but if there's further tag-teaming or votestacking, I am prepared to issue warnings, TBANs, IBANs, or blocks as necessary. Re-closing.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)