Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vermapriya1986/Archive

25 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The User:Vermapriya1986, who first edited March9, 2011, has been editing tendentiously across multiple articles related to the designer Govind Kumar Singh. There has been edit warring, uploading of copyright violating material, spurious SPI reports and calls to block any editors that disagree with their edits. On March 21, 2011 the User:Wnfck account was created and they immediately begain editing in the same manner using the same idiosyncratic way of signing their name. In this edit they attempt to show a consensus with the Vermapriya account and call for a block User:Sitush. Link to Wikistalk result. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:32, 25 March 2011 (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
✅ matches to each other. TN X Man 18:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wnfck blocked indef and tagged. Vermapriya1986 blocked 1 week for puppeteering. Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

25 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Based on their opening of another case at Sockpuppet investigations/Sitush. CU for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:20, 27 March 2011 (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
✅ but no sleepers. TN X Man 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Elockid already blocked the master for socking, so we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

31 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User:60.243.239.25 is a SPA for articles relating to Govind Kumar Singh - see Special:Contributions/60.243.239.25. There are currently two indefinite blocks and a one month block in place regarding contributors to these articles - Sockpuppet_investigations/Vermapriya1986/Archive. The pattern of the IP user, who has just performed these edits makes me suspicious that the IP may also be a sock of the blocked accounts. Please could this be checked. Sitush (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2011 (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'm sorry, but checkuser will not publicly disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TN X Man 16:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I will say that IP is highly likely Vermapriya as it is now autoblocked. Autoblock upgraded to a 1 month block. Vermapriya1986 blocked indef for repeated block evasion. Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

18 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Vermapriya1986 was blocked for using multiple accounts (see previous SPI cases), so a new editor who's only two edits have been to Vermapriya1986's article of focus inserting a similar, but not identical, url (same website, different subpage). The original account's multiple sockpuppets leads me to believe this may is the same user. The user's talk page shows an apparent copyright concern, an issue that was present with Vermapriya1986 as well. SudoGhost 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Vermapriya1986 was indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts, so if this is the same user, it would be block evasion, which is the reason for this SPI. - SudoGhost 19:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yes, there is some quacking. I came here to open a report only to find SudoGhost has beaten me to it. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update - I have spotted the truly obvious bit about the socking now but do not want to divulge here. I am checking with Tnxman re: sending the details by email. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bampublore (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)"
 * Following comment posted by alleged sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vermapriya1986 "--Bampublore (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I am new user, and I am not Sockpuppet vermapriiya1986 i have just learning how to edit article, you can check , I wanted to learn so I was asking for help in my talk page . I do not know who is Sockpuppet vermapriya1986 I do not have any connection with that user .If any other information required please ask me , and please teach me editing articles so that I will become a good wikipedian.

- Sitush (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

--Bampublore (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC) here is the link any one can check this, and I think if reference is there why anyone can't edit ? why you want to stop someone for editing, I am not vermapriya1986 ,I don't know that user and what she did , but I can see what you are doing , I would like to request wikipedia admin please check this article how many time user sitush edited this page , I think he is only person who edited most of the time , the question is why he is so much interested in deleting impotent information from this page , reference is there , article have so many visitors and it's really helpful for everyone.

please check this link and you decided why he want to stop - http://www.cottonusa.org/events/SouthAsia.cfm?navItemNumber=2562

--Bampublore (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Vermapriya1986 was also interested in action against Sitush (the first two archived SPIs are Vermapriya1986, the editor that initiated the second archived SPI was blocked as a sock of Vermapriya1986). The writing habit of "word, word" (a space before and after a comma in a sentence) is present in both Bampublore's comment above, and in the Vermapriya1986's archived SPIs against Sitush.  That way of using commas stands out, and is an odd coincidence, if the two are unrelated.  - SudoGhost 06:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

--Bampublore (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC) I am not interested action or anything for anybody, I just want to know why someone or ONE SET OF PEOPLE want to stop me or anybody who want to edit this article ? that is also a big question why every time same set of people are involved in stopping everyone for editing ,wikipedia is not for only set of people, Wikipedia invites to new people to join and learn things and make wikipedia reach. I don't know why are you taking like that, if I am using comma and fullstops what is new in this , I think every one is using comma and fullstops its so funny you are telling me I am Vermapriya1986 , I am making you very clear I am not that person and soon I will learn Wikipedia article no one can stop me its my rights to learn and write / edit articles in Wikipedia.

I would like to request Wikipedia Admin please check why one Group of people " set of people " want make Wikepedia their own property. --Bampublore (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

--Bampublore (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) how many time i have to clarify I am not that user, perhaps your are the same person with different user name .--Bampublore (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are duck quacks echoing off of these SPI walls. Having been involved in the initial Vermapriya1986 case, I can state unequivocally that I believe that this is the same user. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 14:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Just noting that all of the accounts in the archive are. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 19:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironholds blocked Bampublore, so we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

26 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP is continuing the edits at Govind Kumar Singh of User:Bampublore, which was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Vermapriya1986. Evidence of the IP being the same user is the notable way the editor places spaces before commas, which is a writing habit seen in User:Vermapriya1986's comments and his relevant socks. - SudoGhost 09:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC) SudoGhost 09:52, 26 July 2011 (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
Closing for now. Govind Kumar Singh has been protected. Please re-report if they come back. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

20 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The master had a fascination with things relating to puffing up Govind Kumar Singh, as is evident from their entire talk page, and was indef blocked for socking in March 2011. They were pretty tendentious and tried to own a small range of related articles. The suspected puppet registered in August 2011, and between those two months there were some suspect IP edits relating to Singh, both at the article dedicated to him and others where he was already mentioned or could be added. The IP edits died down around a month after the sock registered.

Almost immediately, the sock inserted a mention of Singh into Sukhpur - diff. Afer a period of doing not a lot, the sock repeated that mention in the same article in January 2012 - diff. At the same time, a mention was added to another article - diff. And in Mayu 2012 they puffed him up in yet another - diff. They have also uploaded an image of Singh that previously had been introduced (& deleted as a copyvio) by the master - see the log.

Today, the sock has begun to edit Govind Kumar Singh itself, basically doing as the master did: reverting anything that anyone else does. The "priya" bit is common to both usernames but, alas, they have so far said almost nothing on talk pages and it is impossible to check for the the same idiosyncratic way of signing their name.

I suspect CU will not work due to staleness. However, from past history it is quite possible that there are other socks lying in the drawer. Sitush (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: as AnimeshKulkarni remarks below, this edit is the clincher. Duck, quacking loudly. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And further to that, and  also become suspect - both registered this month, both involved with the Singh-related Let's Design article, and the latter's single contribution has come within moments of me interacting with the former. I admit that the sig style is different but this is the pattern that was used by prior socks of Vermapriya1986. The work of  at Sachit Bhatia is also typical Vermapriya style: puffery, refs not supporting statements etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment by User:Animeshkulkarni: User:Priyankanift does seem to be same as User:Vermapriya1986. Both insert their signatures before as well as after their comments. How annoying is that and how odd to have two such users. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - UCR and style make Priyankanift look pretty ducky. Other two could use a bit more evidence, but I'm going to endorese for CU   S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, also . There is a little legitimate traffic coming to enwp from that range, but I've given the AS a short softblock; maybe the user will get a hint.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other two are ❌. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)