Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sairg/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sairg

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

02 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Sairg was initially involved in a edit war in the page Sukaphaa. But, when his 3 edits were up, the user account Xishuang was used for the same. See Page History of Sukaphaa. These are the reverts:

All these reverts were done within 48 hrs, the first 5 within 24 hrs.

I request you to kindly run a Checkuser investigation for Sairg and Xishuang. Both seem to be the same person with mutiple accounts. Both have mentioned 2000 as their year of birth, Animism as their religion and have the same areas of editing i.e. Ahom kings and Ahom people. Moreover, Sairg has "Xishuangbanna" as one of his interests.Have a look here. All these hint to the fact that both are the same user.

The user Sairg was repeatedly warned in the page edits, talk page by multiple users to stop this reverts and discuss properly. But he instead used another of his accounts to accomplish his task. There is an ongoing Edit waring investigation against the user. Check [1] Barbariankiller456 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Check the emails used Sairg (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@Sairg: What emails?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The user seems to be a sock of the previously banned user Sairg/Xishuang (link). Indulging in the same pages related to Ahom people and continuing the POV and unsourced vandalising edits of the banned users.(Check this)

Killingspree2K19 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 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]

22 May 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I request you to kindly run a Checkuser investigation for Sairg and ShangNam. Both seem to be the same person with mutiple accounts. The account withh the username ShangNam was created a month after the previous accounts Sairg, Xishuang, Xishuangsai, Tai Ahom Revival Fraternity were blocked. All these accounts have the same areas of editing i.e. Ahom kings and Ahom people with the same POV push. All these users seem to be involved in the same edit war with the user named Chaipau which seems to be merely a continuation of the edits made by the banned users. Have a look here ShangNam's arguements with Chaipau, Banned user Sairg's similar arguements. All the users are also involved in removing sourced info from the Sukapha page. Look here: [2], [3], [4]. These hint to the fact that both are the same user. 2409:4065:406:C11D:CF6:E7A6:2BF0:8BF6 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 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]

23 May 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Another sock of the Sairg vandalising the Sukapha page. Look here [5] 2405:204:B18C:908D:25D0:E718:F92B:5107 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 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]

 Confirmed

 Possible but  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation

The following socks are all  Confirmed to Qwertywander (who is very aware of this report).

Blocking confirmed socks from both masters, tagging only the two for this master that I confirmed, and letting the clerks finish tagging after behavioral analysis has been completed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bunch of accounts created (or sleepers reactivated) since Sairg was blocked all editing common topics is just a bit too much of a coincidence for me. I don't see the evidence for PerfectingNEI, but all the others are  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Paulrajarshi is the oldest account by nearly a decade, but there is no technical confirmation so I have not moved the case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 July 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This is a procedural filing to note for the archives that সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া has been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Sairg. Between behavioral similarities and articles edited I have no doubt. On a spotcheck of articles edited, I do not see any other obvious socks, and do not think it is necessary to request checkuser at this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 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]

08 February 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

These two seems to be working in tandem to push their POV. See [6], [7], [8]. These two edits [9], [10] are a dead give away. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request CheckUser as well since User:PerfectingNEI also frequented this article and had a POV to turn it into an Assam biased article. This edit by the suspected sock seems to be pointing at that direction. Since PerfectingNEI is a sock of User:Sairg, it might be possible that these are linked to them and Sairg is known to use multiple socks at a time.
Also notice legal threat here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Might not be the same person, but these two edits [11], [12] looks some sort of meat puppetry to me. Both driven by same agenda (removal of a religion "Islam" and an ethnic group "Nashya Shaik" from the article) and both using Wikipedia articles as references. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

03 April 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Logging here for the record; I've already blocked the account. Started editing right after the last sock was blocked, similar interest in Assamese ethnic groups and immediately adversarial approach to User:Chaipau, plus CU results. Yunshui 雲水 21:56, 3 April 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]

The IP assignation in this user's region is too dynamic for a definite confirmation, but a match to previous socks is  Likely. Yunshui 雲水 21:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16 May 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same range of interest like Sairg and other socks, pushing ethnic POV in pages about Assamese history and ethnic groups. Some telling diffs:

Recurrent "handwriting" idiosyncrasy (extra space before interpunctuations):

Constantly accusing User:Chaipau of "removing" "information" ("information" is their favorite expression)

Suggesting to merge the page Mech people:

  • PerfectingNEI[18] (NB the idiosynctratic spaces)
  • Logical Man 2000[19]

Addtion of the same Ph.D. thesis to support their POV:

–Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 16 May 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]

12 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The account Hachengsa became active in June 2020, soon after the last sock, Logical Man 2000 was banned in May 2020. Just as Logicalman 2000's and PerfectingNEI before, their focus is primarily on ethnic groups of Assam.

  • A strong but unjustified opinion on the nomenclature Bodo-Kachari belonging only to the Boro people. Please note that the IPv6 user represented Yunshui for a removal of the ban [22].
  • Strong and unjustified opinions on the ethnic groups as represented in People of Assam. Please note the discussion here, Talk:People_of_Assam#Sock_edits where it was decided (MelanieN determined it was not worth blocking a shifting IP sock, and page protected the article. Hachengsa is now able to edit the article—
  • A sustained campaign at the Mech people article, and their relationship with the Boro/Kachari peoples.


Chaipau (talk) 03:17, 12 August 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]

24 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Addition of same content as other socks by Sairg:

  • @Bloggerjoydeep:[33]
  • @Logical Man 2000:[34]

The sockpuppet only has made one edit so far, but continued to edit war with hopping IPs in the same page, plus the usual verbose rants in the talk page Talk:Boro people against me and User:Chaipau. Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Obvious socking is obvious . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is striking that this account was created in June [36] a couple of months before the last sock was identified in the middle of August [37]. Is there an army of sleeper accounts associated with this user? Chaipau (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all fake allegations. I'll keep checking your activities mr. Chaipau. You'll be blocked very soon. I don't have right to complain to Arbcom otherwise you might have been blocked. You are trying to WP:OWN the pages. These source are well known to everybody. Why are you trying to remove cited text ? You've no right to remove reliable source. You can't even win a argument with me. So, You try to revert my edits and complain anyone. I'll not allow you to remove any cited text. :Admins, kindly block Chaipau and his colleagues from editing Boro people pages. They only edit to remove cited text. 47.29.161.88 (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC) This new editor Austronesier on Boro people page and Chaipau are friends.This is clearly a kind of puppetry. They only remove cited text from reliable source to show their dominance in Wikipedia. Please run checkusers on these two accounts. 47.29.161.88 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: isn't even new. They created their account 20th September 2017 and made their first edit three days later. As for arbcom, why you dont have the right to appeal to arbcom? If you have been using multiple accounts/IP's then arbcom is pretty much the way to go if you want to edit here again. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: IP can't complain to Arbcom. My first account was blocked with fake allegations. Admin wasn't willing to even listen. Now I'm not allowed to have any account. So, So I'm using IP. If wiki don't want cited text from reliable source, Why do wiki even give information about Boro people? Delete the page itself. Kindly check contribution of Chaipau and Austronesier in Boro people. They mostly removed. You'll understand their personal problem with a community. 47.29.137.204 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If your first account was blocked, you can theoretically appeal to arbcom. However, without knowing the account I cant investigate (and I don't have the time for that today anyway). Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding about false allegations by Austronesier. It is personal attack and target on editors who add cited text from reliable source. Since he lack any reliable source for any of his claim therefore he accuse other editors of sock puppetry and usual verbose rants. He and his friend aren't to contribute in that page. They only remove cited text from reliable source - https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Austronesier&page=Boro_people&server=enwiki&max= and https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Chaipau&page=Boro_people&server=enwiki&max= 2409:4065:E8E:2335:95AE:6DCB:9836:3953 (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This IP user has confessed to sock-puppetry, here, even as he accuses others of "personal attacks" for stating the obvious. I have engaged with previous socks on WP:AGF, but it is impossible to make any headway because of this user's strong attachments to WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and general WP:CIR. I am not sure this user even understands what WP:SOCK is and even after being made aware, continued to WP:BE, and edit war, for example in People of Assam, which had to be semi-protected. This is a discussion regarding the WP:BE issues then: Talk:People_of_Assam#Sock_edits. Chaipau (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


A very keen interest on the boundaries of the Chutia kingdom with u:SashankaChutia, confirmed sock-puppet of Sairg.

Chaipau (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Chaipau (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Note that this case is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sairg. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 September 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]



Chaipau (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I am unaware of any such previous users. I have not removed any material from the page. I have merely added new and proper sources, not violating any principles of Wikipedia. It seems the previous user was also involved in a similar edit war with @Chaipau, but his edits were different. My edits include creating a new section and adding new sources for previous data. I am not sure what this user @Chaipau is talking about. Some edits made by @Chaipau are disruptive, like removing an entire new section with multiple sources.Ballav saikia (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for editing pages on Chutia community, that is my personal interest. A person in Wikipedia is free to edit whatever he or she wants, provided there are sources cited along with it. If this user @Chaipau has a problem with my edit, he could use the talk page and sort out the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballav saikia (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this user @Chaipau is talking about. My edit is completely different([51]) from that made by the previous user([52]). As it is evident, the previous user seems to have been deleting the content from the page. On the other hand, I have added new content, while keeping the previous one intact. Besides, I have added new material to the article as well([53],[54],[55]), expanding the article to its current form.

The user Chaipau seems to not be pleased with the sourced edits as it goes against his POV. In one instance, he tried to remove sourced material. In this case, I had mentioned three references to the content on the "Rebellions" section, out of which one of the references seemed to be less reliable. But, instead of removing the problematic source, the user Chaipau tried to remove the entire section from the article, although there were clearly two more well cited sources available.([56]). The user also had added unsourced material at one instance, which was removed later ([57]).Ballav saikia (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed plus:

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21 September 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


KillerCroco has become active on Chutia kingdom ([58], [59]) after the previous sock, Ballav saikia (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), was blocked. And KillerCroco is carrying on where Ballav saikia has left off.

  • Here is their fixation on "Chutia rebellion". Once it became apparent that the sock investigation was on for Ballav saikia, KillerCroco started draft-article called Draft:Chutia_Rebellions_against_the_Ahom_Kingdom. It appears to me that this sock is promoting a particular kind of advocacy or a political ideology.
    • u:Ballav saikia: [60]
    • u:KillerCroco: [61]


Chaipau (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Looks like it. I was going to report this one. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed plus DerekJohnRoberts (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Created around the time the previous sock KillerCroco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) was reported, user:Subhashishborah has started editing Template:Chutiya Dynasty to insert a name of a king that has no WP:HISTRS ([62], [63]). This is the same POV an earlier sock Ballav saikia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) pushed in the Chutia kingdom article ([64], [65]). This user seems to be following the same pattern of sock-puppetry around the Chutia kingdom topics, only that this user is unable to edit the article yet because it is semi-protected and so has started editing Template:Chutiya Dynasty instead which is not semi-protected.
Chaipau (talk) 09:47, 23 September 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]

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I am listing it here because Ananya Taye seems most likely to be "SashankaChutia", who is archived to Sairg. But could be either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Penguinnumbers/Archive or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qwertywander/Archive. All these socks are WP:SPA and try to push a legendary account of the Chutia kingdom as history. This has been a multi-year phenomenon. These socks use IPs extensively to target other pages, and I am not listing them here, since the primary pages they target are mostly semi-protected (Chutia people, Chutia kingdom, Template:Chutiya Dynasty etc.)

The similarity with SashankaChutia is the following. There was a very long discussion on the domain of the Chutia kingdom, here. After a long discussion, SashankaChutia was identified as a sockpuppet. Ananya Taye now is pushing the same boundary that SashankaChutia was pushing for, now with a map ([66], [67] etc.) and using the same arguments SashankaChutia was making. All these socks go by their own interpretations of WP:PRIMARY texts and are incapable of coming to a consensus. Chaipau (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I have added IP 2409:4063:4d8d:e41e:5c81:cab9:afe:7ccd and 103.92.41.152. Users Ananya Taye and the IPs were making very similar edits very close to each other in their timestamps.

Chaipau (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I had reported this the two IPa at ANI [76]. Just putting it down here for the record. Also pinging Uncle G from that thread. Chaipau (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Information

@RoySmith: I am providing below evidence that Ananya Taye has the same behavior/interest patterns as the following two confirmed sockpuppets of the master Sairg and which was reported in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairg/Archive#16_September_2020:

A very keen interest to extend set down a particular boundary of the Chutia kingdom:
Ananya Taye uses a different tact to set the boundary down - by using a map which is not supported by modern historians which is identical to the one SashankaChutia and Ballav saikia are arguing for. (edited) 11:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Ananya Taye insists on using primary sources to support his claims (in this case Buranjis and others).
  • Ballav saikia: [80]
  • SashankaChutia: [81]
  • Anaya Taye: rejecting a secondary source on the basis of a primary source [82] (edit summary); Using primary sources [83] and it was pointed out Ananya Taye just rejected the established Wikipedia policies [84].
The sockpuppet SashankaChutia had created a map [85], which an IP editor started pushing after SashankaChutia was banned [86], [87] etc. This is the same map that Ananya Taye uploaded into his account as "own work": [88].
I shall be happy to provide additional information if this is not sufficient. Though the Chutia kingdom article could be of interest for many editors, the sustained interest in putting down a specific boundary is a special interest of this editor.

Chaipau (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thank you for your recommendation. If SashankaChutia has gone stale, then we may try some more recent ones. The blocking of SashankaChutia triggered a number of new accounts that were confirmed to be socks—and maybe we can CU against them. They are:
Berean Hunter is most familiar with this sock—unfortunately he is inactive on Wikipedia now. Pinging JzG in case he has some inputs here.
Chaipau (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional connections between Ananya Taye and SashankChutia

There were a number of attempts made by anonymous IPs in June 2021 to include the map File:Ahom territories until 1522 AD with the territories of Raja.jpg created by the confirmed sock SashankaChutia in Ahom kingdom ([89], [90], [91]). I reverted the last insertion with the edit summary that this was being removed on the basis of WP:BE, on 23 June 2021 [92]. On that same day and within a few hours, Ananya Taye uploaded the same map as "own work" [93], but with the date backdated to 1 May 2021.

I am not adding the IP editors to checkuser request. Please advise whether I should, RoySmith. Thanks!

Chaipau (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC) (edited—added checkuser request for IP address as per advise below) 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers aren't going comment on IPs publicly, but it doesn't hurt to list them in the report. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Checkuser request

Requesting additional check user for:

This is a new user account which that seems to follow the pattern of user:Ananya Taye and other socks listed in the lists above. Pinging RoySmith for visibility. Chaipau (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What in particular makes you think Simolke2 is a sock of Sairg? I'm not seeing any editing overlap with recent socks, and on a more technical note, all the other socks I looked at use mobile, but Simolke2 never does. Can you supply some specific diffs that demonstrate socking? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Thank you for your due diligence on Simolke2. This user is following the same pattern established by previous socks: SashankaChutia, Ballavsaikia; and the user we are interested here Ananya Taye.
Since the main articles of target Chutia kingdom and Chutia people are semi-protected, these accounts spend some time minor-editing other articles till they become eligible for editing these article. In this case, Simolke2 started with some technical edits which showed that the new user is familiar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia ([100], [101], [102], [103], etc.) but not very familiar with the subjects per se. But the first edit where the user showed special knowledge was here: [104].
Usually, this is followed by the same pattern (WP:PRIMARY, WP:HEAR, WP:POINT etc). The user was originally banned for sockpuppetry while edit warring using multiple accounts; but subsequent behavior has been based on using one account at a time for targeting these two article till it is discovered as a sock when a new account is created. The user is trying hard to lose the association with these socks, but the mature behavioral issues are a dead giveaway.
Please let me know if you would like me to expand on anything in particular.
Chaipau (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I am afraid I was not clear. Ananya Taye should not be matched against Sairg, but with SashankaChutia, Subhashish Bora, and Ballavsaikia. Chaipau (talk) 12:36, 27 September 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]

 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.
You're going to need to give more specific evidence. This is a big complicated case, and you've noted they could be any of three possible masters. That makes it very difficult to do any useful analysis. Actually, I'm inclined to close this with no action taken; looking at the technical indicators like timecards and editing clients used, I'm willing to believe that Homogenie and Ananya Taye might be the same person, but ​neither look anything like Sarig. The pages being edited here are the kinds of topics which draw great interest, so it's not surprising that there could be several people with similar points of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairg/Archive&oldid=1048919389"