Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shivamevolution

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

Four relativity new WP:SPA's who edit almost exclusively Shivam Patil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or his film Nasha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). LGA talkedits 07:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

aryanfire2013 is an account used by my older brother, was not aware that it was against some community guidelines. The other accounts mentioned, I am unaware of.--Shivamevolution (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a quick read of Wikipedia:My little brother did it might help. Least a CU will be able to tell if it was a different or same computer. LGA talkedits 10:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article applies to vandalism/blocking, which is inapplicable to the case in point. I actually asked for your help to spot 'advertising tone', you didn't bother and instead kept reducing article to a stub (ruining a lot of referenced information), so I asked an older sibling to help out. There was no vandalism involved, as far as I can see his edits, so I don't see any genuine cause for concern here. And like the Check's result says, I have no idea who the other ID making these edits is. Thank you --Shivamevolution (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

-- Avi (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Group 1 blocked indef (one was already blocked). Group 2, new account has been blocked indefinitely, master has been blocked for two weeks. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
07 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

One of the first edits was to add an image from Commons to Shivam Patil The image is from a flickrwashing account and the previous uploaders have been blocked as socks on Commons. Out here, the same have been classified under two sets based on technical evidence, though behavioral evidence suggests a greater linkage, though possibly only meat and not sock. —SpacemanSpiff 09:24, 7 October 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]
  •  Possible to both groups in the archive. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. CU on Commons listed the two groups as likely, and combined given the possible to both groups here, I've blocked. Behavior is a clincher. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same evolving pattern as past two socks, innocuous edits to a couple of other articles and then descending to a bit of an antagonistic tactic to the Shivam Patil article (as I have protected the article, the edits are on the talk page) —SpacemanSpiff 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I was just on my way here to open the same investigation. The user's page was created with a [1] a userbox for "Lucknow", which as seen in the archive is user name of a previous sock and had been the target of some of the editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 16 October 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]
  •  Likely One other user is possible but due to the circumstances I'll keep an eye on their edits before blocking. (0 edit user). NativeForeigner Talk 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NewsXIndia tagged and blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


17 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I think we may have another one given this edit and the e-mail address posted, it could conceivably be a false flag account hence the CU request. Even if it is not a sock the username is a violation of the username policy and probably needs to be {{UsernameBlocked}}. LGA talkedits 08:44, 17 October 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]
  •  Likely though sleepers are hard to pull out. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Times Of India Official tagged and blocked indef. Closing. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 October 2017[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please bear with me here. This has been filed at the request of Berean Hunter, who has already CU'd some of the above accounts. Some of them are already blocked but concerns have been raised re: potential undisclosed paid editing as well as socking. I've got to raise this report at WP:COIN for further input/investigation. Umpteen admins have already voiced concern but filing this seems to be causing a general fit of the vapours, so I'm having a go. If I've got it wrong, please go easy on me.

The origins of this report lie in the thread on my talk page - see here (permalink). - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was hoping that the User Compare Report would take some of the load but it is returning a 404 error. And the Editor interaction utility keeps timing out when I populate it. This is going to be a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I have no doubt that the new group is linked to the old one behaviorally. However, I don't think that Shivap belongs to this set. That's a long time editor, no doubt with problems around sourcing, but the subjects he creates articles for are generally notable and there's not much of an advertorial feel, more of a minimalistic issue.That user has also been consistent in their topic area since they started editing. —SpacemanSpiff 15:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering whether the suspected parties who are unblocked at the time of this report shall be informed of the case and be allowed to present a line of defense?Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty solid case, even without diff(s).Similar names, a huge/complete overlap of editing interest(s) with supposed ring-leader--Shivamroy22 and similarly toned promotional editing.A good case for CU to be run to help in connecting this to an old case (am pretty sure S22 is experienced in the lines....) and/or discover some sleepers etc.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush:--In all probabilities, this would not be a nightmare:) SPI folks are accustomed to much more difficult and wide-spanned cases! Edits of the farm span across very few subjects (I'm not considering Shivap to belong to the ring) and frankly, the edit counts (incl. that of S22) are quite low to maneuver manually (without help from interaction analyzers) and establish connections.Also, it would be interesting to check the history of articles by S22, that were deleted and check for overlaps and other socks. Dileepmaa is suspected.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 04:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem with the farm is their mass use of throw-away accounts.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 05:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The below is a list of articles edited by the above users up to and including Parththakkar99 (except Shivap) -- not minor, main namespace only, deleted contributions included, count is total number of edits made by all users:
Extended content
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Copied from User talk:Sitush by Sitush

Start Copy

The interest of the confirmed socks span multiple years for this deleted article. Other contribs may need analysis.

  • Shivamroy22 is  Possible to the above but needs further evaluation. Exact UA match coming up within same /64 address although they are defined as static IPs.

The following accounts are  Possible to WikiCone! as they share the same IP and the first two created their accounts within less than 12 hours of each other:

After evaluation, it would be good for someone to get this into an SPI report to track for future purposes. It also allows a place to report others that you may feel are related or we may tie this to another master eventually. We can worry about tags later. Don't be shy about asking some of the other admins for help sorting this out, Sitush. More eyes may mean that more socks are found.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End copy

  • Is there anything left to do here? It doesn't seem so, but the formatting of this case has become complex over time. If there's nothing left, I will close this soon. --Deskana (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this, then. If there's something left, it can be reopened later. --Deskana (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The accounts are focused on non-notable poets and the related articles. Earlier on N1197L came back as a maybe with CU when Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) flagged it as possible to the earlier socks, but like an idiot I did not follow up then, now the sock's focus is on a couple of articles I've edited/cleaned up, so I will not take any action at this point, but I believe a block is warranted. This is the only edit from the second account, and that's very suspicious to say the least, especially as it's not saying what the socks are claiming it to say, a trademark of the sock farm. We've always had multiple socks active, so I'm bringing here so that a check can be run to clean out the rest. I'm also pinging Winged Blades of Godric who has some experience with the sock farm. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • As I consider myself involved with this particular sock, I'm pinging Smartse to evaluate this behaviorally. I think the poetry linkage and language is strong enough, coupled with the geolocation, but I'll let another admin make the call with respect to these two socks. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Different ISPs and UAs but they are in the same location which makes it  Possible.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SpacemanSpiff: I've taken a look but given the relatively low number of edits, it is hard to be sure. N1197L is close to being blocked independently of this investigation if they carry on as they have. I agree John Carter Lambert is suspicious, but there are a few behavioural traits that make me doubt whether they are the same person as N1197L. Of course, this could be deliberate, but I am inclined to wait and see what happens for a while and block if they continue to be disruptive. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see. Please re-report if there are further suspicious edits. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shivamevolution/Archive&oldid=1091625783"