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

26 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

These diffs suggest a close relationship between the two accounts: "you are selected as an expert editor on Wikipedia and are entitled to display this badge", submitting an autobiography about the suspected sock, Request to write an article for money Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

•  Awaiting administrative action - This is obvious enough to not require CU attention. Please block Binamra Deb temporarily and Vampirewoods indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing any evidence of socking here. This doesn't even look like a COI socking case on the part of the named master: I'm closing with no admin action. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for this beyond socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Reopened @TonyBallioni: If an SPI clerk (in this case Sir Sputnik) says it's a duck and should be blocked, and you disagree, you should leave a comment. But, you should not close the case. There is obviously some reason why Sir Sputnik said that, as he is a clerk who works on such cases. Let him respond before we proceed. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vanjagenije: I think closing was appropriate here, and within administrator discretion according to SPI the procedures page. The simplest explanation is that the second user found the named master on a WikiProject list and decided to interact with them and create a draft, especially with diffs like this [1] that show that they were asking around for people to create pages on them. There is also no evidence that even if they were somehow related that the named master actually violated the sock puppetry policy. To be blunt, this was a horrible call and aa a patrolling administrator I felt and still feel that closing was appropriate, and that there is simply no policy-based reason to block. To me, this looks like a teenager who wants his own page and a random account that spotted some mistakes he made adding himself to a list. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Similarities run deep, like how Vampirewoods adds the "experienced editor" service badge (6,000 edits / 1.5 years service) after their 19th Wikipedia edit [2], followed 17 minutes later by the same thing happening on Binamra Deb's user page [3]. These edits were minutes before the two accounts added themselves to WikiProject India. Surely the easiest proof would be a checkuser? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The India WikiProject is actually one of the main reasons I don’t see socking here: that’s an easy way to find random people. I pretty frequently get crazy requests on my talk, and that’s what this reminds me of. A CheckUser could be helpful but the reason I closed it rather than asking Sir Sputnik to request one is that I also don’t see anything blockworthy here: if these two accounts are related, meat seems more likely than socking, and having someone you know make an article about you in AfC and then you making minor edits in AfC as well is how COI is supposed to work if you are going to get someone to create an article about you. I’m hardly loose on socking or COI, but seriously the worst I see here is a teenager with an inflated opinion of himself. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as these have both been CU blocked by Bbb23, I appear to be wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

• Tripura G.K (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.

Suspected sock has only a few edits and overlaps with the master account.

Same edits on Dilip Sarkar (Tripura politician).[4][5]

Fixing edits of other account after making with one on same article.[6][7]

Only 2 editors who wanted to keep Swapan Debbarma per their AfD vote. [8][9] Capitals00 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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) 14:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

• Nipe Cold (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 have reviewed drafts about the same politican from two editors, the first currently blocked as a known sockmaster. There's a pattern of intersection of edits [10] Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Likely, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

• Rohit Krishana (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.

User created auto-biograpgy draft:Rohit Krishana, and then recent sock of Binamra Deb (Nipe cold) submitted it for AFC after 35 minutes. Also, similar userpage to Nipe cold. Might be more socks, CU is requested. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

• There is a possibility that user:SachinPandit69 is also a sock. But they have made only two edits. If it is a sock, it will show up in the CU. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk endorsed - Please compare to Nipe cold. Thanks, GAB^gab 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rohit Krishana and Nipe cold are on different ISPs. I'd lean toward  Unlikely. SachinPandit69 doesn't look like either of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]