Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universal Hero/Archive

Report date March 31 2009, 12:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Anwar (talk)

I believe this user's original account was User:Prin (called himself  Redacted per request. Amalthea  17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ) which was indefinitely blocked for uploading copy-vio images. He has often tussled with BetacommandBot removing the automated notices without inhibtion. He calls himself Ganesh and edits the home pages of his other accounts. In atleast one instance, he openly declared that he was indeed User:Cumbi which was another proven puppet account of Prin. So I have not given any diff for a formal checkuser process. Also, under the guise of building GA, he flushes the page with redundant details to the point of exhaustion like here and here. I had to cull duplicate information about the plot of the film from the cast section. In another instance, he uses incredible weasel words and duplicate information about plots and reviews in a list-like articles and begun revert warring to defend his position. Reasoning on his talk page is useless as he removes (not archive) the discussion immediately.

My main issues with Prin is his repetitive uploading of copyvio images. He uploads movie posters of forthcoming Tamil films without giving any source. He gives a mundane fair use excuse that it is a movie poster. I suspect he downloaded them from the Internet (which he actually ) or scanned them from pirates. I have tagged some of the images as per CAT:NS but he uses multiple accounts to upload over hundreds of images. He thinks it is not a serious issue. As late as 26th December 2008, he uploaded a unsourced image of a forthcoming film which I tagged immediately and notified him.

Successful Tamil films typicallly are projects worth $1 million at a minimum to $20 million maximum. I am worried Wikipedia is likely to face legal risks if this user is allowed to continue to commit such large copyright volations. I am also undecided if I should continue to tag the hundreds of unsourced images he keeps uploading regularly and flood his talk page with notifications. Is it feasible? Most of his puppet accounts have gone through and come back from checkuser processes and the uploads have not stopped yet. Is there any specific Wikipedia policy to address such a situation? I admit he is not a vandal per se. So, I do not have any problem even if he is not blocked and let off with a warning. But I am concerned about the large-scale copyright violations only. There are now 1,074 pages on English wikipedia categorised under Tamil language films.. I believe this is a exposure faced by Wikipedia. Currently, there are no policies governing these 1,074 pages. So each IP address comes with its own idea about the structure of the article. These 1,074 pages have been fertile grounds of IP vandalism and are weak links in English Wikipedia. The latest edit is troubling me as well as I suspect to be a new puppet.

From his behaviour, I can only suss out that he is a teenager, male of Sri Lankan Tamil descent, fan of R. Madhavan, Rajinikanth and Joseph Vijay, studying A-Level in London with plenty of idle time. He has cross-linked to sub-pages of User:Vagish


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

In my defence, I am shocked to be nominated as a sockpuppet and I deny being any of those avatars that User:Anwar saadat has mentioned above. If you insist, you may use Checkuser, I'm certain that that all those will be proved fake accusations. I have made over 16,000 edits to wikipedia and I have won acclaim from quarters. Furthermore, I have tried hard to remove vandalism as you can identify from prominent user such as User:Blofeld, User:Shshshsh and User:Eelamstylez77 amongst others.

I feel that this User: Anwar saadat has decided to pursue a case after understanding what he has been doing is wrong. You may check his recent edit history, where he has altered GAs and long-term stable articles causing edit wars involving several users. Furthermore what comes as a shock, is that he is going against Wikiproject:Indian cinema and deleting whole sections of GA articles, claiming they "are unneccessary to him". More recently, he has been stalking my edits and has been trying to frame me out in every single way possible through images. I find it shocking, how this can continue!

I will use this paragraph, to refute "his accusations". I have never claimed the Rajinikanth or Vijay articles, as you can check in my edit contributions. I am not sure, what he achieves by giving personal details by describing me as a "Sri Lankan boy" but I also deny that and I feel rather bemused at why he has stereotyped me in such a way. He claims that on 31 March 2009, I uploaded an image, but if you look at my edit contribution/and infact if you want to check the deleted contributions as well, you would know that I hadn't. He claims that I "upload hundreds of images per week", the last was on February 9, 2009 and even that was subsequently replaced.(He has changed his argument, to make the information different and is trying to correct his mistakes) The previous one dates to December, and I think that all these images are fair use, I've had conversations with several editors previosuly regarding "the definitions" of fair-use.

In a personal claim, I find it quite shocking to see why he is still editing, looking at his edit history - he has been BLOCKED twenty one times and has been allowed to continue to stay on and edit inconstructively. Moreover in his time, he has been blocked for : '''disruption, stalking, WP:3RR, gross violations, racist abuse, trolling, anti-Hindu remarks in extremist favour of Islam, straight reverting and sockpuppetry. I cannot believe, why he is still editing. I'm sure that racism alone is enough to get one permanently blocked, and with over 20 blocks, I'm very shocked. Hopefully the kind administrator of this case, could decide to block him instead?

Moreover, I think this edit sums this character up. Here, try not to laugh!!!

Cheers. Universal Hero (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A check cannot be run to prove your innocence. Also note that Anwar isn't requesting one.  Syn  ergy 13:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats okay, I justed wanted to claim that I don't have a sockpuppet. Universal Hero (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I just read through the case and I'm not really sure what Anwar wants. Universal Hero (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Na waste of time. Anwar's blocking history should be sufficient enough to conclude who is in the wrong here and who can be trusted. UniversalHero on the otherhand has a good editing history and am sure would rather continue editing in peace without haveing to deal with problems such as this.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I raised the original Sockpuppet request because this user had very similar edit style and interests to the previously blocked User:Prin and User:Prince Godfather. For example see the edit history of R. Madhavan. He was originally banned for uploading copyright works and trying to cover up his actions, for instance he faked OTRS info. He was quite devious about covering up his violations. Looking at this new users uploaded images worries me, he claims copyright on a number of images. See File:Shriya Saran.jpg which is obvioulsy taken by the same photographer as this copyright image . Also see File:Ajithaegan.jpg and the identical one published earlier by . I am sure this user will be back upload images with falsified claims whatever even if he is banned. I also notice he has on his user page that he has been contributing to wikipedia since 2005, his contributions for this user ID show otherwise. GameKeeper (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, about User:Universal Hero, I think you should not block this user because he is a very good contributor. He has done over 17,000 edits, which is pretty amazing. Maybe he was a sock puppet but that was like over two years. All was fine till suddenly now, some user comes and complains because they feel like it, that is kind of unfair. If you block this user, Wikipedia is probably losing a good contributor. I was just giving my thoughts. Thanks. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Universal Hero could you please clarify this edit for me? Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know. I suspect it could be someone else on my account or so. Either way, the edit hasn't harmed anyone. Universal Hero (talk)
 * Your answer doesn't inspire me with a great deal of confidence. Whilst the edit hasn't harmed anyone, it has been presented as evidence that you are, and on the face of it that would seem to be a reasonable reading of it. As Cumbi is indefinitely blocked for socking, and evidence has been presented which appears to show that you are Cumbi, you have a problem. Unless there is a reasonable explanation for that edit, it is likely that it will be concluded that you are socking, and blocked. "Somebody else must have used my account" implies that you don't take much care to ensure that others don't use your account, isn't particularly convincing, and doesn't make much difference. You are responsible for edits with your account. Mayalld (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh hold on, I've got it. Hey, is there a way I could tell you confidentially, please? I don't want Anwar stalking my privacy, as he has done in the past. Universal Hero (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but please be aware that I must share such information with CheckUsers and SPI clerks. E-mail me Mayalld (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anwar could you please provide more evidence in the form of differences supporting your allegations? This is not the proper forum to air concerns about editing problems (such as weasel words), or fair use violations. If no evidence is forthcoming the case will be closed. KnightLago (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I need more time. I have asked for inputs from other editors who had similar experience with this user. Anwar (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here he confesses User:Vagish and User:AVTN are same (but not himself) and used his account at his property to upload copyvio images.Anwar (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In September 2008, he advised a fellow user that downloads from website are inappropriate (for re-upload to Wikipedia). Infact he claims to have a exclusive licence (for redistribution of images) from the websites behindwoods.com and kollywoodtoday.com. But as late as yesterday, he defended User:Purushoth1992's upload from a website.Anwar (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "exclusive licence" is available now online. It reads like a personal oath from him.Anwar (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Sintaku signed as User:AVTN in August 2007 and renamed as User:Vagish in July 2007 as per AWB.Anwar (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Purushoth1992 was created on 26th August 2007 and immediately starts uploading copyvio images. Infact, this account defends the edits of Universal Hero like this where he uploads a larger file one week after Universal Hero's upload. Clearly, it is not a new user but some one who already knew Wikipedia procedures well. This account has no other edits other than in articles related to Tamil cinema. Also, I request the clerks to consider inclusion of User:Vendetta93 and User:Silk1598 as additional puppets. Vendetta 93 was created on 10th February 2009 and has no other edits other than related to Tamil cinema. Silk1598 was created on 29th January 2009 and edits only one article, possibly to win a edit war. Similar edit patterns, page moves, blank redirects and alphanumeric usernames indicate a link to Prin. User:Prudhvith was created on 22 March 2009 but makes no edits on article namespace. But Universal Hero corrects its home page out of the blue without request. Clearly, he is aware of the identity of this account too. Anwar (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * struck G.Ganesh, as no such account exists. Mayalld (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that:
 * per this =  who is a sock of.
 * per this Universal Hero also = (who is  aka  due to a rename).


 * No evidence has been presented regarding or . Thoughts? KnightLago (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CU requested. Evidence of block evasion, copyvio problems, extravagant excuses for questionable edits, and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526 is ongoing. KnightLago (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No action taken. Closed. KnightLago (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I checkusered this as KnightLago's suggestion. I found some perfectly acceptable editing-while-logged-out, but no sockpuppetry. Raul654 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)