Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D4iNa4/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


D4iNa4

D4iNa4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 5 May 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]

Procedural filing based on CheckUser results and behavioural evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


User is recently returned from an SPI block and started edit warring and removal of Sourced Contents 1 and a Picture 2 about Pakistan victory in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (both are related the removed material,the removed sources and the picture was about pakistan Victory in 1965 war) with really blatent reasons, for which he was warned for Edit Warring by a user on his talk page 3, Since then he started warring logged out 4 and oversighted the details. Here i think determination can be made based on the accounts behaviour alone. Look 5
master Edit
Included the "Template:Di-no source" to delete the File، However i removed the template Because Source Information was Present in Picture Summary and the template itself state that Please remove this template if source information is provided. So I removed the template but after this
ip edit
an IP performed the same edit with same template and Oversighted the details. I want to request a deep analysis of this User. HIAS (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC) HIAS (talk) 20:16, 20 September 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]

  • I'm aware of the oversighted edit and I don't see a concern here in regards to sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 20:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archiving because the logged-out edit appears to have be a mistake and not a specific attempt to deceive, thus there is little to do when it comes to sockpuppetry policy. Of course, that does not preclude other administrative action if the behaviour does not follow other policies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Daina has just 205 edits but behave like a Skilful Editor. I think there is a case of Block Evasion here.

Here are the Parallels:

  • 1 (Daina's Edit)
  • 2 (Daina's Edit)
  • 3 (reverted)
  • 4 (User Warned for Edit Warring)
  • 5 (-Ghatus-'s Edit)


Moreover, Daina has a history of Sock puppets, 'Daina's account was blocked on 5th May 2014 and -Ghatus- account was created on 30 May 2014'. Both of the users have Belligerent Attitude, Insistent Editing Pattern and Most Important do not forget to compare their language and Writing style . HIAS (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) HIAS (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

More info: @Philippe: Why would I retaliate if the SPI proved my Innocence and saved me from Unwanted threats, and just because of that i have never reported Daina on WP:AN . HIAS (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some diffs about use of Same Phrase over and over,

Misrepresentation of Sources

  • 1 (Daina's Edit)
  • 2 (Daina's Edit)
  • 3 (Ghatus's Edit)


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

@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: I'm looking into this, but it would be helpful if you could support your statements... for instance, what, in particular, are we looking for with language and writing style? Diffs would be useful. -Philippe (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. I'm going to put this one on hold for a while, and unless we see further evidence coming in, I'll ask that a clerk close it in a day or so. As it stands now, there is not enough here to justify further investigations, I believe. -Philippe (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A valid concern, obviously, but it's not going to go far without more information anyway. I'm not inclined to do much given what we have so far. -Philippe (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this case for the lack of evidence. The evidence presented is to weak and circumstantial to warrant a CheckUser check. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


These two accounts have generally very low levels of activity, but have recently shown a very surprising degree of coordination. Both have been blocked for socking previously, but Raymond3023's account has been twice unblocked on appeal (which itself I find odd; ARBCOM might be aware of some extenuating circumstances). The instances of coordination are on pages as far apart as this RfD, Marital rape in India, this AfD, the talk page of Racism, and this AN discussion. Furthermore, there is an odd conjunction between the peaks of D4iNa4's editing and the periods when Raymond3023 is active. I'm not certain a CU will find something: both these editors have had CUs run on them before (and were blocked as a result); but the evidence seems to me to be compelling enough to check. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2017 (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]

  •  On hold - Pending a request to ArbCom for information regarding the unblocks. ~ Rob13Talk 08:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly  Unlikely. The behavior is concerning, and I'll leave this for a clerk to evaluate further. ~ Rob13Talk 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's actually not a lot of overlap between the two editors, they just seem to have interests in common. The RfD mentioned was about Marital rape in India, a topic (at Rape in India#Marital rape) which both users have edited, and the AfD was related to an incident near where they evidently live. Racism is a hella broad topic, and faith healing is a contentious issue that attracts comments (as does WP:AN). They actually individually have more overlap with Vanamonde93 and with me than they do with each other. My opinion is that the CU result backs up my theory, and so I'm closing with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D4iNa4/Archive&oldid=1076202976"