Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Chanakyathegreat


Chanakyathegreat

Chanakyathegreat (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
03 July 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Australisian
edit

Chanakyathegreat and Bcs09 have very similar contribution histories. Bcs09 has edited the very same list of articles which Chanakyathegreat was being disruptive on and has made either the same edits or very similar edits to those which Chanakyathegreat made. Bcs09 was created shortly after Chanakyathegreat was banned indefinitely. Australisian (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  Confirmed that Bcs09 is Chanakyathegreat.
  Confirmed that Australisian is also the following:
  1. Space25689 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Abovesalls (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Causesknown (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Lastvisit (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Yattum (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
And likely more. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vedant/Archive; I think there's an overlap. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Administrator note The bunch of Australisian-related socks are blocked and tagged as socks of 3505fernando, but I would appreciate comments on what action should be taken on Chanakya/Bcs. As far as I can tell, Bcs was created to evade a 6-month block on Chanakya last July (and which, obviously, has expired about 6 months ago), and Chanakya, with the exception of four edits, has not edited since then. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me Bcs09 has essentially gotten away with it, but in the best way; Chanakyathegreat was a seemingly incorrigible edit warrior; Bcs09 has been quite well behaved and seems to be a good Wikipedia citizen. There does seem to be more here than meets the eye; I'm not sure this is over yet. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note I have indefinitely blocked Chanakyathegreat with autoblock disabled so that he may continue to edit as Bcs09. This should ensure that he sticks with one account from now on. I'm sure he is (or will be) aware of this, and I don't think we need to take any additional action here. Marking as closed. –MuZemike 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit



Evidence submitted by 88.106.92.8
edit

Chakayathegreat and Bcs09 accounts are clearly the same person as they have near identical contribution histories as can be seen here: [3]. Bcs09 was created on 17th July 2009 here: [4], very shortly after Chanakyathegreat received a 6 month ban on 7th July 2009 here: [5]. Bcs09 has quite clearly been hiding behind multiple IP addresses within the 59.94.xxx.xxx range on articles which are not semi-protected as cen be seen here: [6] All the IPs listed are from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.


Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit

The filer in this case is an obvious troll with a deeply prejudicial attitude towards a certain country. He's clutching at straws here and hoping that a CheckUser will turn up something incriminating because he has no real evidence to speak of. The IP ranges mentioned in this case are an extension of the ones mentioned here where a sock of Yattum also tried to accuse me of sockpuppetry. When a CU actually reviewed the case and determined that I edit from a different CONTINENT and that Yattum's allegations were just an attempt at defamation which was no doubt fueled by anger as a result of this decision on the Frigate article. Vedant (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm unsure why this dimwit is allowed to continue making accusations despite the fact that he's indefinitely blocked from editing. I have no opinion on the IPs but I don't feel that this idiot has any right to edit Wikipedia or accuse other users of crimes he himself has committed. Vedant (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
This is the blocked sockpuppeteer User:Yattum making this request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: It is dead clear that Chanakyathegreat and Bcs09 are the same person from the past case; there is no need to prove that again. I have no opinion as of yet of the IP addresses. –MuZemike 07:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there also a reason not to believe that 88.106.92.8 is indef-blocked user Australisian? –MuZemike 07:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, which is why I said "Yattum". --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. My mind leaves me sometimes :| Anyways, marking as closed as a frivolous SPI case and CU request. –MuZemike 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

He was editing as Mightyocean (talk · contribs) until he was blocked by Admin/Checkuser MuZemike as an obvious sock of banned user Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs). This guy Lurkingsub (talk · contribs) first edit was on the talk page where the discussion was left off, obviously a WP:DUCK. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:44, 10 June 2011 (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
24 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Taurgo has a near identical contribution history to user:Chanakyathegreat, who was banned for edit warring and POV. Taurgo is editing all the same articles and fighting all the same edit wars, usually Indian Navy, blue water navy and Royal Navy related. It looks as though Taurgo was created by Chanakyathegreat just as they dramatically increased edit warring and were about to be banned for the second time. Taurgo seems to be a pretty obvious sock. Quite vivid blur (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Quite vivid blur (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2011 (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

  Administrator note I spent a lot of time looking, there are 200 contributions from Taurgo going back to June 2009. I tried to find an obvious smoking gun, such as account creation right after a block, but there was nothing that helpful. The timing of account creation doesn't really support or rule out sockpuppetry. I do see that Taurgo would often edit during Chanakyathegreat's gaps in editing; for example, Chanakyathegreat edited on June 2, 2009, then the next day Taurgo was created and made some edits, and then the following day Chanakyathegreat would edit again. That does suggest one person switching between accounts but doesn't totally confirm it.

Eventually it came down to the edits themselves. Taurgo almost exclusively edits the same articles that Chanakyathegreat did. The POV seems identical. There is just too much of a coincidence there, so much that I can comfortably conclude that they are the same person. I've blocked Taurgo as a sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

08 October 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Came right out and said it. [7]. Sighted sock, slammered same. Posting here for the record and for confirmation. Don't think a CU is necessary? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Patrolling clerk please note that I'm nominating "Taurgo" for double confirmation per suggestion below and to check for sleepers. As a regular of Indian Navy related pages, these are signs of socking and for "Flyingalbatross", I'm trying to eliminate that possibility of him being a quiet sock of "Chanakyathegreat" and to check if he might instead be a sock of Shivanshkhare (talk · contribs), due to recent image copyvios (besides the transferral of copyrighted text, which is another obvious long-term problem on the pages) on the related pages. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:58, 9 October 2011 (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

Line break for readability. AGK [•] 21:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this, per Elen's request. Technical evidence supports the following conclusions.   Likely that Flyingalbatross = Growingneurons. Also   Likely that these are additional socks of Flyingalbatross/Growingneurons.

Bizarrely, Taurgo has edited in the past two days from the same nation and geographical area as the above users, but also from a country that is in the other half of the world; perhaps that individual is travelling. Anyway, although he has edited from the same area, it was using a different ISP, and other technical indicators are weak, so a direct link there is   Unlikely. However, the geographical proximity may suggest meatpuppetry or collusion; the patrolling administrators may want to take this into account. Also, the following are   Confirmed socks of Taurgo:

  Possible, erring on   Likely, socks. A final decision on these will need to draw from behavioural evidence more than technical data:

These editors are periodically editing anonymously, but their ranges are also occasionally, although not terribly often, shared by unrelated editors. Do not hesitate to block with autoblock, but also do not be unsympathetic if there are unblock requests from other editors; there could be a small volume of collateral. AGK [•] 21:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Administrator noteI've blocked the three socks of Flyingalbatross/Growingneutrons/Chanakyathegreat. The Taurgo sockfarm I'll leave to another to deal with, given the complications of the status of the sockmaster. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Administrator note I've blocked and tagged the two accounts that were confirmed as Taurgo. As to the other three, I'm going to let it go for now. Neither of the first two accounts has edited yet, so let's assume a little good faith. The third seems to be editing in a different domain. Relist if any of these accounts become active, or if there are others. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11 October 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This user seems to be a sock which is making very similar comments to those made by confirmed sock user:Bcs09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_power/Archive_13#Britain. Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2011 (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

Aban1313 appears   Unrelated to Growingnuerons from the archive. TNXMan 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 October 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Strong behavioral evidence suggests that this account is the latest sock- or meatpuppet by this editor. Not quite enough to block without sending it through SPI first, so, here we are. Reccomend a check for sleepers based on past history by the suspected sockmaster. The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead

You have my absolute support for this or ANY checkuser/Sockpuppetry case you can think of. I never ever used any puppets and I suggest you to do most rigorous check possible. Swift&silent (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

How long will it take?

Can I ask how long this investigation might take as there is an big 'Suspected of Sock-puppetry' notice on my User page. Swift&silent (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
04 November 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Latestnewsupdate exhibits the characteristics of most other socks of Chanakyathegreat; a newly created account focused on anti-British POV, edit warring and naval related articles. Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2011 (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 the following are the same:

22 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioral evidence =    1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny. Requesting CU to be sure. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 22 December 2011 (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


24 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:GIANTDUCK - not even trying to hide block evasion. Already bagged and tagged, here for the record. The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 24 December 2011 (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
25 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


More socking from Chanakya, degenerating to personal attacks now. The first two are already blocked, having been emitting the    1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny; third is suspect. Requesting CU due to the habit of sockfarm creation this user has. The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 25 December 2011 (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
26 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Replicating the very same edits as recently banned socks user:Quietnoted and user:Bestquick on the Royal Navy article and replicating the same POV on the great power article as most Chanakyathegreat socks do, i.e. removing the UK. Quite vivid blur (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Has User:Armyjawan1 not been dealt with yet?, hes displaying similar areas of interest to Chanakya and socks. Notably to do with articles relating to the Indian air force. — Woe90iWoe90i 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
27 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


   Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me - the usual removal of the UK from the Great Powers article [10] and other anti-UK edits. Already blocked, added here for the record. CU optional for sleepers if another thinks it's needed. The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 27 December 2011 (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
08 January 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Most recent sockpuppet of User:Chanakyathegreat. Behavioral evidence, usual Indian POV, large scale reverts and disruption. Admitted sockpuppetry on my talk page. Requesting CU if you need to be sure.TalkWoe90i 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this should be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat.TalkWoe90i 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, when facts are put up, you can't stand me right. I don't lie like you do. There is a lack of good Admins. Its all the likes of Milbourneone who take you under his arms protecting you to continue with your rampant vandalism of pages and your POV pushing starting with British pages.:) Hope someone grows some brain somewhere.Correctiondetail (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2012 (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
09 January 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


The Quack of Doom. Both already blocked due to deafening behaviorable quacking, but the history of Chanakya's socking is that where there's one, there's more. Requesting CU for sleeper check. The Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 9 January 2012 (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
  • Nothing else to report via CheckUser, but a range block is not possible. The absolute best option is to semi-protect the pages in question due to sockpuppetry (which is a valid reason under protection policy). WilliamH (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're blocked, so I'll mark for close. TNXMan 19:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12 January 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioral. Themed account name, exact same areas of editing interests, continuing to fight the same conflicts of previous Sockpuppets. TalkWoe90i 12:27, 12 January 2012 (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
13 January 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioural evidence = absolute sock of Chanakya. The usual stuff, themed user name, blatant POV, exact same editing interests, has returned to pick-up where his last sock started and was banned...request CU to put the final nail in the coffin. Suggest maybe semi-protection on the articles the sock has returned too. Prevent any new sock from causing trouble if he cant edit. Cheers. TalkWoe90i 03:04, 13 January 2012 (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
25 January 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Editing pattern (ship articles) and report at ANI by a "new user" - standby for furthers from others. Calabe1992 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more (another "newcomer" whose first edits are at ANI). Calabe1992 03:30, 25 January 2012 (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

No doubt that Tonnyn and Werestep are   Confirmed as sox of each other - no sleepers found in the woodwork, rangeblock would still take out half of India. Just tag 'em and bag 'em. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

04 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioural evidence = perfect match. Themed user name, same primary area of editing interests, back to pick-up where he left of with previous socks. TalkWoe90i 01:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


   1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny. Blocked and tagged accordingly. Believe a sleeper check should be carried out given past pattern of this banned user creating sockfarms. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Chanakya sock newly created to slander/attack me/my edits. TalkWoe90i 14:35, 5 February 2012 (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
17 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioural, typical attacks to me or my edits - this time on the Blue-water navy article (an article Chanakya[s] are famous for being disruptive in). Also on another article talkpage he has returned to his usual rant about racism and how Wikipedia is run by an elite group of white users etc etc TalkWoe90i 01:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

All of the edits from the below accounts are being reverted, but not all are yet blocked. Someone needs to do so. Calabe1992 15:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


18 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Contributions, edit summaries.    Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me [11] Calabe1992 02:36, 18 February 2012 (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
21 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Too obvious. TalkWoe90i 09:33, 21 February 2012 (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 match to Diahel (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

02 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioural evidence = perfect match. Swearing, attacking editors and banging on about about his racism conspiracy. Typical of Chanakya. TalkWoe90i 09:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Another one: Wikesracismisgrowing (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Klilidiplomus+Talk 13:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny. Both blocked and tagged accordingly. Request CU to clean up the rest of the sockfarm based on this user's past history. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They just keep coming... Endwikiraciism (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Klilidiplomus+Talk 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bagged and tagged. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

The following are all the same:

All blocked, tagged, and checked at the game warden's station. Semiprotection applied to the two articles involved (Potential superpowers, Great Britain) for a month. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
05 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

And:

Too obvious. TalkWoe90i 15:15, 5 March 2012 (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

No unblocked accounts found, just keep reporting them as they come in. TNXMan 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And all of the socks in round MCMXVII bagged and tagged with the latest article attacked semi'd. Really, doesn't this guy have better things to do with his life? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
08 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Obvious socks are obvious; all adding lame anti-racism notes to british military pages. Dreambroad's last edit before being blocked said he'd do this. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see BSadowski has added a couple more. Acalamari's block log entry for Firstconch [12] seems to imply that this was going on a week or two before Dreambroad, so I've probably filed this under the wrong sockmaster name. But I don't know the name of the older account, so... oh well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. It's User:Chanakyathegreat. --Bsadowski1 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bsadowski. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious socks are obvious. Just block and tag on sight next time. This brings his confirmed count up to 80.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks Jasper. Excellent instructions, I don't know why I didn't think of that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think this guy needs an edit filter?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2012 (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

Pages semi-protected for 3 days, but hoping a checkuser can see if there is a targetted rangeblock that can be made. Evidently each new account is created after the previous one is blocked, so autoblock isn't affecting them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit by Orangewhitegreen is almost identical to this edit made by a confirmed sock of this user and on the same page, I have no doubt this is the same editor – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2012 (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

Orangewhitegreen does not appear to be related to anyone, Phead128 was not checked, per withdrawal above. TNXMan 14:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock of Chanakyathegreat. TalkWoe90i 22:53, 9 April 2012 (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 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Hitraclerwiki and Wikihitlesfatherracieasm identified as socks of this master and blocked/locked by User:Reaper Eternal. I'm reporting here for the record. While confirming them to each other as WP:DUCK (I didn't know the loooong history here), Wikifullofracim popped up and I whacked it down also as obvious-is-obvious. Sleeper-check (based on long history of lots of socks)? DMacks (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (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

No unblocked accounts found, all these are   Confirmed as Chanakya. TNXMan 17:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All tagged, including IP. Calabe1992 18:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28 July 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioral evidence = Perfect match. Same editing interests, still insulting other editors and claiming Wikipedia is racists. TalkWoe90i 10:14, 28 July 2012 (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 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioral evidence suggests its chanakya, removing my edits on blue-water navy for example. TalkWoe90i 16:17, 27 August 2012 (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
20 January 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Earlier diff 1 and Diff 2 - from 2 users who were then blocked for being sock puppets of Chanakyathegreat. Diffs 1 and Diffs 2 of edit by Lotows - been reverting to the same exact version. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:30, 20 January 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
30 June 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar behavior and introduction of the same material ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 07:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh sorry, here they are...
Edit by a confirmed sock- [13] [14]

Edit by the new suspected user: [15] [16] I hope it's enough......if no...he just inserted a (legit) image created by CTG into the article... [17] Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 12:01, 1 July 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
  • Using at least one diff from the master and one diff from the suspected sock, please demonstrate the overlap between the two, otherwise this investigation will be closed. It's completely unreasonable for the person most familiar with a situation to expect those less familiar with it to retrieve his argument for him. WilliamH (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the diffs - it looks   Likely. WilliamH (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chanakyathegreat/Archive&oldid=1143537477"