Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertseo/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Expertseo

Expertseo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

03 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

I suspected both of them as sock after Expertseo suddenly became active after one year to comment on this AfD with same POV and wording. Expertseo has 77 edits in 7 years. Usually such editors can't stop themself by editing article of their "home city" and "profession". Within these 77 edits both editors have many pages in common. Both of them edited article of Raebareli city extesively, [1], [2]. Both of them edited odd article like BatchMaster Software extensively, see edit history of article. Human3015TALK  14:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expertseo is very old account, he don't give edit summary while editing (as it is old account and new editors don't know much about it) but Katyaan gives proper edit summary since its 2nd ever edit as if he was very experienced. You can see all of his initial edits in his contribution. Both of them are interested in Congress party of India. There are several edits of both editors which are related to Congress, Expertseo-[3], [4], Katyaan-[5], related to Rahul Gandhi on talk page. Both of them supports political stand of Congress. Even nominating article Adarsh Liberal for deletion is some sort of sharing same political POV which both of them share. --Human3015TALK  14:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Expertseo forgot to sign in AFD of Adarsh Liberal, and signbot signed for him. If CU can't connect them. That would mean they are meats. Katyaan told his friend (probabaly both work in the company, whose logo they edited), and his friend came to vote.--The Avengers 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, helping an editor or making edits to articles is complicity? The charges being levelled against me are frivolous. Just because two accounts have certain common edits doesn't mean that they are related. A comment made by an editor that I am related to a certain political party is just preposterous. I would like to know how come the editor concluded that I am related to a political party!? Tomorrow an editor will say that because two editors edited the same article and thanked each other therefore they are related. Is that so? The pages are created and maintained by several editors because they understand the subject and have some authority over it. Are they all connected? If somebody on Wikipedia helps make my edits better or I do the same, it is natural for me to follow that editor and his edits. Yes, I do it. Instead of initiating this investigation, the administrators should understand how all this started. This has been started by the editors who have gone against the Wikipedia guidelines and created the page Adarsh Liberal. This page was once deleted and then recreated. I nominated it for deletion. If we allow such pages to come on Wikipedia, where are we heading? If you go through the references used for this page, you will notice that they have been used in the wrong context and Internet trolls are the driving force behind it. If I come across pages not adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia, I will act against them and same applies to me.Katyaan (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Katyaan: you did not account for the relationship between the two of you. Please explain.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we allow such pages to come on Wikipedia, where are we heading? and If I come across pages not adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia, I will act against them. Rightly said, but in this particular page, you seem to have some personal choice as creating the article is not vandalism. As it's sourced from reliable sources it cannot be called as an attack page. No one creates article according to your personal taste. If you don't like a subject, no one needs your permission to create that article. And i want to see if any administrator agrees with This has been started by the editors who have gone against the Wikipedia guidelines and created the page. The Avengers 05:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already given my part of explanation above. As far as my personal choice is concerned, there are many pages that I don't like but I have never acted against them. However, in this particular case, being from India, I can clearly see the violation. I reiterate, references are being used in the wrong context to manipulate. The page's topic is a Twitter handle, it is not even a meme! Yes, I still say that this has been started by editors with vested interests. This page was earlier deleted and came up again. I was not involved in its earlier removal from Wikipedia, but it was removed, right? So, why was it removed? Those who voted against the page were colluding? An editor with a special interest in that page has accused me of being politically inclined and has opened SPI against me. Can somebody ask him how he has reached this conclusion? My point is, it is not right to attack people based on their views and that page is doing it. Wikipedia should not be allowed to turn into political battlefield as it is a credible and authoritative source of information.Katyaan (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Katyaan: this is your last chance to explain the relationship between you and the named master which you have not done. I'm already convinced there is one so if you dodge this, I'll just indef both of you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: If Wikipedia runs on your whims and fancies and if you can abuse the rights you have, nobody can stop you. I have already cleared my stand. If you want to know more, you should ask the other editor in question. As far as you being convinced is concerned, please enlighten me as well.Katyaan (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rahulkhare (talk · contribs) is likely sock of Expertseo, the logo File:BMLogo.jpg about which we were talking about was originally uploaded by Rahulkhare, see history of logo. Also article BatchMaster Software is created by Rahulkhare. Specially CU is also in favour.--Human3015TALK  09:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mailer diablo: Girish534 (talk · contribs) is likely sock, though it is stale account but they have same interest and also see user pages of Girish534 and Rahulkhare, both are exactly same. I am not saying to block these accounts but if they become active and use them abusively, then they can be blocked.--Human3015TALK  10:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to leave a message for Katyaan/Expertseo if he is reading. I was not "blaming" you that you have connection with any political party, I was just saying that you "both" support same political party in various edits as one of proof that you both can be probably same person. As far as your editing is concerned there is no issue that which political party you support or oppose, there was no issue that you were editing Congress related articles, I was just saying all this just to show one similarity between two accounts, nothing else. So don't get me wrong. Have happy real life, don't take tension of getting blocked, anyway you were not so active editor. Best luck. --Human3015TALK  20:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Blocked and tagged Mkdwtalk 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Confirmed sock of Expertseo Katyaan nominated Adarsh Liberal for Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (2nd nomination). New account Isnowden came to tag same article. Both of them edits scam related articles [6], [7], [8], [9]. Both of them interested in Madhya Pradesh related articles. Human3015TALK  18:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Amit098 (stale after their article on their company was deleted in Dec. 2014) gave Katyaan a barnstar in the same manor that the other socks awarded each other barnstars. Expertseo gave Katyaan a star just eight days later. According to their userpage, Amit098 is a Marketing Engineer at ProofHub. Isnowden states that "I have an interest in Digital Marketing too and running ads on social media platforms is my forte." on their userpage.

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

  •  Clerk endorsed - to confirm socking by Isnowden and Amitt 2202 and flush any sleepers.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amit098 is stale, Amitt 2202 has no direct socks and Red X Unrelated. Isnowden is  Confirmed to the archive and not possibly an EP student for that program. I have removed them as such. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isnowden blocked and tagged. CLosing. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Expertseo/Archive&oldid=1076204929"