Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashermadan/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ashermadan

11 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Considering the contributions, the account seems to have been created exclusively to serve the purpose of what socks usually do, lend an extra vote in a discussion. There has been a long discussion here which was related to a topic certain users had been fighting for months together with a certain intention Wikipedia is not meant for. The discussion ended two days back, and the account has been abandoned. If they are confirmed as socks, then I shall have to strike out the vote given by the sock in the RFC. Hence, the SPI. X.One SOS 14:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user has also gone on accusing other editors as a sock of Zubeidaaslam786, including me. And it should also be noted that the editor (Ashermadan) has had a history of personal attacks and uncivil behavior, including with this new account. Despite repeated warnings, the user has not changed. The admin here, kindly note that and if possible, carry out the necessary action. X.One SOS 15:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At start, Raonebest did not look like a new editor, and fairly knew a few things about wiki which new ones usually do not know. But still, he did not know to sign his posts, something Ashermadan has been known for. (Pardon the slip) X.One SOS 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Thanks for the great work, TNXMan! May I add there's a strong possibility that Raonebest (talk · contribs) is also a sock of Ashermadan (talk · contribs). Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Raonebest (talk · contribs) has also been editing the same article, 1 and 2, in addition to several related articles. Scieberking (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

The two accounts are  Confirmed matches to each other. TNXMan 14:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


14 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


He has made only one contribution till date, and that is this. Clearly, the topic of interest is the same and the signature of his wasn't created by using 4 tildes but by manually writing out his "name" and adding a time stamp, something Ashermadan is known for. In case of any sleepers or something, I request a check. X.One SOS 06:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • A sock created by a user deems a one-week ban. However, I think Ashermadan is clearly not trying to understand the severity of the practice of sock-puppeting. A second sock, that too created while being blocked for a recently-closed SPI, is absolutely unacceptable. I believe stricter enforcement of guidelines is required; it seems that an indefinite ban is the only option now. Ashermadan's (lack of) civility has also been cause for previous concern. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but what is a CheckUser? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CHECKUSER - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To DQ; can you please point out some other sockpuppet possibilities on the Ra.One article? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Given the similiarity in articles, same username as a previous sock, and odd way of signing the post (like they know your supposed to sign with Wikipedia), but only 2 contribs a while back I want to double check before I issue a block. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am removing my endorsement because I think I just got two sock masters confused, therefore do not want to mess up the investigation on this. I will note it looks like i'm seeing a load of socks at this article but I do not trust myself at this time to have a clear head and opinion on this matter. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16 November 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

There was an edit warring with me related to critical reception of Jab Tak Hai Jaan and writing style on talk page Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan.That is the only source i have. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this also.He threatened me to see again.Everyone has right to edit wikipedia.I know my english is little weak but by intentions are committed towards editting.---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I feel it is high time Ashermadan was indefinitely blocked. I have been following his contributions for over a year, from the time of creation of his account. He was already blocked for a week for double sockpuppetry (archive), and has a terrible problem of incivility and getting what he wants done, at whatever cost. This new case of sockpuppetry further tightens issues into a corner. Secret of success · talk 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
08 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This user has a huge problem of incivility and personal attacks from long.There is an edit warring dispute goes on page Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan where i insert a section for discussion but whenever he wrote his comments,every time different ip's came and support his claim in the same tone as his.Most importantly,all are either unregistered or newly created with only 1 or 2 edits.It seems they create account for him only.He might be using different pc's as his and suspects time zone checking is most required.You may see talkpage too which i mentioned as the page is fully protected now.One thing is to be noted that not a single experienced user came to support him.I mentioned some other suspected ip's here User:Jineshparekh,User:Trueindiangrit,User talk:122.168.99.180 and User talk:117.227.139.144.Thanx ---zeeyanketu talk to me 09:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC) The differences are here[reply]

  • I insert a section [1]
  • comments by Ashermadan[2],[3]
  • comments by Trueindian grit[4],[5]
  • comment by 122.168.99.180 [6]
  • comment by Jineshparekh [7]
  • comment by An0nim0sity [8]
  • comment by 117.227.139.144

other ip's has no editting history other than this only as per above comment.---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:54, 8 December 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]

 Additional information needed. CheckUsers won't run a check without evidence; please provide some diffs to support your claims. Also, please note that CheckUsers won't comment on IP addresses, so behavioural evidence alone will be needed decide on those. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk declined I really don't think there's enough in those diffs to suggest that the accounts are operated by the same person. The style of language used by the accounts varies significantly. I think you need to sort this out on the article talk page; there's nothing here for SPI and so I'm closing. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ashermadan/Archive&oldid=1145955328"