Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awaaz-e-Kashmir/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Awaaz-e-Kashmir

Awaaz-e-Kashmir (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This is a new account with very few edits, all the edits are on the same article. A WP:DUCK in my opinion. This user is also canvassing the India's project notice board for users sharing his point of view and editwarring content in to the article. The sources are well formatted and only doable by an experienced user. But I'm not exactly sure who the master is (giving my opinions on suspects might violate some community restrictions).. so I'll just report the sock. I think a CU is due on this as that might get the root of the problem. lTopGunl (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Given what has been said here [2] I think perhaps I am the sockmaster. Feel free to CU away. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I suspect this is an attempt to get me blocked, for lack of behavioral evidence note the references used [3] This fellow includes the URL's to book citations, I never do. I also rarely use newspapers especially for historical content, were as this fellow does. And I am quite sure I have never called anyone sir since school. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether or not you use URLS. On the whole, your style of referencing books (filling out all details neatly, giving the ISBN etc. etc.) is overall very similiar to that of the suspected user. I'm also suspecting proxies here. Mar4d (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys must be getting desperate to try such a shoddy trick, you should be ashamed. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such a moving comment DS reduced me to tears I hang my head in shame :( NerosRevenge (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way to break an IBAN, do I get to see this evidence then? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will find that you have broken IBAN by accusing mard of being a sock good luck you seem to be in quite a pickle NerosRevenge (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to clerks: The original report I filed has been amended [4] which is an interaction ban violation (consider this comment an IBAN vio report as well). The added suspect is not even related to those topics and not mentioned in my email report. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding a suspect to an SPI is not a violation, I have in no way altered content or interacted with the person with whom I have the IBAN Darkness Shines (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • User:DeltaQuad/SPI/NeedDiffs Email me and i'll filter through what you have, see if the link is creditable, if it is, i'll post and endorse here. I think i'm supposed to be helping you guys with this topic area or something anyway, so ya. Or you can also try the CU list directly if you prefer. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - I've got an email on this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: The email does not mention any specific user directly, and doesn't not have enough of a creditable link to one specific user, though I do agree that this is not a new editor and i'll be looking through diffs (not from the email) to see if I can endorse to see who is behind this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I forgot to post over here, the same account is being looked into here[5] by Elen of the Roads Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, if Elen has something, i'll let her handle it. If she would like assistance with diffs connecting the two after the CU results, then give me a ping. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DQ - check your email. I sent it to the checkuser list - didn't realise you were on this. And I think I'm going to topic ban Darkness Shines from SPI - he keeps spawning investigations from the original one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I hate to break your backup, but if you sent it to checkuser-l, I won't be getting it. I was referring to diff collection to compare editors after the CU results because I'm not a CU. Sorry for the misconception. If that's not the case, and you did sent it to me, then either I need to beat my savage connection or it didn't come through. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Realised that - check your mail. Also figured out I think what I'm looking at. Don't bother looking at diffs - I don't think this guy is a sock of anyone we know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you deal socks if the master is unknown but the behviour shows - haven't dealt with such before (sorry if I was supposed to post in above section but every one seems to be posting here)? --lTopGunl (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a case by case basis and done based on disruption level and sockiness. (If that's a word) If it's what Elen thinks it is, then I am probably gonna nuke it's right to edit. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Since that CU has resulted in the usual one word response of "unrelated" (actually in that list - I don't know if checks on the names in email were performed)... where does this stand? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was unrelated to any name in that list, or to anyone who submitted evidence to the SPI, or to you - or to me for that matter. That's what unrelated means. I am awaiting replies on a technical question from another checkuser. I haven't checkusered anyone you might have put in an email to DeltaQuad because hey, you know, I can't see his email. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will check back. And ofcourse, I assumed he would filter and share it as he offered, but I guess that wont matter as your above reply is inclusive. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, figured it out with the help of Hersfold and Tiptoety. A false positive (not any of the editors on the list, which was what made me suspicious) was the result of being a shared IP proxy (I think I've got the terminology right - not an open proxy but one where subscribers are connected to the internet via a proxy server - apparently this arrangement is a common way to access the internet on the Indian subcontinent). So this editor is on technical evidence not anyone's sock, certainly not a sock of Nangparbat or Mar4d, who are both on different continents. Wikiwriter786, meanwhile, is a sock of Ciclone - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CicloneElen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This can be closed now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Awaaz-e-Kashmir/Archive&oldid=1079423440"