Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yasht101

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Yasht101

Yasht101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yasht101/Archive.

21 May 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

1. Had been in interaction with Yasht101 (retired), the TheSpecialUser with an experience of just 10 days, knows my name (Karthik) as he wanted to consult me for refs, tough I have never interacted with the later one. Have a look here
2. Same area of interest (1): Ahmedabad article. Check the list of the contributors on that article here.
3. Same area of interest (2): WP:IPL. Yasht101 was the one who initiated the WikiProject Indian Premiere League. TheSpecialUser again has interest in the same area, whos also the Vice-Coordinator of the WikiProject.
4. Same area of interest (3): Coming to the user contributions in CSD, can you believe if an User week old in Wikipedia, can patroll pages with the help of Twinkle. User:Yasht101/CSD log and User:TheSpecialUser/CSD log.
5. Same area of interest (4): Talk page of Yasht101 and talk page of TheSpecialUser, both have a RFA candidate template. User talk:Yasht101 and User talk:TheSpecialUser.
6. Same area of interest (5): Creating stub article on Gujarat/Ahmedabad related articles. List of articles created by Yasht101 and TheSpecialUser.
7. Same area of interest (6): Wikipedia for World Heritage userboxes.
8. If you have a look at TheSpecialUser's public log here, his user page was deleted few days after his account was created, indirectly proving us that both the user page were similar earlier.
9. TheSpecialUser's comment the at the editor review, on 12 May 2012, just after a couple of day of his new account, mentions an edit review here. The review looks very much by a experienced user, and not from a newbie.
10. TheSpecialUser's userpage mentions that he is a newbie, (tough he claims to learning policies from User:Bmusician), such a knowledge with in few days sounds impossible.

(Important note: The above evidence was originally given by User:Karthikndr and is required to be used here as it contains valid points and statements. As told by User:Berean Hunter on my talk page i have just added the evidence given by Karthikndr and nothing else. I am the case filer now.) TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I request the CheckUser's to investigate this case as there is a clear strong evidence and valid points and statements given above to reopen this case. User:TheSpecialUser joined Wikipedia the same say User:Yasht101 retired i.e on May 10, 2012. Both user accounts present themselves to be different users but in fact it really looks like they are the same person as most of the same areas have been edited. It is very rare to find a new user who has made thousands of edits in various areas of the project in just over a month with such high experience. There is a 99% probability that both the user accounts are operated by the same person. This is not the case of a clean start as the points stated above show that a large number of the same areas are edited. This is an improper clean start and violates many points of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which are as follows:

1. Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. (In this case the other account User:TheSpecialUser has actually edited the project space and voted in Requests for Adminship many times).
2. Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or to the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA. (User:TheSpecialUser states on their user page that they want to be an Administrator in the future. Having more than one non-linked alternative accounts both presented as different users is a violation and breaches the trust of the community as a whole).
3. Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start, you can discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. It is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of previous accounts before standing for adminship or functionary positions. Failure to do so is likely to be considered deceptive. (Clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Clean start policy as editing pattern and behavior is the same).

1)Notification and permission:You are not required to notify anyone of your clean start. You may wish to notify the Arbitration Committee or a member of the functionaries team, as this can reduce the risk of misunderstandings that might result from "behind-the-scenes" discussions and investigations.

However, be aware that no one can grant permission for a clean start. The term "permission" carries with it the sense that you will not be held at fault for your actions. If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts. The fact that you notified someone of the change will not excuse you from the consequences of your actions or protect you from recognition.

2)Returning to previous articles and topics:Returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper.

A random IP User:115.241.175.16 gives User:TheSpecialUser a barnstar (see this [1]) and interestingly an IP address of the same range User:115.242.8.189 answers a to a post on User:Yasht101's talk page (see this [2]).

So having such strong evidence and points given above a CheckUser investigation will be really helpful in this case. No one is openly allowed to use more than one account where such evidence is so strong and valid points, statements and reasoning is given. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheSpecialUser admitted on my talk page yesterday that they were indeed User:Yasht101 (see [3]). CheckUser investigation is warranted and necessary here based upon the various evidences, points and statements given above. As both the accounts were not linked in the first place and TheSpecialUser admitted that they are Yasht101 only after the investigation was restarted yesterday. It can also check and see if there are any other similar or different accounts being operated on the same IP range and if they too have any connection with Yasht101 or TheSpecialUser. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: Before taking any actions, please note that I did inform a functionery with this edit. You can ask for his clarification. On the other hand, I wasn't at all aware of all this. No one bothered to inform me so I was silent. Now I m clarifying my stand, I did inform one of the functonary User:MBisanz. Second, the IP message on Yasht's tp, yes it was me, but it want intended to abuse but to make my stand clear and not let anyone get doubt. 3rd, the barnstar on my talk page, why would I do that? I already have enough of them and I m not hungry for them as they don't make any difference, also my contributions to Uno! aren't my best ones. I edit from various places (cyber cafes, school, tution, etc). I think that it can be someone from my school but not me for sure. I hope that this clarifies everything now. I'll redirect my previous account to this soon. If there still exists any problems then I m cool with a investigation but I don't think that I have done any thing disruptive which was intended to harm the site. Thank you! →TSU ^tp* 01:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: How come you edit from school, when your school was shut in May 2012? Yasht posted this on the talk page of someone earlier. ALso, to note YAsht101 had some disputes with Kartkndr, Kondi, me and Ansumang during an AfD.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are not aware, I had summer class of advance computer programming in Java. I never had any disputes with Kartkndr or Kondi or Ansumang (Just a little arguments) but you at an RfA. →TSU ^tp* 15:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: No problem whether the CheckUser investigation is done or not, the user has finally admitted publicly that they are the same person after the CheckUser investigation was restarted by me. That being said if it wasn't admitted by the user itself then the investigation would have surely taken place according the strong evidence provided. This means that the points, statements, evidence and information given above are true in most aspects and the result can now be seen. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a bad cleanstart but I don't see that how m I being disruptive so that SPI is needed? Per Cleanstart, I informed a functionery before this SPI was re-opened. As far as the previous one was concerned, I m shocked to see that no one did inform me about it and also, the previous case was not even needed as SPI is not to find weather it is a cleanstart or not. Correct me if I m wrong. →TSU ^tp* 15:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined as the user has already made the connection to their former account. As the user does not have any history of disruptive behavior in either account nor a history of socking there is no reason to perform a checkuser. In fact, I don't believe that we have any socking going on here. Please see the grounds for using checkuser; I don't see any of those 4 criteria here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• No administrative or other action required here. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

---