Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barthateslisa/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Barthateslisa

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

21 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets
  • Both users (Barthateslisa and 43.225.72.41) edited Siege of Bahadur Benda, while I was blocked and removed a variety of sourced content while sticking in their strong POV. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
  • Both users edited Maratha–Mysore War, while I was blocked around the same period of time and took away sourced content. What was also removed added during this time was a previously deleted and merged article called the Battle of Gajendragad as seen here [6]. It was remade without going through deletion review and both editors edited it. One of the users (49.14.124.100) also added a fictitious date to the battle, which is not indicated in the sources and which was made up (He changed the date of the deleted battle from June 1786 to June 1787) possibly to give the illusion that the Marathas won, when they did not. See here [7]. Also, a plagiarized WP mirror book was used to justify this fictitious battle [8].
  • Making a series of changes on the article Battles involving the Maratha Empire, from Jan 2nd 2016 to January 4th, 2016, which removes battles in which the Marathas lost and includes irrelevant materials that are clearly POV. Also, the utilization of plagiarized materials, as indicated by another user here [9]
  • [10] as indicated here, this user also claims a Maratha victory, which was a claim previously justified using a plagiarized WP mirror book, as indicated by another user here [11]. For Capitals00 I would say possibly a WP:DUCK. The user also clearly misattributes sources to claim a Maratha victory, which seems to be a common tactic here. This tactic was also used in the article Battle of Gajendragad, in which none of the sources indicated (except for maybe the WP mirror) indicate a battle in Gajendragad during this time. They only mention a treaty, which according to this source [12], was put into effect in March of 1787, which has is nothing to do with the dates of the so called "Battle of Gajendragad" proposed.

They seem to have a tendency with claiming Maratha victories on articles and censoring Maratha losses. Xtremedood (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add, also, in this article Battle of Saunshi as seen here [13] you can see that the user (43.225.72.41) also uses the same tactic claiming a Maratha victory, when the source clearly states a Maratha defeat. Earlier, user:D4iNa4 tried to get this article deleted, which resulted in a decision to keep it, as seen here [[14]]. Similarly, user:D4iNa4, over here [15] tried to work together with user:Capitals00 to support the nonsensical claim of an Indian victory for the Cho La incident. They also seem to have the tendency of claiming an "Indian Victory" in this article and have worked together against user:Zanhe. You can also see there edits on the article over here [16]. Similarly user:Capitals00 edits the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article to exclude Bangladesh in the results section, as seen over here [17], even though through a discussion and consensus, it was agreed upon to include Bangladesh in the results section, see here [18] and [19]. User:Capitals00 also makes the fictitious claim (using the same tactic) that the mentioned sources over here [20] state Bangladesh did not win, when that is not what the sources state. Xtremedood (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2016 (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]

This report is no Declined as baseless. The filer has a history of filing baseless SPIs, generally against the same accounts. I've warned the filer in the past and have now blocked the filer for a week. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I don't know much about this master, so I'm hoping a CU could double-check. I notice significant similarities to Shimlaites, one of the most recent CU-confirmed accounts of Barthateslisa.

That's all I got. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 24 May 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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The user is engaging in lot of edit wars like Shimlaites did with me on Untitled Sanjay Dutt Biopic article. Please check it.Jack Shukla AKA TKSS & Paplesh. (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije Here are some diffs which i can show you clearly matches his edits to Shimlaites who was again a sock. The links are:
Yes these are the proofs which i have but you are saying that it didn't match their editing pattern only the warning matches but you can still check both account's ip's to see if they have used similar ip's or not. That all i can suggest. Jack Shukla AKA TKSS & Paplesh. (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
If you can see clearly their warning is very much similar Jack Shukla AKA TKSS & Paplesh. (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

I think he is the same sock. See[22]. It might help.-Umair Aj (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @Jack Shukla: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jack Shukla: I see no similarity in diffs that you provided, except that they both left you a (different) warning at your talk page. Is that all? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jack Shukla: No, I can't check their IP because i'm not a WP:Checkuser. And, checkuser tool is only used if there is strong evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't see any such evidence here. I'm closing this. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I have been suspicious of User:NineTimes for a while now. We have been involved in edit wars in several Bollywood articles. I previously had similar edit wars in several Bollywood articles with User:SoniaKovind, who made similar edits to NineTimes. SoniaKovind was banned after it turned out he is a sockpuppet of User:Barthateslisa in July 2017. Just a month later, the first edit of NineTimes appeared in August 2017. Some of the similarities between them:

  • They have both been editing the Bollywood article extensively. SoniaKovind previously made many extensive edits to the Bollywood article. After I reverted his edits after he was banned, there hasn't been much editing activity to the article from users other than myself. The only other user after SoniaKovind (other than myself) to make so many extensive edits to the article is NineTimes.
  • They both share a similar POV against the Khans. User:SoniaKovind repeatedly removed content about the Khans and downplayed them in the Khans of Bollywood article, while also removing content about Dilip Kumar (Yusuf Khan) in the Bollywood article. After SoniaKovind was banned, I reverted his edits to both articles (as mentioned above). Since then, I added images of two of the Khans, Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan. Recently, User:NineTimes has been removing content about the three Khans and downplaying them in the Bollywood article, such as here, here and here. He also removed the Aamir Khan image, which I restored afterwards, and in turn he retaliated by removing all of the actor images.
  • Other articles I previously had edit wars with SoniaKovind in include 100 Crore Club and 1000 Crore Club. After SoniaKovind was banned, I reverted his edits to both those articles. Recently, NineTimes has removed links to both of those articles from Template:Bollywood films.
  • SoniaKovind kept following me around on Wikipedia, attempting to revert or counter my edits. NineTimes has also been following me around on Wikipedia, attempting to revert or counter my edits.
  • They have both personally attacked me by claiming I have a "fetish". SoniaKovind did so here and NineTimes did so here. This similarity really stands out. It's strikingly similar how both accounts even attacked me with the same word, "fetish".

The evidence above looks strong enough for me to suspect that the two accounts, SoniaKovind (sockpuppet of Barthateslisa) and NineTimes, must belong to the same person. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added User:ThreeTwentyTwo, in light of NineTimes' sockpuppet allegation against me here. Knowing SoniaKovind, I wouldn't be surprised if he created User:ThreeTwentyTwo for the purpose of attacking and harassing me. SoniaKovind has harassed me before, and threatened to get me banned (as you can see on my talk page), so I wouldn't be surprised if he created this User:ThreeTwentyTwo in an attempt to do just that. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even his response to this complaint is similar to what SoniaKovind said here when I gave him a warning. He had earlier given me a false warning, and then I gave him a legitimate warning. He then accused me of giving a counter-warning. And now after I filed a sockpuppet investigation against NineTimes, he has similarly responded by accusing me of giving a counter-complaint. Responding to a complaint by calling it a "counter" is yet another similarity between the two. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is just a countercomplaint in reply to my complaint against Maestro 2016 for creating this puppet account, ThreeTwentyTwo. Why he chose this particular case is beyond me. Maestro 2016 has been engaging in edit wars with me on a couple of pages such as; Bollywood, Padmavati (film), Khalji dynasty, Alauddin Khalji and Film industry, since last couple of days. Then suddenly out of no where on 4 November 2017, this new user ThreeTwentyTwo appeared, with sole agenda of reporting me. All of ThreeTwentyTwo's edits are related to me and is related to the pages mentioned above, where Maestro2016 was engaged in edit wars with me. I really doubt this is a rarest of rare case of coincidence. NineTimes (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this allegation that I would create an account(ThreeTwentyTwo) to report myself for vandalism is laughable at best but then everyone has an imagination. NineTimes (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Accounts blocked. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same strange obsession with adding crap about Ravish Kumar's brother to his article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacDui Per WP:BEANS I didn't want to spell it out but: 1, 2. Just one of many examples. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:47, 15 March 2018 (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]

information Administrator note I had a look at this and firstly there is no sign of "Ravish Kumar" appearing in the archive so a diff or three would have helped. Secondly, whilst it is true that 100% of the alleged sock's edits are suspicious - and forgive me if I am wrong about this - I think it would be unusual to block someone on behavioural grounds after a single edit. If they start editing again please feel free to ping me. Ben MacDui 19:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing per Ben MacDui's comments. Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

SPA, recreating near-identical Battle of Gajendragad from redirect, along with overlapping edits at Maratha–Mysore Wars. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2023 (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]

  • This is not enough evidence to link this account to the master almost 5 years back. no Closing without action. MarioGom (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Barthateslisa/Archive&oldid=1174670228"