Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vivek.k.Verma

Vivek.k.Verma (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

24 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Worldandlove created Vivek Verma on 24/12/17 and used an image uploaded by user: Vivek.k.Verma. The article Vivek verma was also created by user:Koreangirls and user:V.verma.iitk. Worldandlove and user: Vivek.k.Verma have a similar pattern of page creation. FITINDIA 19:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment-Both users Vivek.k.Verma and Worldandlove use a similar edit summary while creating articles.[1][2]

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]

  • Vivek.k.verma and Worldandlove are  Confirmed to each other. I don't see obvious sleepers, but these are big ranges.
  • Koreangirls and V.verma.iitk are  Stale.
  • Confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. Closing. Katietalk 21:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Yet another recreation of Vivek Verma under Vivek Verma Singer. The article is almost identical to the deleted version and Ecstaticmind used the same image uploaded by the master. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added some IP addresses who constantly removing speedy deletion notice from Vivek Verma. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:31, 6 August 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]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - This is likely the same person. Please compare Vivek Verma singer to the deleted versions. Assuming no glaring differences, please block Ecstaticmind indefinitely, and delete their creations per WP:G5. No action is needed with respect to the IP's. Given how quickly they're IP hopping, blocking individual addresses is unlikely to accomplish much. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked User:Ecstaticmind as a sock. Don't believe there are any pages left to delete. I'm changing the case status to 'close' since the requested admin action is done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04 September 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All editing in the same area. Recreated Vivek Verma that was last created by user SHUBHAM SARITA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (already blocked by Ponyo) under Vivek Verma (Singer). Babalolawala was registered a few days after Kundaliniwar, first made some random edits and then started editing the same article. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:45, 4 September 2019 (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]

  • Kundaliniwar and Babalolawala are  Confirmed to each other and are no doubt related to the persistent WP:PAID violations surrounding the many incarnations of the Vivek Verma articles, created under myriad spellings and protected against recreation. I'm guessing this is more WP:UPE WP:MEAT than a single individual as is often the case with these marketing groups. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per the above. TheSandDoctor Talk 21:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Created the day after the puppeteer was blocked. Attempted to recreate an article Vivek (singer) which had been salted at its first name Vivek Verma Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2019 (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]

 Clerk assistance requested: Please move to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreated the vanity page at Vivek Verma (musician). And nominated his own article for deletion, for some reason. A previous sock did the same thing. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Also note the photo which was uploaded as own work and lack of COI disclosure. Clear meat puppetry. Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Blocked and tagged – bradv🍁 14:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behavioural. Blocked user Bollymine created Jjaibot which has been tagged for unpaid editing and Tagremoverr has removed it, which drew my attention. Both users' first two edits were to create blank user and user talk pages, which seems a strong indicator they are the same person. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2019 (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]

 Clerk assistance requested: Please merge this into the correct case.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Ozar appears to be a meat/money puppet from this same farm. They recreated Julian Jewel Jeyaraj, overlap here on the same subject matter and is one of the only other keep votes that isn't a sock here Praxidicae (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and they submitted this. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
bbb23 I just added another based on this nonsense. It might not be the same master but there is some serious meat puppetry going on. Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all the edits, I just saw bbb's comment. Pinging @Ivanvector: based on his comments about Ozar on another SPI. Praxidicae (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm confident now this is a paid farm. Noonedid has recreated Sigurd Vedal which is a Liboj sock farm and more Vivek Varma garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I promise this is the last one. It appears that at least Ozar77 and Noondid are the same person. See "paid by the client and "paid by the client. Identical phrasing. Both with the same nonsense about maintenance. I suspect there will be more sleepers. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Comment by Usedtobecool

For the record, Ozar77 does many things unpaid and uninfluenced. That was the problem with the Dansong SPI. Another COI/PAID editor who otherwise makes positive contribution in diverse areas, and Ozar77, a paid one (undisclosed), who also makes unrelated positive contributions, being used as a proxy, were clearly blockably meat-puppeting, clear enough for me to see and another editor deeply involved with those AfD's to agree with me. Due to inexperience, I ended up connecting too many faint dots from their positive contribution areas until it started looking like constellations to uninvolved editors, not to mention the sheer volume of text I'd posted. This time around, Ozar77 most likely has been hired independently by sock-farms or clients to work on articles with long histories, as clearly in the international market Ozar is. And, they at least attempted to disclose PAID this time. CIR on copyright, identifying reliable sources, NPOV and paid-editing disclosure, which has been sorely lacking. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 06:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dansong22/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ozar77/Archive. – bradv🍁 14:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is also connected based on the history of Draft:Sigurd Vedal - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laboj/Archive. – bradv🍁 14:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Near verbatim repost of Jjaibot, originally created by Bollymine (talk · contribs) and substantially edited by Tagremoverr (talk · contribs). Sufficiently blatant enough for me to block, but I'm wondering if there's anything else out there. MER-C 17:20, 22 December 2019 (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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - The last check a few weeks ago uncovered quite a few sleepers, so it's probably worth checking again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically  Unlikely. Same country, different region, different ISP. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging and closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious sock: once again recreated Jjaibot, as recent socks in this SPI have, this time at Julian Jewel Artificial Intelligence Bot [3]. I read the previous version of the article before it was deleted and I recall that it was very similar to this, if not identical. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2019 (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]

27 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This appears to be a meat puppet continually spamming Jjaibot Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2019 (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]

07 January 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The honeypot worked. More spamming of Ghanada, as with the rest, the only people to ever edit about this have been meat socks. Praxidicae (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two more. Dilipksom2 and Satrajit2000 both did extensive editing of User:Satrajit2000/sandbox, which is a variation on Draft:Ghanada. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2020 (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 added two more suspects above. Requesting CU. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Praxidicae suspected, the technical data indicates that these users are more likely to be different people than the same person. VaivaMine and AnuYog from the most recent case are  Possible, but the other accounts are unlikely technically. This case will need to be decided primarily on the basis of behavior, particularly in light of WP:MEAT. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further reviewing the contributions of these accounts,  Looks like a duck to me. I think there is something fishy going on, perhaps UPE meat-puppetry, and it is disruptive enough to warrant a block.  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, now the question is, what to do about Draft:Ghanada? In theory, we could G5 it, but the comments by Bkissin on the draft make me think it has value, despite all the socking that went into it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 January 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

registered right after the last sock block, recreated Julian Jewel AI Bot (one of many creations) and copied my (and several others) userpage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2020 (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]

10 July 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The Stonertone account was created on 15 May 2020. Within a fortnight, it had found its way to the much-trolled/socked Vivek Verma article, this version of which had recently been created by another VKV sock, Worldnpeace. Their first edit to the page was to remove a speedy, and it has remained their most edited page since.

There's more behavioral/editing technique-based evidence available, but I'd rather not put it here per BEANS. And the amount of socking this single page has experienced justifies it I think: if any CU/clerk wants to email me, I'll send "The File" over. ——Serial # 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The reason I found my way to the page Vivek Verma was that i had created Draft:Samir Babaev whic User:Þjarkur moved to the draft space where i found him nominating the page Vivek Verma as CSD, where I agree that Draft:Samir Babaev may not pass GNG but how come Vivek Verma is elligible for deletion, later when Praxidicae got The page deleted I decided to open the case in DRV, how come my frequent interest in the subject makes me Sock of it? Thanks Stonertone (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you found this page how...? Don't tell me, I bet you looked at the page creator's user page, saw he was a sock, came to the sockmaster's page, and decided to watchlist it even though it was nothing to do with you and after all you had nothing to fear from anything that might happen on this page? Right. ——Serial # 14:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that will be the next question, but let me tell you one thing, I really don't fear anything, if the page fails being reliable enough it will get deleted nothing more than that, All I was against was how praxidicae was using her position to do whatever she wants, being senior is good but Wp Policies are the Senior Most of all. And If I ask you how does you came tokboe about me opposing the deletion of Verma.?? I bet Praxidicae told ya to do that, the way she told other admin to delete the page Vivek Verma and see I was Right, now its Overturned to G4 and G11, now if under AFD it gets deleted I am perfectly ok with that, but Wikipedia is a community workplace NO ONE is allowed to showcase monopoly including you and me. :) Stonertone (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I was against was how praxidicae was using her position to do whatever she wants, being senior is good but Wp Policies are the Senior Most of all. @Stonertone: Please explain what my "position" that I've used is and what power I've abused or redact your ridiculous statement as per WP:NPA. I'm getting quite tired of your aspersion casting which you were previously warned about. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't the missus can you please EXPLAIN why the page Vivek Verma got deleted under G4 and G11, where if DRV is checked for this it could be clearly seen that the page neither met G4, G11 or G5 any of them. Stonertone (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of word salad is this? Substantiate your claims that I have done anything wrong with diffs or redact them. Pretty easy. Also I'm not going to take any action here as a clerk since I'm very much involved but I would recommend the reviewing clerk and/or admin/cu to also take a look at this inexplicable edit. Praxidicae (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already apologized for that,as i have already explained on your talkpage ehy it happened. Stonertone (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved, Cabayi (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the article in question (Vivek Verma) was actually created by ImSonyR9, it appears that the DRV-overturn restored all deleted revisions rather than just the latest iteration of the page. ImSonyR9 is not known to be associated with this sockfarm, though they are blocked for UPE. Also note that all known VkV socks are stale. Serial_Number_54129, please send your can of BEANS my way if you don't mind. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best CU can do here is give a  Possible result. Given the time which has elapsed (i.e.  Stale) that's the best result that can come from CU, but don't let the fact that it's not more certain stop you from taking further action. I didn't see any sleepers while I was checking. As there's nothing more for CU to do and that GeneralNotability is waiting for more info I'm moving this to the moreinfo queue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cabayi forwarded me what Sn had (though it appears SN lost some of the information). I concur with Þjarkur that Stonertone is probably UPE and will block on those grounds rather than as a sock. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I dug the previous editing style and history user @User:Worldandlove and multiple sockpuppets of @User:Vivek.k.Verma Verma and it matched. So, I believe this is the sockpuppet account and should be checked. Owlf (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: Here I've mentioned below: 1) Diff that the editing style and writing style that matches Special:MobileDiff/816978534 & Special:MobileDiff/1023156708

2) Special:MobileDiff/1023156708 which is mostly connected with the first Diff

3) In both diff the way that sockpuppet confirmed user has written in both are likely matches. And no-one common user who just joined to wiki gains such knowledge within few days and knows to use wikipedia tools. Owlf (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2021 (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]

  • @Owlf:  Additional information needed. 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.
    --Blablubbs|talk 18:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Owlf: Those diffs are not sufficient evidence that this is the same person. All they tell me is that these two are probably from roughly the same corner of the world, but I don't see any sufficient similarities beyond that. SPI isn't a venue for discretionary checks – the assertion that someone is somebody's sock isn't enough for me to endorse a check here. Closing without action. --Blablubbs|talk 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The DKB account reëmerged right after Lionfox0909 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s block. Compare [4] ("on the basis of which can be called notable Person") with [5] ("on the basis of which he is called notable musician"); [6] ("News link Edit") with [7] ("News links proper edits"); the shared interest in HotCat and AfD; etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2022 (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]

10 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The Wikiindiawikiindia account was created just hours after Deepak Kumar Biraita (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s block. Both accounts use HotCat and participate in the deletion process despite being only a few days old, and there are unique language-related giveaways, e.g. [8]. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I'm not sure what to make of this but the past month or two, there has been a flood of brand new editors nominating articles for deletion at AFD. No experience and their first edit is to start an AFD. I'm beginning to suspect them all of being sockpuppets. Does this M.O. sound similar to any sockfarms? Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Technically a weak(ish)  Likely to Deepak Kumar Biraita. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - the behavioural evidence is convincing. Please indef Wikiindiawikiindia as a suspected sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged Salvio 08:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account has just recreated Kotgari Temple, first created by sock User:Lionfox0909 on 29 Oct, and deleted G5 on 1 Nov. The original isn't in Wayback or Archive Today, but an admin might want to take a look. Storchy (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2022 (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 somewhere in the vicinity of  Possible. There is some overlap on a very wide range with Wikiindiawikiindia, but they mostly use different ranges. There's not a lot more I can say, technically. The articles are fairly different from one another too - the new one is shorter, and substantially better written - but that might be because it's mostly COPYVIO (which I am about to deal with).  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Girth Summit (blether) 18:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Girth Summit: I noticed Rohit5001849W (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) in the history of Kotgari Temple. This account started actively editing after the last sock block, has recreated Haat Kalika Temple which was previously created by Lionfox [9], and shares other behavioural similarities with previous socks (e.g. gadget use, precocious participation in AfD). I wonder if you'd be willing to compare this account against previous socks and Rohansingh74. FWIW, I'm leaning towards Rohansingh74 not being related. Spicy (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, ticket:2022102810011269 is interesting. Spicy (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Spicy, I'm not actually on VRT - it's something I've been meaning to get around to for ages now, just never seem to find the time. I have checked that latest account though - technically, all I can say is that it's in the same large country as Wikiindiawikiindia and Deepak Kumar Biraita. It's on an IP range they haven't used before, and a very common user agent that they haven't used before. Girth Summit (blether) 06:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, thanks. Despite the CU results, the behaviour and the information in the VRT ticket convinces me that Rohit5001849W is related. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef Rohit5001849W as a suspected sock. As I mentioned before, I don't think Rohansingh54 is a sock. They may have a COI (they seem to be doing a lot of vaguely promotional editing about tourist attractions in India) but besides the overlap on the topic of Kotgari Temple, they don't share any behavioural similarities with the blocked accounts. They've also been contributing to Wikivoyage [10] which previous socks have not done. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive&oldid=1124188966"