Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showbiz826: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Suspected sockpuppets: adding new account to check list
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 168: Line 168:


====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
This is interesting and to be honest a absent-minded report. I don't have any similar interests to this guy S826. I mostly edit about Dog breeds and their traits, physical appearances etc. As for copyviolation, I am quite unaware about the same still Flickr give access to use their photos on enclyopedic articles, many new user do have issue of copyviolation. Is this really a evidence ???? Worst of them all is that I edited my userpage million of times, Many users do that, I too love to edit my page again and again. However, I too love history related articles like S826 but this is not enough to revoke my editing privileges. [[User:FooberFan77|FooberFan77]] ([[User talk:FooberFan77|talk]]) 15:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small>


====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====

Revision as of 15:39, 12 July 2021

Showbiz826

Showbiz826 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showbiz826/Archive.

This SPI case may involve cross-wiki abuse. Please consider reporting the results on Meta; checkusers can send an email to the interwiki checkuser mailing list if required.



10 May 2021

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

The pattern is simple. Removal of same content from Rajput related pages.[1] Interestingly, the another sock of the sockmaster did same edit [2] Heba Aisha (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This has to be a joke the content is being removed from the article by other concerned user because its just so derogatory to the community. And secondly my and that alleged socks edits dont even match, and better discuss the dispute on talk page instead of filling a dubious report i can do the same, i even know whose you're a sockpuppet of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikandar khan67 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There's some similarities behavior wise. The general aggressive attitude matches what you see from Showbiz in general. The demand for good faith [3] while reverting always back to their preferred version (and ignoring WP:BRD) a Showbiz trait, but it's also a trait of other nationalist / caste POV editors. The interaction between Sikandar khan67 and other Showbiz socks is there, but not extensive. Likewise, the hostility you'd get from Showbiz and socks ([4] on this page for example.
With regards to the edit mentioned on Rathore, it was also made by Psuedo Nihilist, another prior sock. It's also been made by other editors [5], [6], [7], [8] and then I stopped. Most of those edits are unlikely to have been Showbiz. Overall, I think it's possible this is Showbiz but it's at least as likely to just be another caste POV editor. I think they ARE a sock of somebody though - "Utterly unsourced puffery and promotional content removed" as the edit summary on their fifth edit is not something from a new editor. [9] is not something you'd expect from a new editor either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 12:53, May 10, 2021 (UTC)
Yes, one can check Rathore page. Other editors who were sock of showbiz also tried to remove same sourced content with same pretext.[10] Heba Aisha (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CU said we are from same country (You're also from india aswell it doesn't mean we're both same) and different Geolocations , india is seventh largest country with 1.3billion people and having different geolocations is a proof that we both aren't same.Sikandar khan67 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of other evidences also point towards you being a sock. As for example your mention of Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav. The article was deleted when a WP:SPA nominated it for delition and other WP:SPA repeatedly voted there. It is not difficult for me to believe that either You are using multiple accounts or engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a connection between Heybata, Pintu the dude and Sikandar Khan67 who nominated that article and went stale as how a new user knows about that delition discussion unless he is not aware of my work and me. Heba Aisha (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you're engaging in is called Red Herring Fallacy, Please stick to the topic which is your accusation that I'm sockpuppet of showbiz,the only accusation I'm defending myself against, you're diverting the topic by changing your position and attacking the position which i dont hold anyway hence your argument is a strawman.Sikandar khan67 (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please see this user interaction report my edits and showbiz socks's edits don't even overlap at any other articles except for my single edit on Rathore, and another minor edit on Mughal-Rajput War page. Which is still a extremely low overlap ratio given the number of socks showbiz used. And CU has proved that I'm at different geolocation away from showbiz ,i cant be him,i believe the case should be closed as theres just so little similarities between me and showbiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikandar khan67 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be very honest, there is very little to no similarity between the two accounts. Infact all recent socks (Post-January 2021) doesn't look Showbiz socks either. Such things are very annoying for the blocked user who might be following a WP:SO and such ill-minded reports (again & again) only keep on disturbing the process. (Even last SPI report filled was nowhere similar to Showbiz). Don't tag any uninvolved editor as socks whom edits you don't like. Thank you very much.2402:3A80:104C:D422:9F4B:1073:ED8C:DF0A (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged sock has made only 150 edits and user interaction report has nothing to say at this point of time. Let them be extended confirmed, we will witness a lot of pov pushing edits and edit warring on Rajput pages. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, they've been given the discretionary sanctions notice for India/Pakistan/Afghanistan area, and I also left the general sanctions notice for South Asian social groups, which includes caste related articles. If they start POV pushing, the sanctions available from each of those remedies is in place. Don't hesitate. Note that goes for ALL sides - play nicely. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same interest, pov edits

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonio Rocci, to CU, admins and reviewer who want to save time. Consider this. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcomed to spam the link to that SPI everywhere and tag Anyone, like you've been doing in past im just waiting for moment when CU proves you wrong and me innocent haha hahaSikandar khan67 (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin is editing other articles but the primary intention seems to whitewash Rajput related pages. Specially latest edit [11], when he removed sourced content, points toward this. Showbiz also removed it if we go through page history. Ravensfire may further see, as he also discussed once on Rajput talk page. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha: you need to point to the diff that shows showbiz removed the same information that Ratnahastin is removing. There is no point in saying it is the same one without a diff because no one is going to go looking for it. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha atleast ping me would you? The CU has been performed with no conclusive results my edit was based on manual of style , atleast read up my edit summary. "whitewashing history?" Just wth is this? And how is this a place to post this? 2attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS in the morning, next time you'll be reported to the admins.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By searching out contributions of various sockpuppets of showbiz826, i came across this. They have massively edited List of Rajputs article. Similarly, Ratnahastin has also edited it massively. [12][13], these are edits of a confirmed sockpuppet of Showbiz on that and these are of Ratnahastin [14][15][16]. Interesting thing is that, both has shown interest in including Prithviraj Chauhan in the list, which is disputed thing. Also one may note POV edit like mention of words like "Robin hood figure" for one notable person in the list. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, Same content from Rajput article which was removed by Ratnahastin here was also removed from another Rajput clan article by Monarcho-fascist, the content is about Shudra origin theory and almost all non neutral editors and sockpuppets have tried to remove it on some pretext. Just look at this on Rathore talk page the user is arguing in favour of same edit which was done by Monarcho-fascist. [17]. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read edit summaries? The Prithviraja image was added because an ip requested it while providing many sources,and only thinf showbiz sems ro add are historical figures which i have no interest in.i've added people from indian armed forces and any way CU has been performed,and results are inconclusive,dont revive the dead discussions.Ratnahastin (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 May 2021

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

Report is for the range Special:Contributions/2401:4900:40A0:0:0:0:0:0/43 which has been blocked multiple times due to Showbiz826. The block has recently expired, and they are back to their usual ways. See history of Rana Sanga, and Talk:Alia_Bhatt#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_May_2021 where they request the use of the exact same image that prior sock account Holy Contributor 92 preferred. Ravensfire (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar activity recently happened with Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2169:C379:BD2E:BD9D:7522:6952 at the Vince McMahon article's talk page.NJZombie (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's humorous that they are talking about the standard offer, and resetting the clock at the same time. Ravensfire (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, open it up to the /48 - [18] and you see more image changes - [19], [20] (the last with the snarky edit summary Showbiz likes when they get frustrated).Ravensfire (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

8 June 2021

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Comparing this account to the master, they're in the same geolocation and have crossed over the same wide range. That's all the information that I can give you, since the master and sock accounts are all  Stale. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The behavioral evidence is very strong (the Sanger stuff is a particular giveaway but the penchant for Sarkar and the identical reversions is an added bonus). The editor is currently blocked and perhaps @Bishonen: can take a look? --RegentsPark (comment) 20:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked, combining the behavioral evidence with the technical findings, I'm convinced that this is a sock and have blocked accordingly. Oshwah, reg the other account above -- Ratnahastin -- the behavioral evidence is quite up there, is the technical evidence in conflict with this? Thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 June 2021

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


07 July 2021

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets


Account was created on the same day as the previous sock (Parker User 81819) was banned. Made same comment for support of POV at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan as previous socks [57]. Extremely similar userpage to previous sock User:White Horserider [58], [59] (Side note: they both are a copycat of my userpage). Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


12 July 2021

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

Image-war on wrestling related article - see SPI archives for prior history of this. Ravensfire (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, most of the recent activity from Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2000:0:0:0:0:0/38, if not all, is Showbiz826, rehashing caste arguments and image-war. Ravensfire (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FooberFan is a new account that has uploaded multiple wrestling related images on commons, at least one of which was then used by the IP above - [60]. Image was a copyright violation which is a tendency for SB socks (see [61]). FooberFan has Special:Contributions/FooberFan77 made a lot of small edits to their user page, similar to prior sock [62]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

This is interesting and to be honest a absent-minded report. I don't have any similar interests to this guy S826. I mostly edit about Dog breeds and their traits, physical appearances etc. As for copyviolation, I am quite unaware about the same still Flickr give access to use their photos on enclyopedic articles, many new user do have issue of copyviolation. Is this really a evidence ???? Worst of them all is that I edited my userpage million of times, Many users do that, I too love to edit my page again and again. However, I too love history related articles like S826 but this is not enough to revoke my editing privileges. FooberFan77 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showbiz826&oldid=1033258845"