Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tpharish


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Tpharish

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Wiki Raja (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * There has recently been numerous vandalism attacks and revert wars on the Periyar page. These attacks and reverts tend to come from editors with usernames in red with the most recent from Tpharish by blanking a section and engaging in edit warring here, here, and here. User Tpharish also posted a vulgar word in Tamil, koodhi meaning vagina here and blatantly changed the percentage of Brahmins here. As for Naidruva, he has added an irrelevant sentence to a referenced section, which is not quoted from the source of origin here. Dindiz is another account which was used to add an unsourced reference to Periyar in a derogatory fashion here with another addition on religion here. With Akt007, this account has been used to remove a Kannada script from the page here as well as by 59.92.140.66 here. Multiple reverts to add back the Kannda script can be found by 59.92.173.128 here, 59.92.148.26 here, 59.92.133.68 here, 59.96.45.168 here, and by 117.192.99.81 here. As for IP user 122.164.199.184, this account has been used to vandalize a page by changing the name Shudra to Kshatriya here, and by 112.164.86.116 here. Lastly, IP user 122.164.29.66 has blatantly put a factual acuracy template under a particular section which was referenced with valid sources here.


 * Further Evidence
 * Usernames that have recent been created and ips have have been used from the past few days to a few months from blanking of sections to edit warring by the following accounts:


 * 1) 122.164.29.66 was first used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on October 12, 2008
 * 2) 59.92.148.26 was first used to edit another article back in September 30, 2006, then used two years later to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on October 12, 2008
 * 3) 59.92.133.68 was first used to edit two different articles on October 31, 2007. Then a year later it was used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on October 12, 2008 twice.
 * 4) Tpharish was created and first used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on October 10, 2008
 * 5) 122.166.87.72 was first used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on October 10, 2008
 * 6) 59.92.173.128 was first used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on October 9, 2008
 * 7) Akt007 was created on August 21, 2008, then first used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on October 6, 2008
 * 8) Dindiz was first created on January 2, 2006, with edits also on November 4, and December 1 of 2006. Strangely, this account was used two years later to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy twice on September 25, 2008
 * 9) Naidruva was created and first used to edit on July 17, 2008. This account was then used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy article on September 15, 2008
 * 10) 117.192.99.81 was only used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy on August 30, 2008
 * 11) 59.92.140.66 was only used to edit Periyar E.V. Ramasamy on August 21, 2008
 * 12) 122.164.86.116 was only used to edit several articles including Periyar E.V. Ramasamy on January 8, 2008


 * Comments
 * Lately, there have been a high volume of negative activity on the Periyar article since the past couple of months. Furthermore, it is hard to tell which could be the master sock puppeteer since some of these acts were done by combination of usernames and ips. However, there tends to be a pattern of when this suspected sock or socks have edited this particular article given its negative overtone of motives.
 * It is evident that there is a user or users who is bent on vandalizing this page by changing caste names, engaging in edit wars by adding and removing certain scripts, blanking sections, and adding a vulgarity to this page on Periyar. There is high reason to believe that this is a sock by one or more users. I therefore respectfully request to have these accounts checked to see if they are sock puppet accounts and for the necessary action to be taken. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This case is created as a result of this declined RFCU entry OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This Suspected Sock Puppet inquiry has been created as per Avi's suggestion here. Thanks. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * these ip's are used by me->59.92.133.68, 59.92.140.66, 59.92.148.26, 59.92.173.128.i dont know about remaining accounts.my ISP is dynamic,when i reset(switch off & on) the modem my ip get changes,it is not my fault. 59.92.193.247 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into this for two days. There's some complicated calls, but I'm sure of the following results. The bolded calls specifically refer to the suggestion that the respective account is related to Tpharish. Observing administrators are welcome to double-check these findings.
 * Conclusions
 * (1) and ; there's no irrefutable behavioural evidence, but my suspicions remain.
 * Both accounts have not edited the article for some time. It's difficult to gauge a link between either account and the sock master, over such a lengthy time scale. Comparing this edit by Tpharish with this one by Naidruva, there is a similar bias against Periyar E. V. Ramasamy; I'm reluctant to make a positive call here, though.
 * (2).
 * (3) ❌; I don't think these accounts have anything to do with the others.
 * (4) the same individual but ❌ to Tpharish.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.
 * (3) ❌; I don't think these accounts have anything to do with the others.
 * (4) the same individual but ❌ to Tpharish.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.
 * (4) the same individual but ❌ to Tpharish.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.
 * (5) That's all; consider this . This sock ring has not been active for a few week or so; no blocks have been issued.

— Anthøny  (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)