Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ProudIndian007

18 May 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Clerk filing, see below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (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 July 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

@Vanjagenije: after discussion with you and @Ponyo: I am posting evidence. That how ProudIndian007, Anatha Gulati, MehulWB are related and Jionakeli is recent account of same sock farm.

  • creates articles about incidents of persecution of Muslims in India when the incident occurred just one day ago. For example, MehulWB created an article on 19 July 2013 about the incident that occurred on 18 July 2013, while Jionakeli created an article on 27 March 2017 about the incident that occurred on 26 March 2017. Another example
  • Alleges of "blind revert"/"reverting blindly"[20][21][22] (Diffs concerns Anatha Gulati and ProudIndian007)
  • Always quick to reply SPI against him, though no one notified him,MehulWB, Proudindian007, Anatha gulati, and now Jionakeli, replying in same manner without pressing enter twice, the comment appears same line as header.
  • ProudIndian007 created redirect,[32] then turned into article[33] with summary "expanded with citation", Anatha Gulati also creates a redirect first, then turned it into article.
[34][35] ("updating with citations"), same as [36][37][38]("updating with citations")
[39][40]("expanding with references") same as [41][42]("expanding with references")
Nearly all article these articles had file uploads too.[43][44][45][46]
Because all of these articles are now deleted, I don't have much to add, but this still proves that operator is same.
Made 3 reverts over a different content[58][59][60] and soon Jionakeli made 4th revert concerning this content[61]
Jionakeli called MorpheusZ a sock[62], so did the IP.[63]


While the ISP has been changed from BSNL to JIO, due to the mass distribution of free JIO internet services, all other technical details are same with the IP Jionakeli used for evading 3RR and the IP which was used by MehulWB, WB stands for West Bengal the state where this sockmaster is located. Capitals00 (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: What about blocking Jionakeli? Jionakeli is one grossly disruptive editor who is making same edits as these sockmasters, and CU says that connection is possible. Arnabgerit has same edits[64][65] on Growth of religion like Anatha Gulati and MehulWB socks (I linked above). MehulWB needs to be regarded as part of this sockfarm, who has 176 confirmed socks[66] and his oldest account Benfold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be treated as sockmaster if you are thinking of combining. Capitals00 (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is enough! If you think Jionakeli is one grossly disruptive editor who is making same edits as these sockmasters then present proper diffs of my disruptive edits and report me. I do not have time to waste on your silly accusations trying to link me with these socks. For the CU results, I emailed the CU regarding this. Jionakeli (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just like you had "emailed" from MehulWB?[67] Do you think that we are not aware of your WP:GAMING of system? @Salvio giuliano: just letting you know that Jionakeli is doing exactly what he did with his past socks. Capitals00 (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who are "we" ? This is not the first time. You had reported me falsely in the past[68]. Today I found this[69] while searching my name in the noticeboard. Anyway, I am done with you and have no time to waste on you. Jionakeli (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good you remember your history of disruption with this account, but there is a lot more than that. You don't have to describe your actions because we have seen them before from Anatha Gulati/MehulWB/ProudIndian007. Capitals00 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Comment-@GeneralizationsAreBad: This meatfarm has many skilled sockmasters.
Jionakeli's second edit in Wikipedia was made on a template Template:Riots in India. Why does a newbie cares about template instead of article content?
In his third edit he linked the template in to the article with correct braces.
20th edit He links article inside edit summary (He figured that out by himself too soon?
First ever edit in any deletion discussion was to strike off the comment of a user blocked for sockpuppetry. How did he know that indefinitely blocked editor's comments are striked off?. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

01 January 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Account became active, so far as I can see, immediately after master was blocked. No overlap in edits, but suspected sock thanked me today [70] for an edit on Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which is closely related to the master's interest in Hindu nationalism and contemporary Indian politics. Also, the names match very closely, to the point that when I saw the name pop up, my first thought was "wasn't this person blocked"? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Do you mean ProudIndian007? Proud Indian 4 was logged in two hours ago, as I said. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I see; that's quite strange, but it is what it is, I guess. Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 1 January 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]

Proud Indian 4 is  Stale. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Sorry for not seeing that, but, although I'm not sure how a Thanks works precisely, I can tell you for sure that when I try to check the account, I get no technical data, even though the CU interface recognizes what happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Bringtar is a clear-cut sock puppet who made his first edit just 2 days ago 20 July and clearly belongs to this sock farm.

Years ago, he edited as Drivarum for the main purpose of disrupting List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, he is doing the same thing as Bringtar now.

Edit warring to restore same content on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. [71][72]

Same tendencies:

  • Forum shopping and canvassing to help him in edit war.[73][74]
  • Reports everyone who has reverted him to admins after failing in edit war.[75][76]
  • Refuses to comply with WP:BLP by engaging in WP:IDHT.[77][78]
  • Falsely alleges editors of not discussing his edits.[79][80]
  • Tells people to justify reversion of his BLP violations in edit summaries instead of explaining his edits on talk per WP:BRD.[81][82]
  • Quick at making counteraccusation, no matter how frivolous.[83][84]
  • Frequently highlights that people are not responding to his message when they are just keeping the discussion at one place: "You also haven't responded to my earlier response"[85], "You did not even responded to my message on your talk page".[86]
  • Does not know the meaning of "several" but use it anyway: "asked this question several times already"[87], "have been warned several times already"[88]

Together with all that above, and the same timings, I haven't seen anyone else in these years to have disrupted this particular article except Drivarum and Bringtar.  Looks like a duck to me. Capitals00 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I think the case is obvious. This editor is strongly dedicated to this subject of "convert from Hinduism to Islam" as his earlier account created Category:Converts to Islam from Hinduism,[89], and the same WP:TE with his earlier socks per: [90][91][92] These sockfarms are related to each other per discussion here. Also given the disruption he is causing at this moment, a block is undoubtedly justified. Capitals00 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I have added Loveall.human because, Bringtar frequently took the responsibility of the addition to List of converts to Islam from Hinduism,[93] because it is possible that it was originally written by him, but as "Loveall.human".

  • Loveall.human was the one to expand the list,[94] which was being restored by Bringtar[95] with a misleading edit summary.
  • Bringtar responded on Loveall.human's talk page to other editor objecting his edits.[96]
  • Loveall.human got back to Wikipedia after nearly 3 months yesterday because Bringtar is in trouble.
  • Bringtar filed a frivolous ANI report,[97] which got support only from Loveall.human and in extended amount.[98]
  • Loveall.human is now defending this edit by Benfold (a sock of this sockfarm I already mentioned above) on here without any prior history to this page.
  • Loveall.human is equally obsessed with promoting Category:Converts to Islam from Hinduism just like Benfold was. See: [99][100][101][102]

I think CU should be endorsed to see the connection between the two, and if there are more socks. Capitals00 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • I also red few of these comments and it is ridiculous how this user lying so much and desperate to block me. Please do an investigation on User:Capitals00 and User:Aman.kumar.goel. Bringtar (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loveall.human was the one to expand the list,[24] which was being restored by Bringtar[25] with a misleading edit summary. - Yes, I 'updated' the list after researching well with well resourced citations.
  • Bringtar responded on Loveall.human's talk page to other editor objecting his edits.[26] - I don't know who is Bringtar until recently, just like many Wiki users he happens to have commented in my page and I responded. Since when interacting becomes like infection make others like me as 'sock'.
  • Loveall.human got back to Wikipedia after nearly 3 months yesterday because Bringtar is in trouble. - I contribute to other languages, other Wiki products as well. Am a freelancer and mostly using wiki for reading on weekends if time permits I edit, not dedicated. 3 months or 6 months, how can it be accused as 'got back because Bringtar is in trouble'?
  • Bringtar filed a frivolous ANI report,[27] which got support only from Loveall.human and in extended amount.[28] - It's the other way, I too was bullied by User:Capitals00 while trying to evolve that page. So, I chimed in. I have no idea who is Bringtar if he is a sock or not.
  • Loveall.human is now defending this edit by Benfold (a sock of this sockfarm I already mentioned above) on here without any prior history to this page. - Again, I am questioning why, similar to how he has undone my several edits without discussion, he has done there too which has evidence. Questioning that edit is different from defending that account itself.
  • Loveall.human is equally obsessed with promoting Category:Converts to Islam from Hinduism just like Benfold was.[29][30][31][32] - For working on a list, was organizing pages with related tags. What is 'obsessed'? Can User:Capitals00 be considered obsessed to keep this page from not allowing it to grow since 2017 by undoing edits, not responding in my talk page when given sources, etc?

@Girth Summit:, please refer to my talk page where admin made a 'mistake' to block me as sock, and I proved with months of efforts that it was concocted similar behavior patterns as enough evidence. I might have flaws in not knowing the legal parlances in wiki to give a sophisticated comment here tagging all Wiki policies, but please have a look here too on the Wiki bullying on consistent unhealthy patterns of User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00 abusing Wiki admin processes to bully and stifle editors for Hindutva far-right POV pushing. Instead of me learning Wiki procedures and collaborative editing, user like me to have to deal with this bullying. With millions of edits on Wikipedia, bunching some coincidental similar interests should not be the criteria to declare as sock. As seen in my talk page, I was disappointed when last time I had to take over 5 months to prove that I was not a sock (not all are experts in using wiki). With great privilege should come great responsibility. Even actual real world needs enough evidences to convict one as guilty, here I was wrongly declared sock earlier, again the system is allowing to be repeatedly abuse the sock report (which is meant to filter actual fraudulent accounts). Take all your time, but is this going to be the pattern where User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00 without giving enough respect for the wiki admin procedures (which should be for avoiding actual frauds) are using it as hammering anyone for far-right POV pushing with the 'sock!sock!sock!' (third time I am called as sock, shouldn't every succeeding time the one who accuses be very sure? This sock labelling has become illuminati, becoming hard to constantly prove one is not a sock with some coincidental shared interests of others). Am genuinely not an expert, it's like Calculus for me to fathom all Wiki procedures yet, the above was a laymen comment, will remove specific statement if it is touching some Wiki discipline/policy. Loveall.human (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - checkuser data on all the socks in the archive of this case will be stale. Behaviourally, I'm seeing a considerable amount of overlap, but I'm not 100% - does anyone else want to take a look? Girth Summit (blether) 11:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Girth Summit: Without going through the evidence myself, Behaviourally, I'm seeing a considerable amount of overlap, but I'm not 100% would make me lean towards endorsing a comparison check between the two socks here and take it from there – I can go through the full case later if you would like a less brief 2O. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Blablubbs, when I left that comment, only Bringtar was listed as a potential sock - I was comparing their edits to those of the listed master and the socks in the archive, all of which are stale. The Loveall.human account does share some editing interests, and there are some similarities - probably worth endorsing a CU to compare the two accounts, will do so. Girth Summit (blether) 12:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Relisted - per comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 12:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Inconclusive (and unfortunately, I remember pretty much nothing about the details of the case from back then... Sorry) Salvio 18:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Salvio. Is the result inconclusive because one or both of them are on proxy, or for a different reason? Blablubbs (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I have reviewed all the diffs in this case, as well as some additional evidence that reached me via email by the filer, who asked me to have a look. I'm unconvinced. Most of the diffs used to link Bringtar to ProudIndian007 may be helpful in showing that they are a similar type of contributor, but they do not rise to the level of showing that they are the same person. The story for Bringtar and Loveall.human is similar – yes, they are doing similar things, but there are also a few differences that point at the possibility that they are different people. Is it possible that the two are the same individual? Yes. Is it possible that they are two people closely coordinating? Yes, and in this topic area they certainly wouldn't be the only ones. But is there enough to make blocks that would survive an evidence-based appeal with an inconclusive CU result and the diffs given? I personally don't think so, but there may be evidence that hasn't been presented here and I didn't go looking for it very far, so I will defer to Girth Summit's judgement for the final call. Blablubbs (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, I'm in the same place as you - there are similarities, but there are enough differences to give me doubts. If they are being disruptive, that can be addressed in the usual ways. Closing Girth Summit (blether) 15:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ProudIndian007/Archive&oldid=1138677913"