Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kichappan/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kichappan

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

01 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This edit is a trademark from Kichappan [1] whose other accounts have already been blocked by Bbb23. I trust there are other socks active currently so I'm requesting a CU —SpacemanSpiff 10:24, 1 July 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]

01 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Most recent edit on DigitalRavan's page seems to give it away RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:58, 1 July 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]

16 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

His last known sock User:MesopotemianVulture was blocked on July 8, 2016. This IP 115.249.188.97 appeared from the same date. The IP has edited same pages Kichappan used to edit, some of them are Priyadarshan filmography, Rahul Raj, Geethaanjali, Boeing Boeing (1985 film), Padayottam etc. The major evidences are:

1) He re-added the same content the sock User:MesopotemianVulture once added in Janatha Garage (diff, IPdiff).

2) He removed same content in Geethanjali (diff, again IPdiff)

3) And he finally gave himself here (diff, IPdiff).

There are more. Charles Turing (talk) 20:36, 16 July 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]

23 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Kichappan is back. Evidences are his usual edits in certain articles:

  1. Boeing Boeing (1985 film) (diff, diff)
  2. Thalavattam (diff, diff)
  3. Geethaanjali (diff, IPsock, diff) Charles Turing (talk) 12:10, 23 July 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]

01 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

We had some issues a few months ago with some sock operators polluting Janatha Garage. Charles Turing brought to my attention that he thought Sauerstoffliebe was another incarnation, so I thought I'd take a look.

  • MesopotemianVulture, a CU-confirmed sock of Kichappan was pushing a "Mohanlal comes first in credits" agenda, reorganizing the |starring= parameter of the film's infobox to place Mohanlal first before N. T. Rama Rao Jr., because you know, this shit is super-freaking-important.
  • Sauerstoffliebe's first edit was to create Ezra (2016 film). He knows enough about Wikipedia editing that he establishes the film began principal photography. Otherwise, his article was sure to be deleted/redirected per WP:NFF. His second and third edits were to his user page. Then he disappeared for two months.
  • Uh oh! With only three edits under his belt, he's not quite autoconfirmed as of September 1st, so he makes another 7 perfunctory edits to Austria, Marlon Brando, few Indian articles...then wham, he edits Janatha Garage to move Mohanlal's name to the front of the list.
  • Here Sauerstoff throws around "POV" rather comfortably for a n00b. A similar argument comes from MesopotemianVulture "Have the lead actor first? Whose opinion? Yours? That's what we call P.O.V."
  • Sauerstoff also edits here at Koratala Siva to move Mohanlal's name to the front. Kichappan also edited this article (making some kinda mess with Janatha Garage...not sure what he was going for.)
  • In the archive history, the last flare-up was around July 2016. MesopotemianVulture was indeffed 8 July 2016, PaachuvumKovaalanum was indeffed July 1. The Sauerstoff acount was created 6 July 2016, so it seems likely he created the account amidst his last big disruption run.

Given his tendency to use multiple accounts at once, it would be appreciated if we could check for sleepers.

SpacemanSpiff noted in the SPI archive that this edit, where the user reintroduces "matinee idol status" and the "megastar" sobriquette for Mammootty (an Indian, Malayalam-language actor) was a hallmark of Kichappan--I know we had a flare-up of discussion about this issue in early August involving Ambeinghari. Ambeinghari was someone that a lot of us felt was a sock of someone, we just didn't know who. Harirajmohanhrm? WillShowU? It could be worth another look, but it could also just be putting someone through the wringer for nothing. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 1 September 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]

12 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Only edits were to substitute the name of Vensatry for the sockmaster on the user pages of three Kichappan socks and two Padmalakshmisx socks, and create Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vensatry. Username Google-translates as "I'm kiccappan". JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 12 October 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]

Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User name in Tamil language means Kichappan 007, created two days after last sock was blocked. Similar to the last sock name, User:நான் கிச்சப்பன் இருக்கிறேன் blocked on 12 October 2016 meant I'm Kichappan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

He's already blocked. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Blocked and tagged as suspected sock.  Clerk assistance requested: I'm leaving this open in case a clerk thinks it wise to get some new CU data on this guy. The last CU appears to have been done in September. The user does sometimes have multiple accounts going at once. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed that it belongs to Kichappan. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag tweaked, closing. GABgab 21:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Kichappan's latest sock restored Chintankanabar's edits at C. Christine Fair at a time when Chintan was at his fourth revert and was reported for edit-warring. It could not be more convenient than creating a sock and continuing with edit-warring. Latest CheckUser on Kichappan was done on 1 September 2016. Chintan came back on 8 September 2016 after four years of absence. His last edit before 8 September 2016 was on 14 December 2012 way before when Kichappan's first sock was detected so its possible he could not have been shown in any checks. My suspicion about Chintan is due to his extraordinary help at C. Christine Fair at an extraordinary time. They might be separate editors helping each other but still meatpuppetry cannot be ruled out.

Restoration of same edits on C. Christine Fair
  • Chintankanabar:
  1. 06:55, 14 October 2016
  2. 07:50, 14 October 2016
  3. 08:23, 14 October 2016
  4. 10:27, 14 October 2016
  • கிச்சப்பன் 007:
  1. 17:50, 14 October 2016
  2. 17:52, 14 October 2016

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:51, 14 October 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]

Chintankanabar is Red X Unrelated. Katietalk 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with no action taken; they are likely either meat or simply tag-team reverting. I personally think the latter is more plausible. GABgab 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie and GeneralizationsAreBad: I've pulled this from the archive. In providing a second opinion, I would revise the result to  Possible, but nothing more than that. Normally I would say meatpuppetry is a possibility in this case, but i'm more likely to say this is sockpuppetry, and this is why:
  1. கிச்சப்பன் 007's first edit is to continue an edit war.
  2. கிச்சப்பன் 007's first edit prevents the first editor from being classified under violating 3RR as they made only three reverts. This may affect administrative decisions on the case.
  3. The revisions are exactly the same, simple use of the revert button, after an account is created. I find it harder to believe that someone colluding would create an account to do this when they can do the same anonymously. That's not to dismiss the possibility of meat though.
Either way, speaking without an arb hat on, meatpuppetry can be treated the same as sockpuppetry per the normal arbitration ruling found in the sock policy. I request that we rereview the evidence at hand and consider a stronger measure, but I'll leave it to you guys to make the final decision. Katie, if you could drop me an email, i'll explain my CU in a little more detail. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold pending response from Katie or GAB. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have an email in to DeltaQuad but it seems her email queue is rather large. ;-) Katietalk 22:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: In light of the technical results and DQ's comments, I do think a block would be appropriate here. But I'll wait for the internecine CU chatter to conclude before definitively calling for a block :) GABgab 03:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amanda and I have discussed, and based on her evaluation and GeneralizationsAreBad's, I've blocked Chintankanabar. We can close this now if there's nothing else to do. Thanks, all. :-) Katietalk 00:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great - closing. GABgab 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same articles of interest. Some edits are even the same. Indian films and music/musicians are his interested areas. Check these - (1, 2), (3, 4), (5, 6), (7, 8), these are only the few among others. Yackmann (talk) 08:51, 25 January 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]

Blocked by SpacemanSpiff. Closing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Both are interested in Indian music and Malayalam film related articles, particularly Priyadarshan directed films and South Indian music industry. Kichappan was blocked in June 2016 and PlutoniumBackToTheFuture was created in September 2016. At that time Kichappan was creating several accounts and was blocked except this one.

EIA --Let There Be Sunshine 12:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I always suspected something about him, although I didn't know whose sockpuppet he was. But now you've cleared my doubts, and I say Plutonium must be blocked. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by 1997kB as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  •  Clerk note: Unlikely to be Shanthiniketan, Shanthiniketan has 'Mobile only editing'. More of evidence presented in case are compelling that this is Kichappan, thus Pink clock Awaiting administrative action: Please indef the sock. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Shanthiniketan is unlikely to be related, despite the strange coincidence. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlutoniumBackToTheFuture for which they were blocked for two weeks in 2018. Apart from that this, and the evidence presented above, this would seem to be an account in good standing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Martin. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08 April 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Shared interest in Indian music and cinema.

  • Similar phrasings used in language disputes include "X language production" - [26]:[27][28]
  • Arguments based on "censorship" are odd because a film can be censored in multiple languages - [29][30]:[31][32][33]
  • The word "NOT" is capitalized - [39]:[40]
  • Inexplicably removing sentence stating A.R Rahman's return after 27 years since Yoddha - [41]:[42]

Their edits and arguments are so peculiar that no other IP or user has made similar changes. The IP seems to be interested in Aadujeevitham, probably because of A.R Rahman's involvement, which is the most frequently edited topic by the socks. The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:32, 8 April 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]

  • 2405:201:f004:d080::/58 is already blocked. Closing. MarioGom (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09 April 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Refer IPs from previous case - sample: IP1, IP2, IP3

Returned shortly after with a sleeper a/c solely to continue edit warring at Aadujeevitham for the same change - language dispute: [43]. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:37, 9 April 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]

 Blocked but awaiting tags Looks pretty duckish to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aadujeevitham (film) protected x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Follow-up to the last case. I had planned, but forgot to report the users in July 2023, when there was a conflict with the IPs and socks of Kichappan at Aadujeevitham, regarding the film's language. User returned to resume the edit war by IPs and KurnoolBombayXpress after page protection. [44][45]. Please see if Ksainarayanan also pops up in CU. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DatGuy - See progression: The user was desperate to change the language: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53], which is continued by DilliKaShehzaada: [54][55][56][57]. Beside, if you know history of Kichappan socks, they are very much active in editing Indian music related articles, which is shared by Dilli as evident from editor interaction. I am not that sure about Ksainarayanan.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 14:23, 21 December 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kichappan/Archive&oldid=1191244682"