Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AniceMathew/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AniceMathew

AniceMathew (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
30 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The combination of the edit to AniceMathew's user page, the near identical user pages, and the time of account creation all strongly suggest that these accounts are operated by the same person. The user is currently blocked indefinitely, and this account appears to be an attempt to evade the block. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
18 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Apart from the similarity in name as the last sock, this account was created just a day after AniceMathew's desperate unblock request was declined dated 4 January 2014, 21:40. This user like AniceMathew did, boasts of making Wikipedia look as better as possible and edits the same few articles AM did take for eg. Shahrukh Khan, Chennai Express, Singam II], Shahrukh Khan filmography, Suriya and every other thing related to Shahrukh Khan because he loves that man . Above he is sure that his edits are better than others as evident from this Edit summary which refers to edits once made to the lead by AM. Soham 16:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
31 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


3 days after Mark blocked AM this account was created. The name is of Shahrukh Khan wifes who I don't need to repeat is the "man he loves". First edit to user page, that too a full-fledged one not just simple text. Same patter of edits like AM. 11 common articles between them. A CU would not necessary for block I think because it quacking too much. Soham 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Soham 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
02 March 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Same style of user page (including userboxes as well) as the previous socks of AniceMathew
  2. Same pattern of edits — Chennai Express, Shah Rukh Khan. etc.

Pretty obvious duck. —Soham (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
12 March 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical name to User:RoshniBaby, a previously blocked sock of his. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same area of interest — mainly Suriya and Shah Rukh Khan-related articles. Furthermore, FireboltLeviosa's user page reads "Good editor...good edits, all good, nothing bad..", mirroring AniceMathew's egoistic behaviour, which he continued through various socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser may be declined, but isn't the evidence I presented strong enough to prove he is a sock? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are revisions of the user pages of him and his socks [1], [2], [3] and [4]. The way he has written in them may not completely show him as egoistic, but still they show how he boasts about himself, and does that prove me right? You may also find some edits in Firebolt's contributions page in which his tone of language in many of the edit summaries is similar to those in AniceMathew's contributions. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc, did you check their contributions pages that I have given links to above? Does anything there convince you that they are the same person? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skr15081997, though Firebolt once said he has been on wiki for "7 years", his contributions page proves that he made his first edit on 24 March 2014. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, the edit summary suggests that FireboltLeviosa has likely edited Wikipedia before under a different username.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • 34, thats a staggering number of common articles in between AM [the sock master] and FBL [the alledged sock] not be suspected. If he is a wikipedian for seven years then he should know about systemic bias and have strong understanding of wikipedia's policies. In such a case why he is contributing to it and gets involved in edit warring, one of the prinicpal policies I expect a 7 year experienced Wikipedian to know about if not have a strong grasp of. Moreover he did not even request an unblock [well, surprising!]. Skr if he is a wikipedian of 7 years [he claims to be one] then under rules of WP:DG he should reveal his previous accounts and under which circumstances he discontinued using them. In his first edit he showed familiarity with templates and did minore space removal. If he can't prove for certain that he is here for 7 long years it has to be dismissed as a golden duck. – Soham (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to patrolling clerk/CU: The links provided in this comment as well as the argument presented should be treated as a submission of factual and behavioural evidence.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Everything is  Stale unless you have more recent accounts. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kailash, I've moved your comment back up there (makes it easier to follow what's going on and who's who). I've had a look and I'm not convinced that they're related, could you find some diffs which show them pushing a similar interest regarding Suriya and Shah Rukh Khan and/or diffs of AniceMathew's egoistic behaviour you mentioned. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having checked AniceMathew socks in the past I can tell that this new sock is editing from the same range(s), ISP, and city. In addition, the edit summaries are very similar, with odd use of ellipsis, and the subject matter overlaps with a preoccupation regarding box office revenue. I think that given the new technical evidence available and the behavioural similarities, FireboltLeviosa is likely a sock of AniceMathew.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Ponyo's recommendation based on the behavioral and technical evidence and after looking through the contributions myself, I have blocked FireboltLeviosa as a sock. Mike V • Talk 16:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Despite making his first edit on 13 September this year, he already seems familiar with editing on Wikipedia; moreover, his odd manner of speaking in English, accompanied by exaggerated usage of ellipses in his edit summaries, and his badly edited user page (similar to his other socks' user pages) may give away his identity. The field of interest is also the same. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Excuse me but what is this....I don't know about your suckpuppet investigation and stuff..I've just made a new account. But I've already said in my user page that I am very familiar with editing wiki (without an account). What does this user have against me? I swear I know nothing about this. Wandamoons (talk), 15 September 2014

Oops sorry. But please prove your innocence in any way. Then I will believe you. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
22 November 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Much like the puppeteer, this puppet too edits articles relating to Tamil and Hindi cinema, with most of his edits concerning any film's box office performances, his exaggerated use of ellipses in edit summaries, how he calls his edits superior to other's, and one edit summary shows the rapping nature his other accounts have shown. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another source of proof: this account made its first edit on 25 September 2014, just 10 days after AniceMathew's last sock Wandamoons was blocked. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
03 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Made his first edit just three days after the last sock Rovekapok was blocked, has a penchant to edit mainly box office information on Tamil and Hindi film articles, and this edit summary of Rovekapok is similar to this one by InletDevin. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
12 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits mainly box office information on Indian films (mostly Tamil and Hindi), replaces reliable sources with other sources he sees as superior, his edits are primarily done through mobile, and his edit summaries overuse ellipses. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While vandalising my user page, in foul language he admitted to being AniceMathew. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
18 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The latest AniceMatthew sock was blocked on 12 December 2014, after making a series of edits on the Thuppakki article, as well as Maattrraan and Arrambam, that changed the box office grossing against existing reliable sources and consensus. Two days later, this account crops up and edits the exact same articles, doing the exact same thing. Both accounts appear to frequently edit from mobile devices, and this new account even referenced the blocked sock in their first post. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

WP:DUCK, and he seemingly fails to understand that while maintaining an alternate identity, he must not showcase such clear evidence of his true identity. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
21 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Brand-new account changing box-office figures on Indian film articles and editing from a mobile device. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Luke, if only you were an admin, you could block this duck without even opening this SPI. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same old story; edits Indian films and changes the box office figures without sources, although in this account's case, it adds totally unsourced ones into new articles. Editing history tells most of the story; starts editing around the time that FireboltLeviosa is blocked, stops, starts editing again in October (this seems random), stops, starts editing less than 24 hours after the latest AniceMathew sock was blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kulli4065 has solely edited the Bang Bang! article. Usual story of the inaccurate changes to the box office figures (no sources whatsoever) like [5], which changes the vandalized figure for another vandalized figure. Same mobile edits, similar editing history around socks to the above user (started editing on 2 November in the gap of editing of Saannbb), stops, starts again one day after an SPI request is filed against Rovekapok, stops, more six days after that sock is blocked, stops, more six days after InletDevin is blocked, stops, starts up again today four days after SkateCrocs is blocked, and one day after I opened this latest SPI).
  • Sonagan is brand-new for today, but is the most blatant of them all; [6] is textbock AM; mobile edit, changing the source and the value. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and have Bangbangluva, who fits the same profile and is also editing just the Bang Bang! article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • No indication of sockpuppetry by CU. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Lukeno94: The accounts have different behaviors. Once uses nothing but the pre-filled edit summaries, one uses a custom summaries. DeltaQuad's check likely shows the accounts are not using the same network or there's a number of different mobile devices, etc. To me, it seems more likely than not that these are all separate users. If there's a problem with adding unsourced material, that requires editor assistance to help educate them on how to properly edit, not block the accounts as sockpuppets. Mike V • Talk 18:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits information related to box office figures on Indian films (particularly Tamil and Hindi) exclusively from his mobile, and identical edit summaries to previous socks, including "See reference". Very likely to show other blatant characteristics as long as the account is active. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
01 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits mainly box office information on Tamil and Hindi films, operates from the mobile, and the name sounds similar to KunnaThayoli, a previously blocked sock. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
19 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Pretty obvious duck. His area of interest is mainly (perhaps only) the fiscal information on Indian, particularly Tamil and Hindi films, and despite making his first edit on 2 January 2015, seems familiar with editing. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He also seems to edit frequently from the mobile, and by removing my SPI comments (though I reverted his edits) in an attempt to prevent this investigation from continuing, he is AniceMathew after all. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Sorry, that was a wrong interpretation. It appeared like he had substituted my comments with his, as I found his comments to be in the top of the page, where they should not be. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • I've blocked the account as a sock. It clearly shows signs as the previous accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. A checkuser has mentioned in the past that this user tends to not have any sleepers, so I'll pass on asking for a check here. Mike V • Talk 22:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The similar style of editing fiscal information on Tamil films (may start on Hindi soon), tendency to edit via mobile, and already familiar with editing despite creating the account today Kailash29792 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


25 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits from mobile devices, messes around with Tamil cinema articles. For me, the clincher that this is AniceMathew is the typical attack on Kailash. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Though this user shows many similar characteristics, he supports Eros International's estimates on Thuppakki's box office earnings, unlike AniceMathew's previous socks who opposed it. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're more expert on this sockmaster than I am. Can't say I'm entirely surprised that CU turned up nothing - if it was that obvious, they would've been flagged up last time. This user toes the line of NOTHERE... but have they crossed it yet? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
28 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The combination of edits to Indian cinema across languages, particularly fiscal information, the mobile edits, his familiarity with editing despite opening this account yesterday (27 Jan) and he seems to have an interest towards Shah Rukh Khan-related articles (Kolkata Knight Riders, Gauri Khan and Red Chillies Entertainment). Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
04 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The same manner of editing fiscal information on Indian films, an interest towards Shah Rukh Khan-related articles, and all his edits are made via mobile. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
18 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Despite making his first edit on 9 February 2015, he already seems familiar with editing, he edits mostly through mobile, and shows a fascination towards Shah Rukh Khan-related articles and fiscal information on Tamil films. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreated K C Cariappa (cricketer) just as it was before deletion. Also interested in Bollywood and IPL, particularly Kolkata Knight Riders. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
19 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

His area of interest is Indian cinema, wherein he alters fiscal information, sees his edits as superior to other's edits, makes excessive mobile edits, has a particular liking for Shah Rukh Khan related articles and has a penchant for cursing. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On his talk page, he has confessed. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
02 April 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Created shortly after the last sock ShaktiKapoor was blocked, and edits in the same style, mostly fiscal information on Indian films through mobile. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

18 August 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

While it did not seem initially obvious, I realised that "Ramesh" shares many interests with AniceMathew, including Indian cinema, (mostly Shah Rukh Khan and Suriya-related articles), box office information on Indian films, and Kolkata Knight Riders. He also edits almost always through the mobile. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AniceMathew/Archive&oldid=1145958200"