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

• Alone angel54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both accounts claim to have created the same image File:Prithviraj chauhan.jpg in the case of Showbiz826 and File:Prithviraj chauhan img.jpg in the case of Alone angel54 (see [1] and [2]). Note that Alone angel54 uploaded and re-added it to Prithviraj Chauhan after I blocked Showbiz826 and deleted the image as a copyvio. Both edit the same set of articles with similar edit summaries (cf., [3] and [4]). Looks like a duck and am blocking the second account so this is for the record. RegentsPark (comment) 01:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Honestly it sounds like a  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me to me. As this was a pro forma report, I won't modify blocks (and will only tag the sock and close the case). I would have been tempted to extend the sockmaster's block, so Showbiz826 should bear in mind that further socking to evade the block will likely be met with longer blocks. Closing. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Tagged master -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alone angel54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I believe that Showbiz826 is currently using an alternate account, Alone angel54, in order to circumvent a recent editing block. My reasons for believing that the accounts are associated are as follows:

• Both accounts were created within 2 days of each other
• Every article edited by Alone angel54 had also been edited by Showbiz826, namely Second Battle of Tarain, List of Rajput dynasties and states, Chahamanas of Shakambhari, Rajput, Rana Sanga and Prithviraj Chauhan
• Both accounts have performed identical or near-identical edits on many of the same articles:
  • Example 1[5][6]
  • Example 2[7][8]
  • Example 3[9][10]
  • Example 4[11][12]
• Both accounts have similar habits in writing their edit summaries such as:
  • boasting that their own sources are more reliable than that of others[13][14]
  • complaining about alleged bias on Wikipedia[15][16]
  • requesting that their edits not be deleted[17][18] Alivardi (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As above, the socks seems very ducky to me. Closing as a duplicate of the above which has also been closed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vinimac1962 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• Account created less than a day after the previous sock was blocked
• Only edits so far have been to Chahamanas of Shakambhari and Rana Sanga, both being articles which Showbiz826 contributed to significantly
• Made this edit regarding Agnikula origins of Rajput clans,[19] which is nearly identical to ones made previously by both Showbiz826[20] and Alone angel54[21] on the same article
• Added this citation,[22] which had also been added to the same article multiple times by Showbiz826[23][24][25][26] and Alone angel54[27]

Note that Showbiz826 had only just received a very lenient warning regarding their sockpuppetry from RegentsPark, which they had clearly immediately ignored. Alivardi (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I figured this would happen. Sock blocked. Master indef blocked.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagging Vinimac1962 and closing SPI case. This appears to be a completed case that wasn't closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to archive this case, as it should've been closed by the previous party. All steps were completed, so I closed and I've archived. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul bearer2013 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• Account name is very similar to that of the previously identified sock Paul white2013
• Account was created only 2 days after Paul white2013 had been blocked
• Heavily contributed to the article Second Battle of Tarain, which both the socks Showbiz826 and Alone angel54 also extensively edited
• Consistently makes the same grammatical errors as Showbiz826 by over-capitalising words and missing spaces after punctuation[28][29][30]

Given that this person has continued making accounts after each of their previous blocks, I believe that CheckUser would be appropriate. Alivardi (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Needle in a haystack issue is not worth confirming a duck or trying to get sleepers. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Aristocratic 536 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• follows same naming structure word + space + 3 digit number, overlap here here (readding an image obsessively) here, here and an apparent inability to format headers and also including them in their edit summary, IE: Example text, Example text and all of these accounts have just about the same grasp of competency as the others (none.)

Included Terminator 800 and T-800 as well for attempting to spam May I Come In Madam? like Aristo. They also share a significant overlap with Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw, though the rest of the socks in this archive don't, however they all share the same lack of coherency....

other overlap

• May I Come In Madam?/May I Come In Madam - Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw
• Excuse Me Madam as Excuse Me Maadam - previously created by Chikukiri a House xChurch, currently created by Aleyamma38 and heavily edited by Aristo.
• Prithviraj Chauhan heavy overlap, a Showbiz826 favorite. Edited by a variety of confirmed and suspected Showbiz socks, Ministry of Darkness98, Alone angel54, Showbiz826 and another sockmaster RajeshRawal_Mewari
• Weird obsession with photos like Showbiz826

Tl;dr this whole thing is a mess but I find it hard to believe that Aristocratic isn't somehow related to this farm. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Clerk note:  Blocked without tags. I agree that there is a lot of overlap with Showbiz (I also note that they edited in the pro wrestling area and past sock "ministry of darkness"'s name may refer to a wrestling group), but there's also overlap with other sock groups. Pretty sure it's somebody's sock, thus the block without tags. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Samboy 01681 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2409:4051:4e93:5f27::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 157.36.16.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2409:4051:4e90:26a::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The interaction [31] with the last sock is way, way too high. Like the original (and multiple socks after), they have a fascination with the Encyclopedia Brittanica [32], ignoring that's it's a tertiary source. Same interest in Prithviraj (film), Talk:Ayurveda. Wish they'd actually follow through on their threat to leave any only go to EB. Ravensfire (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have all engaged in harrassment of User:Chariotrider555 and User:LukeEmily regarding Rajput. Therefore,  Looks like a duck to me  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Firestar464 (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obvious case of WP:DUCK. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another Sockpuppet investigation regarding the User:Samboy 01681 that is open right now.[[33]]Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chariotrider555, oh wow. I hope some articles need to get semi-protected to stop this nonsense once they are blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IPv6 ranges mentioned by Chariotrider555 have some sanctions in the past week. One /64 is blocked, the larger /33 [34] is some partial article bans. The disruption from this user is beyond those articles, and they obviously have zero concern about topic bans or blocks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samboy 01681 and the other IPs continuously request to be blocked whenever they are warned about inappropriate behavior, so they obviously know that when they are blocked they can just make a new account straight away and continue their disruptive edits.Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showbiz826 as this is pretty obviously the same person with the same spelling and capitalization issues and the same, ummm, exuberance. Ravensfire (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A previous sockpuppet of User:Showbiz826 called User:Samboy 01681 was recently blocked from editing due to sockpuppetry. Right afterwords, IPs make the same types of edits he makes on Prithviraj Raso using the same type of arguments along the lines of "reverting to a stable version by User:Utcursch. "[[35]]. The Ips make a similar argument of "reverting to a stable version" for several articles. [[36]] [[37]] User:Showbiz826 has a long list of sockpuppets, both registered users and IPs, that have edited these types of historical era articles. Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Blocked as quacking. Given the weird history, I'll let a clerk/CU decide on running a check etc before closing. —SpacemanSpiff 02:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This case is a combination of the case already here before a redirection + comments made at the other case named the same. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Both ranges are caught in a larger range partial block. IPv4 address not blocked. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocking IPs. Close. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2401:4900:40A8:53F:9C29:3788:4D5F:9311 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 42.109.204.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:3A80:105D:91B3:31BF:F0C5:F9AD:7663 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A previous sockpuppet of User:Showbiz826 called User:Samboy 01681 was recently blocked from editing due to sockpuppetry. Right afterwords, IPs make the same types of edits he makes on Prithviraj Raso using the same type of arguments along the lines of "reverting to a stable version by User:Utcursch. "[[38]]. The Ips make a similar argument of "reverting to a stable version" for several articles. [[39]] [[40]] User:Showbiz826 has a long list of sockpuppets, both registered users and IPs, that have edited these types of historical era articles. Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment A redirect to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/157.36.131.91 was added a few days ago, so my report added via Twinkle was created there. At least on the IPv6 addresses, Special:Contributions/2401:4900:40a0::/44 appears to cover their edits. Ravensfire (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All IPs now in range block(s). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2401:4900:40A1:2BEC:9D9F:3DFE:65C7:6D63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same mixed case edit summaries, Rajput caste pushing ([41] vs [42]) across the same articles. One IPv6 range [43] that's also used by Showbiz blocked for disruption, may need larger range - Special:Contributions/2401:4900:40a0::/44 maybe? Rnage from super quick blockcalc template check, but articles, edit summaries, and general editing style match up well. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, something weird happened. I used Twinkle to file the report as a sock of Showbiz826 and it's now got a redirect tag to this IP sock report? [44] redirect added. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Is now blocked. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Duke Universty 071 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• Aristocratic 536 was blocked for being a sock of Showbiz826. The Duke Universty 017 suspect has a similarly formatted name.
• New user has five intersections with Aristocratic and one with Showbiz. A common article of intersection for all three is at Wasim Akram an area of interest for Aristocratic and Duke is at Shraddha Arya.
• Aristocratic tends to use inconsistent alternating case. Misspellings often involved dropped letters, or odd choices, like spelling syntax "syntac".
• Similarly with Duke Universty 071, we see a dropped letter in their own user name, problematic caps in edit summaries, and syntax is spelled cyntax here.

Though this is fairly ducky, I'm requesting CU since there appears to be three open SPIs on this user. While we may not be able to compare to the master, we should potentially be able to link the newer accounts to each other. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed. Bagged and tagged. Closing SPI report... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Harrassing ChariotRider555 as well...regarding Jadeja. Firestar464 (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I doubt that User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail is a sockpuppet of Showbiz826. They're mannerisms are different, and they have different interests. Showbiz826 posted on older dynasties and various media articles, whereas OnlyTruthShallPrevail has pretty much solely edited on Jadeja. I think that OnlyTruthShallPrevail is just another caste promoter, as Wikipedia attracts a lot of caste promoters (especially from the Rajput caste). OnlyTruthShallPrevail also is slightly milder (though still engages in personal attacks), and has a better grasp of the English language than Showbiz826 and its socks. Showbiz826 and its socks would always vandalize my talk page with poorly written rants, whereas OnlyTruthShallPrevail has not really been known to do that. However, I would not rule "good hand, bad hand" out, and someone should probably just check those admin tools. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unrelated at a technical standpoint. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Already blocked indefinitely, so case moot. Closing. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardcore Legend Mic Foley (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2409:4051:4E91:64BB:88FF:9047:F697:7CBF (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rajanrao Shankar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2409:4051:4e91:64bb:bc7b:5aa9:7172:2af4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2401:4900:40B8:5FA5:D798:954F:7726:37FD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2409:4051:4e91:64bb:ed7c:9672:a699:f307 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This account was only created yesterday and shares the same interests as Showbiz826 and its socks, Rajput-related pages and media articles. However, now this suspected sock has made media articles their main focus as they know that they will be banned for their disruptive edits on Rajput-related pages. The sock shares the same poor grasp of English grammar and style, and the signature grammatical mistake of rarely using punctuation. [45], [46], and here [47]. They mention the exact same sources ("Jadunath Sakrar Romila Thapar Satish Chandra") to prove the Rajput identity of Prithviraj Chauhan, which was a favorite topic of Showbiz and its socks. However, some particularly incriminative evidence is here [[48]] and here [49], where a likely sock IP of showbiz double signs on another users' talk page about Rajputs. I think this might be some good hand, bad hand, where the IP is where Showbiz continues to make damaging changes to Rajput-related pages, and the Hardcore Legend Mic Foley is where Showbiz can continue their less damaging pursuit editing media articles. However, Showbiz made a critical mistake by overlapping the good hand account and bad hand ip. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment The IP is pretty ducky, they're in the range that's had multiple partial bans because of prior Showbiz socks. The new account has an interesting overlap - Mick Foley, an American professional wrestler. Prior socks have edited that article [50] and now this account with that name has edited it [51] in addition to the the really unique capitalization, caste warring and using the same image on Wasim Akram as prior socks. Ravensfire (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment by Heba Aisha

Revensfire....I also believe that Rajanrao Shankar is somehow associated with this Mick Foley.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Blocked Mic Foley per behavioral evidence. —SpacemanSpiff 05:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing per the above. Nothing further to do here and IPs most likely stale. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2401:4900:40BC:F18D:97AD:6FD6:DFB5:AE1F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar IP address to the several used by Showbiz. Same interest in Rajput related pages. Same old grammatical mistakes of run on sentences with little punctuation [52] [53]; sample of Showbiz:[54]. Also is familiar with me and other users, and is aware the the history of Rajput-related pages. [[55]] and [[56]]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2401:4900:40A0:0:0:0:0:0/43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Same poor grammar as always, [57] and [58]. Same distaste for Wikipedia and support of Encyclopedia Britannica [59] and [60]. Same interest in Rajput related pages. A range block is definitely needed because Showbiz keeps ip hopping through the range and continues to make their disruptive edits. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment Thanks for filing this, Chariotrider555. @EdJohnston:, I personally think it's a significant net positive to block that range for a time. They've had a couple of somewhat recent accounts (Hardcore Legend Mic Foley being the most recent I know of, about a month old). Pretty easy tells on their editing style - push Rajput caste, spelling issues, personal attacks and several others. There are some edits from that range that I'm sure aren't Showbiz, but they also aren't useful ([61], [62], [63]). Just in the past week, Showbiz826 on this range has pushed their POV and edit-warred over those edits, [64], edit-warred over images [65] and actively seeking editors to proxy for them [66], [67], [68]. There's been a fair number of articles put under semi-protection because of their disruption ([69] being the most recent), and a prior range they were commonly found on, Special:Contributions/2409:4051:0:0:0:0:0:0/33, has partial blocks on multiple articles. To me, no question of a net positive for the range to be blocked. Partial blocks aren't enough when they continue to push across more and more articles, aggressively seek out proxies and use personal attacks on other editors (see their proxy-requesting posts). Multiple times Showbiz826 has said they were done with Wikipedia, wouldn't do XYZ anymore, but like most POV warriors, it never lasts. Ravensfire (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanjagenije, thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an IP from the range Special:Contributions/2401:4900:40a0::/43 posting on User talk:Sajaypal007#A Request asking them to make edits regarding the Rajputs (suggesting that the IP editor might be a caste warrior). I also see IPs from that range editing a few medical articles in an incoherent manner. The contributions also include a lot of talk about Rajputs, and sometimes reverts of User:Ravensfire. Does anyone have an opinion on collateral damage from a /43 rangeblock? On balance it would seem to be a benefit. Note that Showbiz826 is stale so there won't be technical evidence available. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IP range blocked for one month. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• hey, it seems to me this block should be anon-only; there are dozens of registered, not blocked users on this range. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanjagenije: - I'd agree with jpgordon here. Would you be OK with me setting this block to anon-only? SQL^{Query me!} 21:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sorry. I changed block settings. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• F4E1C0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• भारत_का_प्रतिहार (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This edit right after getting autoconfirmed status is a tell tale sign. I have already blocked both accounts, just bringing it here for documentation. I also blocked भारत_का_प्रतिहार and that account was subsequently confirmed by PhilKnight. —SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• All accounts are already blocked. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:4051:0:0:0:0:0:0/33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same poor grammar as always [70]. Same interest in Rajput related articles [71]. Same disdain for Wikipedia [72]. This IP range is already partially blocked, but I am requesting a range block as Showbiz is unrelenting and continues to IP hop. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User:Ohnoitsjamie has now converted his *partial* block of the /33 into a full sitewide block. That should address the problem of block evasion for now and allow this SPI to be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1997 MB (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same interest in Rajput-related pages. Same grammatical mistakes of poor punctuation [73]. Sock shares the use of Satish Chandra to support claims [74]. [75]. Same disdain for Wikipedia and claims of an "agenda" [76], [77]. Both call Muslims "Malecha", (which is an incorrect spelling "Mleccha", meaning "barbarian") [78], [79]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Showbiz826's most active IP ranges were recently blocked, and this account was just created and immediately jumped into Rajput related articles and caste-pushing. They commented [80] on Pseudo_Nihilist's talk page that they had left a comment on their Hindi wikipedia talk page [81]. While this account hasn't, there are edits from two IP editors [82], [83] which are both in the ranges blocked. 1997 has the usual signs of Showbiz - random capitalization, Rajput pushing. Their edit series [84] is very similar to [85] from a prior sock. Also see their somewhat dismissive talk page post of any historian they disagree with, matches their style. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked by SpacemanSpiff and edits cleaned up. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I did not see this SPI but had blocked on the basis of edits that I'd seen. Also protected one article. —SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pseudo Nihilist (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Over-capitalises words in the same way that previous socks had done.[86][87] Added content with almost identical wording as the sockpuppeteer's confirmed IP had done:

• Previous case:

As Noted by Indian Scholar Jadunath Sarkar who was first Indian historian to use Rajput Sources while writting about Rajput history conclude that few geneologies upto Lord Rama and few of his descendants upto Athithi are based on list and details given in Hindu Puranas and apart from minor differences they are exactly same relating to the Rathores and other Rajput clans in Medieval Period Like Kushwahas of Amber, Guhilas or Sissdoias of Medapata.[88]

• Current case:

According to Indian Scholar Jadunath Sarkar who was first Indian historian to use Rajput Sources while writting about Rajput Past conclude that the few geneologies upto Lord Rama and few of his descendants upto Athithi are in the list and details given in Hindu Puranas and apart from minor differences of name they are exactly same relating to the Rathores and other Rajput clans in Medieval Period Like Kushwahas of Amber, Guhilas or Sissdoias of Medapata. [89]

• Previous case:

The Rathores Rajputs were first prominent in Pali Region in Current day Rajasthan (Then Rajputana) in 9th century. However they gain Prominence in 13th Century when they establish themselves at Marwar in 1230 few years after defeat of Coalition of Rajput Prince in Second Battle of Tarain which also include Rathores from Pali.[90]

• Current case:

The Rathores Rajputs were first prominent in Pali Region in Current day Rajasthan (Then Rajputana) in 9th century. However, accoridng to Historian Gopinath Sharma they gain Prominence in 13th Century when they establish themselves at Marwar in 1230 few years after defeat of Coalition of Rajput Prince in Second Battle of Tarain which also include Rathores from Pali.[91]

Alivardi (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlike previous suspected socks, this suspected sock does not display the same level of grammatical errors and exuberance that previous socks did (although they might have wised up to the fact that we were catching their socks this way).The quoted content additions above do seem suspiciously similar to Showbiz, but this suspected sock has not touched any Showbiz favorites like Prithviraj Chauhan or other Ghaznavid and Ghurid related invasion pages. User:Psuedo Nihilist is also familiar with past disruptions on Wikipedia by caste promoters, which is strange. I am not sure if this suspected sock is indeed a sock of Showbiz, but I would keep an close eye on the account for future disruptions that may warrant a block. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed to F4E1C0, a suspected sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Monarcho-fascist (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New account, created after the prior sock, Pseudo Nihilist was blocked. Removed the same [92] material as PH [93] and previous socks [94] and IP's [95] [96]. Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 106.220.174.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Added content[97] which had also been added by a previous sock.[98] Removed a strikethrough[99] from a comment made by the same sock.[100] Alivardi (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment Completely agree this is SB. Besides the evidence above, [101] shows their usual command of capital letters. The ISP is the same as prior socks Special:Contributions/106.204.21.99 - there is a decent difference in the geolocation though. Just from behavior though, oh yeah, this is Showbiz. Ravensfire (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Awaiting administrative action - Please block the IP for a month. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  IP blocked as requested. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anachronistic 328 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Aside from the obvious similarity in the usernames, this diff should pretty much explain everything:

• Aristocratic 536: [102]
• Anachronistic 328: [103]

Another diff:

• Aristocratic 536: [104]
• Anachronistic 328: [105]

There are a few other overlap of pages related to Bollywood and cricket that can be seen from their contribs. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Check declined by a checkuser - Obvious enough for me, blocked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bernie33880 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 106.204.63.247 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Continued to edit-war over images on Shane McMahon [106] and Mick Foley [107], same as prior socks [108] and [109]. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User is also using this IP address to make the same edits to the Shane McMahon [110] and Mick Foley [111] articles. NJZombie (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I extended-confirmed protected Mick Foley before I saw this report. I'm wondering if I should undo it, as protection shouldn't be used to target one editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please, check Bernie33880 to the master. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Same country, geolocation, wide range. Same user agents. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bernie33880 has already been blocked as a sock of this master. The IP hasn't edited for a few weeks. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 42.111.0.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 42.111.1.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both IP addresses are being used to insist on making the exact same image changes previously blocked accounts have been making to the Mick Foley article.[112] [113] One of the two accounts has also made a similar change to the Shane McMahon article which has been going through the same issue with the same blocked user.[114] NJZombie (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Note: Quack. IPs belong to 42.111.0.0/23, which seems to have been pretty static to this master since 23 February. I doubt CU will be useful here as they won't link IPs to accounts, and I don't know that a check for sleepers is indicated; although I will (of course) leave that decision to the clerk / CU group. Perhaps a short anonblock of the /23 will nip this in the bud for a little while? --Jack Frost (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Absentminded move on my part concerning the check user request. Unfortunately, I don't think anything short term is going to slow this user down though. This has been going on since at least August with at least two different investigations into what without a doubt the same person.NJZombie (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NJZombie, I'm going to archive this in a moment, but wanted to add that if you can identify a small enough set of articles that are being affected, semi-protection or possibly a partial range block are other possible tools we could use. You could ask for that at WP:RFPP or ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser cannot be used to confirm accounts to IP addresses - only accounts to accounts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed that 42.111.0.0/23 (WHOIS suggests it's actually /22) looks like this sockmaster. However, since they haven't edited in several days (our fault, not yours, we're backlogged) and it looks like this rangeblock would have collateral damage, I'm not willing to block at this time. If they come active on this range again, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ramprakash Diwedi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name)
• Ramprakash1000 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vengeance 01 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• On 31 December 2020, Ramprakash1000 adds a controversial section titled "The fake ‘coup’ story" in Shekhar Gupta copy pasted directly from an Opindia article (www.opindia.com/2020/11/shekhar-gupta-media-fake-news-indian-army-strike-on-pakistan-gen-vk-singh-reminds-him-coup-story/) and cited random references related to the content [115] as Opindia is blacklisted currently, see WP:OPINDIA. Vengeance 01 who was created on 12 Feb 2021 adds the exact same content after 6 days on 18 February 2021.[116].

• Apart from the above copyright violation by Ramprakash1000 and Vengeance 01, all the three accounts share a common habit of copy pasting content; Ramprakash1000 has copy pasted most of the content directly from the sources [117], 6 out of the 18 edits of Ramprakash Diwedi were hidden for copyright violations [118] and the remaining additions also possibly copyvios, Vengeance 01 is warned for copyvio [119] and all of their content additions are also copyvios from a google search, all copied from britannica.[120][121][122][123][124][125][126]

• Ramprakash Diwedi and Ramprakash1000 share similar names and are also interested in the same caste groups. [127][128]

• All the three accounts edit from mobile devices. SUN EYE 1 17:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mz7: See the history of Mick Foley on February 15, 2021, the changes by Bernie33880 [129] (a blocked sock of Anachronistic 328) was pretended to be reverted within 9 minutes by Vengeance 01 who did not revert it fully[130], this happens again after 8 hours and Vengenace 01 who comes out of nowhere within 11 minutes and pretends to revert it fully but did not.[131][132]. Same type of reverts between the two users on Shane McMahon on Febraury 15, 2021; see the history. Looks like Vengeance01 is trying to keep the changes of Bernie33880 by pretending to revert all the edits by giving false edit summaries but clearly did not. Vengeance 01 and their sock Sam O' Donnell also continued the edit warring of Anachronistic 328 in James Pattinson as pointed out by Blue Square Thing below. The edit war by these users in all these three articles was earlier edit-warred by Anachronistic 328.

  Similar interests by Vengeance 01 and their socks with Anachronistic 328 also in Viv Richards. One of the socks of Showbiz826 is named as "Hardcore Legend Mic Foley". Aristocratic 536 is also one of the blocked socks of Showbiz826 with similar name corresponding to Anachronistic 328.

  Looks like Anachronistic 328 (SPI link) is the master here or Showbiz826 (SPI link) who is the suspected master of Aristocratic 536. SUN EYE 1 10:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Might be worth noting that the same agenda was being pushed at James Pattinson by User:Sam O' Donnell as that led by User:Anachronistic 328 (blocked as a sock of a long line of socks). Don't know if there's a further connection there or it's simply a coincidence - there were some similarities with syntax and so on as well, although I felt there was a deliberate attempt to change the user's written style to begin with - it got more obvious when they were clearly writing quickly - and in both cases the editor seemed to attempt to tell us they were from a particular geographic location when from syntax it seemed more obvious they were from a different part of the world. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed to Vengeance 01:

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

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

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

  Sam O' Donnell (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed to Ramprakash1000:

Bhojpal1234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Ramprakash1000 is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to Vengeance 01 based on user agent and geolocation.

Ramprakash Diwedi is  Stale.

Leaving open for behavioral analysis and full connection to one another. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is abusive editing on several levels here. CricsDecoder and Oz Hass supported each other in an edit war on Steve Smith (cricketer) [133][134], then Vengeance 01 comes in and pretends to be a good-hand account, reverting their own accounts and citing edit warring [135][136]. On another article, there was also abusive editing while logged out. I also reviewed the CU data, and I agree with Oshwah's findings. I think the Ramprakash1000 and Vengeance 01 might be different individual people, but based on [137] and [138], I am relatively convinced they are related at least in some way (perhaps WP:MEAT or using multiple devices). Even if they were unrelated, Ramprakash1000 and Bhojpal1234 violated WP:SOCK on Kushwaha: see [139][140]. Based on a combination of behavioral and technical evidence, I am going to be blocking all of the CU-confirmed accounts indefinitely.
  The one thing I'm not sure about is the connection to the suspected master, Ramprakash Diwedi. There is no CU data here, and I'm afraid there's no clear overlap in articles or edits beyond the username similarity and the tendency to do copyright violations. Because the Ramprakash Diwedi account hasn't edited in several months, I'm not going to take action against that account at this time. If the account returns to activity, we can revisit this case then.  Clerk assistance requested: Please move this case under Ramprakash1000, the oldest of the blocked accounts. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  After further review (see also unblock discussion for Vengeance 01), I'm willing to say that, as I noted above, because Ramprakash1000 and Vengeance 01 may be different individuals, it would be easier to split this case into two.  Clerk assistance requested: Please split this case: one for the Vengeance 01 group of socks and the other for the Ramprakash1000 group of socks. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced that Vengeance 01 is the sockmaster, rather I believe this all should roll under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aristocratic 536. Look at some of the sock names -- Anachronistic 328, Spacemanemily, Ravenshfire (not unearthed by CU yet), all riffs off the names of editors/admins who've warned the earlier account. —SpacemanSpiff 11:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Suneye1 and SpacemanSpiff: Good catch. I ran another check from a different angle, and Vengeance 01 is  Confirmed to Bernie33880 (most recent sock of Aristocratic 536) plus the following accounts:

  • Ravenshfire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Herbal 860 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  This was missed in the earlier checks due to the messiness of the data, but looking at it now, this is 100% him.  Blocked and tagged.  Clerk assistance requested: Please merge the Vengeance 01 part of this case under Aristocratic 536 and split Ramprakash1000 into a separate case. Mz7 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The splitting part is done (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramprakash1000), the merge will need an admin clerk. Blablubbs|talk 13:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merged, looks like everyone is tagged correctly. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aristocratic 536 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name)
• Holy Contributor 92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• Created on 14 March 2021, one day after the last SPI block of multiple sock puppets.
• Similar interest in Cricket related articles like the last set of socks.
• Updated the statistics of KL Rahul 6 days after it was updated by Vengeance 01, a blocked sock of this master; Vengeance 01-[141][142], Holy Contributor 92-[143][144].
• Updated the same statistics as the blocked sock Vengeance 01 in Jonny Bairstow- [145][146][147], in Ben Stokes- [148][149][150], in Rohit Sharma -[151][152], same T20 update in Hardik Pandya - [153][154] SUN EYE 1 17:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar edit summaries by Vengeance 01 and Holy Contributor 92 ; [155][156][157], [158][159][160],
• Peter ParkerJSR108 who was created 4 days after the last set of socks were blocked, continued the edit war of Holy Contributor 92, [161][162].
• Holy Contributor 92 and Peter ParkerJSR108 edits using mobile devices like the last set of socks. SUN EYE 1 12:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy Contributor 92 uses the word "dear" while communicating like the master.[163][164].
• The master of Aristocratic 536 is most likely Showbiz826 like it was suspected in the last investigation, even Aristocratic 536 is blocked after a SPI on Showbiz826. Aristocratic 536 uses "U" instead of the word "you", a habit of the socks of Showbiz826.[165][166][167][168][169] SUN EYE 1 08:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blablubbs: Anachronistic 328, a blocked sock of Aristocratic 536 was tagged as a suspected sock of Showbiz826 in the first SPI under this master. SUN EYE 1 10:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blablubbs: Sorry for the late reply, I couldn't find any other diffs linking Peter ParkerJSR108 with this master. SUN EYE 1 06:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suneye1: , So having interest in cricket articles only belongs to this sock farm and updating stats of cricketers too doesn't belong to only 1 editor either it's just a way to update articles regularly. This looks a highly stupid tag got notified that's why came here. Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar interests in changing infobox images of Bollywood personalities and cricketers like Virat Kohli, Amitabh Bachan, Alia Bhatt, Tamannaah, Deepika Padukone etc.119.160.117.1 (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also made edit to Rana Sanga and 1 rajput related article like previous socks.119.160.117.1 (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my explaination for each of mine edits though as for one user pointed out towards Rana Sanga article, Yes I edited the same very page few days back ??? But only for reverting Vandalism by IP. I am yet to saw a major similiarity between two neither CU results found anything. They many a times are not correct either.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirmed Sockpuppet119.160.118.185 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This one is interesting. Holy Contributor started editing March 14, two days after the prior sock Vengeance 01 was blocked. There is more of an interaction overlap between Aristocratic 536 and Holy Contributor 92. Both editor edit-warred over the lead image on Virat Kohli - Aristocratic in November 2020 and Holy Contributor recently. Neither like to discuss on talk page [170] vs [171], and both editors have a very large number of edits in a short time. Both are quick on the revert key in a dispute (see the history of Deepika Padukone where both reverted lead image changes back to their preference). Unlike Aristocratic, Holy Contributor has much better use of capitalization. There are things that definitely make me suspicious - Virat Kohli was a common article for Aristocratic and socks (Vengeance 01, Oz Hass also edited the article). On the Hindi Wikipedia, an IP range that is blocked here because of Aristocratic edited their Alia Bhatt article to use the same image that Holy Contributor is pushing here. Circumstantial evidence to be sure. The editing style is very similar - push push push push. Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blablubbs: any updates on this case? Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
   Clerk endorsed – Per filer and some additional edit summary similarities I'm seeing here. Certainly worth a look, please check for sleepers as well. Blablubbs|talk 12:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Possible to one another:

  Aristocratic 536 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  Holy Contributor 92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Possible/ Unlikely:

Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'U' instead of 'you' series of diffs make me think the Showbiz connection is indeed very likely. GeneralNotability, you handled that filing at the time – do you have any thoughts on the connection? Blablubbs|talk 08:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you, Suneye1. I think this should be merged. For Holy Contributor92, I'm convinced based on behaviour; I'm less sure about Peter ParkerJSR108 – are there diffs aside from the revert that make you think this is A536/S826? Blablubbs|talk 10:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding Holy Contributor 92 I am sufficiently convinced by the evidence in the filing (well done there, by the way). I do not see enough conclusive evidence to connect Peter ParkerJSR108, however.  Awaiting administrative action – please block Holy Contributor indefinitely. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 12:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Done. Back to Blablubbs. Cabayi (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. This case is rather complicated, started with the first filing (CU was declined, but the sock tagged as confirmed to Aristocratic and suspected to Showbiz826 (talk · contribs) (SPI), the master was never tagged. I'm inclined to believe that Aristocratic == Showbiz based on the very ducky usernames (note as well that both have engaged in impersonation attempts [172][173][174]), the filing here, plus similar edit summaries and English proficiency level. There are three different ISPs involved (all large – Vodafone IN, Airtel, Jio), and there are two ranges across the two SPIs that both geolocate to Dehli, but the ranges and the city are large and India is pretty hit or miss with regard to geolocation in my experience. However, this group seems to do mostly cricket-related stuff, while Showbiz was a committed caste-warrior (they do overlap on wrestling topics, though). The case is convoluted and I'd like to make sure before I request a merge – I'd ask Amanda who placed the initial tag, but it seems like she isn't around. @GeneralNotability: You blocked Aristocratic 536 without tags when they were filed under Showbiz – could I get a second opinion on a potential merge from you? Best, Blablubbs|talk 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blablubbs, I'm pretty confident that Aristocratic + recent confirmed socks == Showbiz. Holy Contributor is rather reminiscent of Vengeance 01. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks GN. In that case:  Clerk assistance requested: – could an admin clerk please merge this into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showbiz826? I'll retag everyone. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retagging complete, and  Global lock(s) requested for the socks in this SPI, since some are still active on Commons. Blablubbs|talk 19:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done, closing. Of course, I managed to muddle the history since I didn't realize that a case had been filed here yesterday...oh well. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sikandar khan67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)  Clerk note: original username of Ratnahastin
• Ratnahastin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The pattern is simple. Removal of same content from Rajput related pages.[175] Interestingly, the another sock of the sockmaster did same edit [176] Heba Aisha (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 [177] 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 ([178] 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 [179], [180], [181], [182] 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. [183] 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.[184] 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 [185], 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. [186][187], these are edits of a confirmed sockpuppet of Showbiz on that and these are of Ratnahastin [188][189][190]. 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. [191]. 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]

•  Possible. Same country, different geolocations. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing enough evidence here to justify a block, especially given the CU result.  Closing without action. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2401:4900:40A3:4B29:31AE:E406:F84C:6D3A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:4900:40A0::/43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:8100:2169::/48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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 - [192] and you see more image changes - [193], [194] (the last with the snarky edit summary Showbiz likes when they get frustrated).Ravensfire (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The IPs are all caught in rangeblocks. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• White Horserider (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• White horse edit warring on Kangana Ranaut here for image change exactly like previous sock of Aristocratic 536 who is inturn a sock of showbiz. 

• Editing BLPs mostly for a image change: Special:Diff/1024331194,Special:Diff/1024442531 the ip address which was previously blocked for being a sockpuppet of Showbiz has edit requested for a image change on the talkpage of the same article here

• Edit on Prithviraj (film) by Horserider changing the release date edit by Aristocratic changing release date.edit by Samboy (confirmed sock) on same.

• The same ip address requested Kautilya3 to remove "puffery" from the Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests and next day White Horserider edited the same page with edit summary "too much puffery".

• Interaction report overlaps on many articles. Shinjoya (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Concur with this report, I've been suspicious for a bit but haven't had the time to put something together. On Kangana Ranaut article, compare [195] to changes from prior sock Oz Hass - [196], [197] and from Aristocratic536 [198]. Also, interaction report for the more active SB826 socks - [199]. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The IP mentioned is in a range with previous Showbiz826 activity - [200], in particular, see the edits in May requesting image changes to Vince McMahon article and their comment on an SPI report (humorously talking about the Standard Offer, which is tough when you're still socking...). Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• White Horserider randomly capitalizes letter cases[201] like another Showbiz sock User:Aristocratic 536.[202] SUN EYE 1 15:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with this report. Same use of Larry Sanger criticizing Wikipedia. [203], [204], [205], [206], [207]. Previous socks also utilize Jadunath Sarkar as a source [208], [209], [210]. Same attacks on western scholars of Indology due to claims of colonialism and supposedly not visiting India [211] [212], [213], [214]. Like other socks they have commented on User:Ranadhira's talk page [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223]. I have no doubt regarding that White Horserider is a sock of Showbiz. User:Heba Aisha, do you have any other evidence to provide? Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy Contributor 92 reverts an IP with an edit summary Unsourced, POV edits in name of vandalism prevention[224]; After nearly two months, a new account White Horserider reverts an IP with an edit summary IP is well known for vandalising history related articles with edit summary as vandalism prevention[225] SUN EYE 1 13:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SpacemanSpiff actually i was the first one to suspect that this ip mentioned above was a sock of showbiz from their comments here is my reply to ip where i documented evidence which proves that they were showbiz and from the CU results it seems we both are same country(india) but from different geolocations,india is country of 1.4billion people with 7th largest land area so being in different geolocations is a strong indication of no relation between me and showbiz.RatnaHastin^talk 15:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
• Account is now blocked, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Parker User 81819 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Note the use of Parker in the usernames.
• Parker User was created a day before previous sock White Horserider was blocked
• the user page of User:Parker_User_81819 uses the similiar userboxes (namely ones about user being female and atheist ) as with the previous sock Whitehorse's userpage
• edits on  Mick Foley
• edits on Paresh Rawal.
• Peter ParkerJSR108's edit on Narendra Modi,[226]
• Holy contributers's edit on same [227].RatnaHastin^talk 12:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment - Also see image change here vs [228] from prior sock to same 2012 image despite multiple more recent images available. WP:DUCK. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Another Showbiz sock Anachronistic 328 was also interested in Mick Foley[229] and Showbiz even had an account named Hardcore Legend Mic Foley who also edited the article.[230] SUN EYE 1 15:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• the case against has been open for 60days now Oshwah Can you please do a check between me and latest socks of showbiz, White Horserider or Parker User since all other accounts are stale please? Ratnahastin(t.c) 03:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note I blocked Parker User 81819 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) when the account popped up on my watchlist. I did not see this SPI then, but I blocked for a combination of disruptive editing and as a likely sock of Showbiz. Leaving this open for a CU/clerk to decide if any further action is needed especially in regards to the other account (I haven't evaluated that). —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account hasn't edited since April and is very likely very  Stale by now. I think reactivation is highly unlikely, but we can revisit in case that happens. Closing without further action for now. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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 [231]. Extremely similar userpage to previous sock User:White Horserider [232], [233] (Side note: they both are a copycat of my userpage). Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment They've also edited Attitude Era which is a wrestling article, an area that Showbiz socks actively edit. WP:DUCK Maybe semi-protect Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan for a bit since the last couple of socks hit that article pretty quickly? Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Now blocked. Disruption on the talk page seems to have slowed, so I think protection isn't needed at this time. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2402:8100:2166:CE05:AEF5:EFB6:DD90:E3A5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:8100:2160:DAE3:2D4F:DCB4:F1BC:8F4B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• FooberFan77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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/2402:8100:2160::/45, if not all, is Showbiz826, rehashing caste arguments and image-war. Ravensfire (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2160::/45 catches most of their recent edits, rather than the substantially larger /38 range. Ravensfire (talk) 05:23, 13 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 - [234]. Image was a copyright violation which is a tendency for SB socks (see [235]). FooberFan has Special:Contributions/FooberFan77 made a lot of small edits to their user page, similar to prior sock [236]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

•  Administrator note This is rather weird, I came across the account earlier today on Labrador Retriever and thought it was Showbiz but then didn't block as it was a different topic, but then the other stuff happened. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPs caught in a range block, named account indeffed. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Coesmatics (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New account, created after prior sock blocked. Edits are to Rajput caste related article and cricket related articles, both ones that SB was very interested in. Very quick on the revert button, another typical SB behavior. Also see contributions of this range Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2160::/45 - easy giveaway is the image change on Jerry Lawler [237], WWE related, plus the caste related edits. I'm request this range (at least) be blocked to stop the disruption from Showbiz. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Any chance you could look into this one? If it wasn't for the disruption this sock causes, I wouldn't call any CU out for special attention, but this person is relentless right now. Ravensfire (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Administrator note Blocked, this is a sock for sure, it was created approximately an hour before the UTRS appeal of Foober (shortly after the Rajput resistance edit). I will let a CU or someone who better understands IPv6 handle any range block. —SpacemanSpiff 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • /44 now blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same combination of medieval Indian history,[238] and WWE professional wrestling.[239] Ratnahastin ^tålk 14:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lol, this will be very interesting to say the very least, Firstly the accuser himself is suspected sockpuppet of this blocked annon and he is also topic banned largely for pushing their POV edits. Please, see the editing style of SB826 which is rather push, push and push. Unlike me who seems to respect Wikipedia policies always and when got into little dispute on Chauhan article, I moved to the talk page immediately Special:Diff/1037404312 unlike Showbiz and their assembly line of socks. Secondly, Showbiz narrative is to push for Rajput again and again in article lead 'see here' unlike me who always remove unsourced castecruft for lead even If it is attributed to the Rajputs 'see this' and 'and also this revision' unlike Showbiz who always push for Rajput by giving poor tertiary sources. I care less if the label is Rajput or any social/ethinic group for that matter. Regardless, such sloppy editing and antagonistic behavior is not a trait I possess, as one can see from my edits.

Also all of the edits by the suspected socks are mobile edits, which I only rarely do because I find editing to be extremely hard on a mobile device. Almost all of my edits are from a PC/Laptop etc. I request that a Checkuser speedily confirm my nonassociation with this account. Thank you very much. Chameleon Musketeer (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed. Unambiguous. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jpgordon: Block the editor? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Now blocked. Retagged as confirmed per CU, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and  Global lock(s) requested for this one plus the cases above. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same copy pasted userpage from previous socks [240],[241],[242] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed.  Global locks requested. All socks blocked and tagged. Closing case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Traumatic Cordon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK TrangaBellam (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed, along with Ovule Buttler. In the future, please write out a rationale for CU in your own words, not using a link to an essay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Global locks already requested, archiving. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:4051:0:0:0:0:0:0/33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP range acting up again. Rajput POV-pushing as typical of Showbiz [243]. This range was previously range blocked temporarily for being a Showbiz sockpuppet, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showbiz826/Archive#23_January_2021. One again a range block is needed as Showbiz is known to ip hop through the range. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chariotrider555 I'm hesitant to block such a wide range, but if you could put together a list of the most frequently abused articles for me, I could do a partial block. Does the list from this block log entry still make sense? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all those articles are related to Showbiz's tendencies to POV-push the Rajput caste. Other articles that are frequent targets are Chahamanas of Naddula, Chahamanas of Jalor, Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, Tomara dynasty, Chaulukya dynasty, Paramara dynasty, Gahadavala dynasty, Chandelas of Jejakabhukti. While these are all big target pages, I would still be concerned as the ip range does edit other caste and India-related pages, and could continue to perform POV edits on smaller pages, as is known to do (Example: [244]). Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect protecting articles that they are interested in may be a better approach. The past few days, they've been on a different range (the three latest edits (including the Shane Warne edit) are theirs). Barring heavy or consistent activity on a range, I'm not sure large range blocks are needed when semi protection is available. I've requested several articles semi'd because of them, but skipped anything else because it wasn't worth the time involved at that point in time. Just my $0.02 (which adjusted for inflation is, errrrr, well just about useless) Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have semi-protected the following:

Battle of Khanwa

Chahamanas of Shakambhari

First Battle of Tarain

List of Rajput dynasties and states

Rajput

Rana Sanga's invasion of Gujarat

Second Battle of Tarain

Tomara dynasty

Rathore

Jayachandra

Chahamanas of Naddula

Chahamanas of Jalor

Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty

Tomara dynasty

Chaulukya dynasty

Paramara dynasty

Gahadavala dynasty

Chandelas of Jejakabhukti

per the above discussion. Any admin should feel free to unprotect or alter the protection on any of these as they see fit without need to get my approval. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Victoria Rothmans (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar edits as prior socks. See [245] vs [246] and [247] vs [248] from IP sock. Also see the early activity of the account, created on Oct 6, made 10-15 junk edits and then 4 days later, adds autoconfirmed userbox and starts editing semi-protected pages. Very unusual for a new editor to know about such things. Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Looks like a duck to me -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Global lock(s) requested, archiving. Spicy (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fabrical Synthesis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2409:4051:0:0:0:0:0:0/33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Typical Rajput-POV pushing [249]. That page is a frequent target for Showbiz socks, most recently User:VinsyKumar. The account is only two days old but seems to be aware of "edit war by multiple IP's, socks and other editors". The user also reverted to a version protected by User:RegentsPark, claiming that this was an "accepted version", when in actuality it was heavily edited by Special:Contributions/2409:4051:0:0:0:0:0:0/33, whose IP ranges are known socks of Showbiz. This range was previously temporarily ranged blocked in January on the recommendation of User:Ravensfire, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showbiz826/Archive#04_January_2021, and I think this IP range should be permanently range blocked to prevent further disruption. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reverting to preferred version of prior SB socks is an easy giveaway. The attitude in their

edit-summaries plus the edit-warrior mentality is an easy match. I think the article in question should be moved to ECP protection as Showbiz shows no intentions of honoring their pledge to work toward a WP:SO. The IP range though shows good edits from non-related editors, and I don't think blocked at this point is warranted. Ravensfire (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [250] reverting to Showbiz's preferred version of the article. This article also probably needs ECP. Ravensfire (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark, Chaulukya dynasty should probably be ECP protected. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fabrical Synthesis is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to Victoria Rothmans, but only  Possible to the several non-stale confirmed socks in the archive.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation  No comment with respect to IP address(es) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Behavioral evidence is strong (early dating of Rajputs for example). Coupled with the possilikely above, I'm blocking Fabrical Synthesis. Not sure what to do about the IP. Also, let me know which articles you want to protect (I've EC protected the list). --RegentsPark (comment) 01:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like there's nothing left for SPI to do here; if there's pages that need protecting, please follow-up on WP:RFPP. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]