Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zuggernaut/Archive

19 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Zuggernaut is subject to a topic ban and is being mentored by. The ban applies, inter alia, to articles on Indian history. is a relatively new registered user who has displayed a very rapid general grasp of policy areas such as dispute resolution. MangoWong has been tendentiously contributing to various talk pages, notably in the closed thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India, and also offering advice regarding the article referred to in that thread - Kurmi - at User_talk:Ajneesh_Katiyar. Despite spraying his POV across numerous non-article talk pages, MangoWong has consistently refused to actually get involved in the discussion at Talk:Kurmi which is central to all of his/her position.

The trenchant views and tendentiousness bear a likeness to those which resulted in Zuggernaut's topic ban. There is definitely something not right regarding the prolonged discussions at Talk:Kurmi and there seems no reason for MangoWong to want to avoid entering that discussion, although s/he clearly does avoid. This may be a meatpuppet rather than a sock but I feel that it deserves some attention. If it is possible to check for sleepers then that, also, might be worthwhile. Sitush (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nom comment - further to responses by MangoWong at 12:40 & 12:47. This lacks logic: why does encourage others to contribute there if s/he believes it to be pointless? This SPI is not spurious, although it is always possible that nothing will be revealed. So far, I think every SPI which I have initiated has had at least one confirmation & often multiple confirmations, with one exception where terminated on the grounds that IPs cannot be linked to usernames. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added three more names. One is per an off-wiki email from an admin. There is general concern regarding the tendentiousness of these contributors and the commonalities of argument, nationalist POV, anti-colonial POV and claims regarding systemic bias etc. I repeat, something is not right here. I know that it looks like a fishing expedition but we have been burned too often recently by similar drawers on similar articles. There may be others added as I sift through the contributions of the last couple of weeks. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming all is ok - much appreciated. My apologies to those who feel aggrieved by this process. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a silly claim. A long standing pattern from the user who is making this claim. Some users there seem to think that all others are somehow wrong and they only are right.-MangoWong (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I have been ignoring to post any comments at the Kurmi talk page is that the page is haunted by users who describe all others as POV pushers/socks/soapboxers, etc. It is demeaning to discuss things an this situation. The discussions there also seem to be particularly unproductive with users declaring the point of contention as being "non negotiable". If it is "non negotiable" for one party, (which apparantly is sure that it only is right) what is the point in entering a discussion anyway?-MangoWong (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yogesh Khandke:(1)All I want to ask is what action would be taken if the allegations are found to be false, as a serious case of lack of AGF would be manifest. (2)For starters Sitush isn't sure whether the case is one of meat puppet or sock puppet. (3)I don't know whether MongoWong is sock or not, but I agree a great deal reg his opinion of Sitush A long standing pattern from the user who is making this claim. Some users there seem to think that all others are somehow wrong and they only are rightYogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If Sitush seems concerned about socks, it's likely because he, I, and others attempting to cleanup caste articles have run across massive numbers of confirmed socks over the last few weeks. One problematic editor at Talk:Nair had something like 8 confirmed socks, four possibles, etc. These caste articles, particularly in the last couple months of attempted cleanup, have also been subject to alleged substantial off-site canvassing, particularly on Orkut. Given the vast amount of disruption which has greatly slowed down a long-overdue caste article cleanup, excessive AGF to the point of ignoring the reality of deliberate POV disruption would be impractical. Remember, at the bottom of all WP policy is an attempt to make a working encyclopedia, so attempts to cite policy to drag out arguments are counterproductive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No this isn't a general issue, he knows about Zuggernaut's topic ban, whose scope is a mystery to me. He thinks Mongo or someone is Zuggenaut's sock. Also Sitush is dealing with sensitive issues without expertise and unwilling to learn, and the best he can do is to drop all AGF and make allegations of Sock puppetry (I hope it is false or I would have to eat my words.) My point is what action would be taken against Sitush if the allegation is found false?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If Sitush had a habit of filing baseless SPI claims, then that would be an issue for the admins to talk to him with. Instead, Sitush has a history of bringing up totally valid SPIs, so if this particular one turns out not to prove puppeting (which does not guarantee nothing untoward is going on, just that 2 given accounts cannot be digitally linked), then I doubt admins will be two upset if Sitush has intitiated 6 large and serious SPIs that turned out to be right, and 2 that did not discover a link. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sheeesh. (which does not guarantee nothing untoward is going on, just that 2 given accounts cannot be digitally linked). This is the type of thing which makes me reluctant to participate in the discussions on the caste articles. It is obvious that you will continue to be sure that there is something wrong with those who oppose you, even if nothing wrong is found. Please first explain what sort of guarantee have you provided about yourself? Failure to AGF on others is a major failure for Wikipedia eds. You were already casting aspersions on me at the India noticeboard, but could not offer any explanation when challanged to do so. If you are so sure of yourself, why do you become unable to defend your words when challanged to do so. If you are so right, you should have no need to ignore challanges to explain yourself.-MangoWong (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)No MV, Sitush's motivations are bad, he brought someone for socking just because he became a pain in his neck, and his statement, a new editor has profound knowledge of wiki..., isnt that insulting??? Agreed some just don't learn as is evident all around me, but why judge the world with one's limitations? The whole atmosphere at wiki is sickening because of such an attitude which is endemic. Sitush is using socking as an excuse for not AGF, which the admins should take note of.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC) No MangoWongo, it isn't about caste, it is about clashing the entrenched bias on Wikipedia.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is simply nobody who has put anywhere near as much work into India caste articles this year as Sitush, and his work is extremely well-sourced, and following WP policy. He (and the other people on similar projects) have been under constant assault by editors, a large portion of whom espouse a pro-caste POV, show an extreme tendency to criticise to death any slightly "negative" coverage while demanding "positive" coverage with the slightest whisper of sourcing. A number of these attacking editors have been proven to be extensively involved in sockpuppeting, and others have specificially mentioned that they were canvassed at Orkut to come "defend" their caste. Sitush is an extremely well-meaning editor who is under constant attack by editors who, to be blunt, are not generally people with a good track record of positive contributions. He (and to a lesser degre I) have been dragged to ANI and POV multiple times, with no censure to either of us. In fact, completely uninvolved admins have weighed in to say "you're doing good work and getting hassled by a lot of POV pushers".


 * In any case, this is getting totally off the topic. Either a check of Zuggernaut will show he's SPing, or it won't. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All the work Sitush has put has been sadly been in vain, was he able to quote Risley's classification of Varna, see the Kurmi talkpage for details. It would have saved everybody concerned great trouble. Tilting at windmills and fiddling with elephants takes great effort but to what effect?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please first explain what sort of guarantee have you provided about yourself? Failure to AGF on others is a major failure for Wikipedia eds. You were already casting aspersions on me at the India noticeboard, but could not offer any explanation when challanged to do so. If you are so sure of yourself, why do you become unable to defend your words when challanged to do so. If you are so right, you should have no need to ignore challanges to explain yourself. Why didn't you answer my question? What happened? Became tongue tied? Is anyone surprised? If you are so sure of yourself and if you are right, why don't you take up upon yourself to answer the questions which I had put up at the India noticeboard? Why keep running away from challanges to explain yourself? You seem to have no shortage of words when it comes to casting aspersions on others. You still continue to suggest that I am from Orkut, without any proof whatsoever. Drop it, and apologize, otherwise, prove it. And just because someone has put in a lot of effort, (in face of stiff opposition), it does not mean that he has been improving WP. It means, he has been acting in a dictatorial way and has not been acting in a collaborative manner and has been imposing his will against the consensus. That's bad. -MangoWong (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that this is an SPI involving you, this conversation really isn't productive. Please feel free to take it to my Talkpage, and either file an ANI on me or else stop making accusations. My concerns about your bias are being addressed by this SPI. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There's a decent amount of overlap between some of these accounts, so I'll endorse to figure out what's what. Also note that Prashantv79 is already indeffed (not for socking, though) so we'll have to take that into consideration as well. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Before any blocks are issued based on this case, please contact me. I have some extra information on this case. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Technical data does not link any socks. Keegan (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm going to close here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)