- Tyler Durden (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 December 2017
Suspected sockpuppets
Sasank Karri has only 69 edits, all of them made on articles that were edited by Tyler Durden. Account was created(7 July) 2 weeks after Tyler Durden was blocked indefinitely on 22 June. The account is used only for restoring the edits originally made by Tyler Durden.
- Tyler Durden's edit[1] restored by Sasank Kari[2]
- Tyler Durden added "militant" in front of Bajrang Dal Vishva Hindu Parishad[3], Sasank Karri restored it[4]
- Tyler Durden added "militant" on Bajrang Dal with sources[9] and this was today defended by Sasank Karri on talk page.[10]
@Bbb23: Lorstaking (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
27 May 2018
Suspected sockpuppets
A new account (Smackacid) registers and creates an article about an historical Kashmir-related individual as "Created the page",[13] similar to Tyler Durden's creation as "created a page for Ved Bhasin"[14] by creating article without categories but completing every other formality including references filling. Same summaries like "added a line".[15][16]
While DiplomatTesterMan is a more complicated one, he shares some striking similarities with TylerDurden.
- DeltaQuad, I would ping Bbb23 who had previously compared Sasank Karri with the master who was stale for over 5 months.[30] Smackacid is editing the same controversial subject which is not allowed per the policy on operating multiple accounts. Lorstaking (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- I have no one to compare DiplomatTesterMan to, Declined Smackacid on lack of evidence. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how it was done then, @Lorstaking:, but the only way to do it that I know of is to dig into the CU log, which is absolutely unreliable and a practice I rarely do. For Smackacid, editing a controversial topic is not evidence enough to suggest abuse of multiple accounts. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence is too thin for block(s). Closing with no action. Sro23 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]