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

• Bhagya_sri113 (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 · SPI Tools

1 2 - same disruptive editing activity

3 4 - Similar userpage imitation

5 6 - Similar interest on "Kural" related topic

Additional: He pushed his preferred POV into the main summary of South India without proper evidences. 7

So I reverted his edit by saying "To add arguable and disputable info to the main summary, you have to do consensus and you should cite reliable sources."

But his sock reverted again to his preferred version. He is not even citing the sources and cooperating with the consensus. His behaviour depicts as editwarring and disruptive editing. Bobwikia (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User Rasnaboy guided me when I started editing wikipedia, and we have continued working on several Kural-related articles together (and we still do). Since I follow Rasnaboy on many of his edits on wiki, I share several articles in common with him in my watchlist. In fact, it was only by following his edits that I literally populated my watchlist in my initial days. I have about 1600 articles in my watchlist now and I’m sure more than half of these would have regular edits by that user. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked him to submit solid Primary and secondary sources for his POV on the consensus and edit summary. You know the basic of Wikipedia editing If we modify the main summary, that should be done with proper consensus from unbiased editors. Also it has to prove with Wikipedia's Verifiability.

  But you both were ganging to push the same POV. If Rasnaboy would revert the edit again, he would've got blocked from editing due to three-revert rule. So you reverted the article to his POV version on behalf him.

  This is not first time. I've noticed this abusive behavior happened many times from the edit history of South India article and also some of the articles which Rasnaboy injected his POV to. Bobwikia (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Concerning that edit, I noticed a talkpage discussion on that issue. Since it was added after an earlier discussion by multiple editors with a source, I restored it. I did not participate in that discussion. I just restored it as an uninvolved editor. That's all. If you think the source is not good enough, you're free to discuss it in the talkpage and wait to obtain consensus before removing rather than edit warring. I also noticed your similar attempt to repeatedly add some fringe hypothesis and subsequent restoration by other editors in Dravidian languages article a couple of days before. So I thought I had good reason to revert your edit. Please do not take this personally. I believe you are WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks miss/sir, for believing me. There's a difference between long-term POV pushing and adding a past history on a article.

  I'm respecting all the editors' opinions and suggestions with the proper consensus. I always wanna be friendly with all the editors even if they dispute with me. Because they might know better knowledge than me.

  But in the cases of you and him, not like that. He's just injecting his community propaganda-related POV to the summary of articles such as sensitive topics like South India, but without any reliable sources and proper consensus. Also, that should be in the etymology section even if the consensus is up for him.

  1 - On may 15th, 2022 An ip injected his POV into the main summary of the article without a valid consensus and solid refs.

  1 2 345 - within 2 days of the POV injection, Random Wikipedia readers started to revert the Rasnaboy's POV with leaving the reasons like "Sanskrit and Hindi not even spoken by most of the population of South Indians and South Indians have their own aka names for "South India" in their own languages such as Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Many".

  1234 - Rasnaboy is authority for the POV, so he started to do editwarring with the users since the POV injection. He did that more than 20 times.

  123 - Your involvement in his POV reverts. You were being as his sock when he unable to cross the three revert rule.

  I just analyzed the records of you and him. Seems like you two belong to the same community and the same city. Because most of the involvements of you and him related to Brahminism, Sanskrit, and its related impositions on South Indians related articles.

  But it's not the case. But the problem arises when someone imposes their pov or agenda on another society to claim their superiority over the thing through language and culture impose.

  Dakshana Bharata - it itself is derived from Sanskrit (Which is the language used by Brahmins) and Hindi (Used by North Indians) and it is the name of a organization that imposing hindi on the non-hindi speaking regions as their primary job.

  Brahmins - I've noted you two were mostly involved in this topic like pushing poorly translated sources of this caste's superiority to the articles such as Kural.

  This makes me assume you two belong to the same community and manipulate the articles as your wish. Wikipedia is being used for knowing the relevant info about a society, an organization, incidents, and many. Not for imposing one community's ideology on another society. Do you think its fair that impose someone's agenda or ideology on biggest society's article which read by lots of people, researchers, and students?

  All these actions state Circumventing a block, Disruptive editing, Gaming the system, and Long term agenda WP:NOTHERE. Bobwikia (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, I only tried to infer from those talkpage discussions where the editors ultimately agreed to add it. First you accused us of sockpuppetry. Now you resorted to baseless assumptions and accusing both us based on those assumptions and making uncivil personal attacks or false accusations of casteism/racism, which will only result in zero tolerance sanctions in wikipedia. I'll leave this to the admins and other reviewers. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The clerk already noticed that you two belong to same city. I have submitted the evidence that you two might belong to the same person/community from behaviors of you two for sockpuppet evidences. There's nothing to do with personal attacks or racism. I'm also Indian.

  Please respond to the evidences rather diverting the topic and you really don't need to impose unrelated accusations on me. This is the primary behavior of socks WP:SOCKPUPPET when they unable to react to the evidences. Thanks! Bobwikia (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticing this (after commenting at [1]). I’ve not been notified of this so far.

Coming to the issue, that’s not my sock but we are two different users. I work in the publishing field and many in my field edit Wikipedia. I personally have welcomed, mentored, and collaborated with some of them, such as User:ChallengeTheLimits, User:Bhagya_Sri113, and few others. We share several common regional interests in Wikipedia. With User:ChallengeTheLimits, I've collaborated primarily in improving Chennai and Tamil Nadu–related topics some 10 years ago (I think this user is not very active now). With User:BhagyaSri_113, I have collaborated for about five years now, chiefly in improving animal rights, Indian philosophy, and Tamil literature articles, among others. I welcomed these users as I do many new users and mentor them in all possible ways. Additionally living in the same city, we have common interests in many regional articles as well in addition to the above. I'm not sure if I should declare these on my talk page. I'm editing Wikipedia for more than a decade now, and I primarily concentrate on content development besides fighting vandalism and correcting/reverting incorrect edits. And I often collaborate with users with similar interests and genuine intentions. I request @User:Bobwikia to please go through WP:COPYCAT and WP:ECA. I also invite them to team up with me and all our fellow editors genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This "More than a decade now" makes you think you're a perfect. There's no perfection in anything. You have to admit your POV pushing and disruptive editing Behavior. Everyone does mistakes. But legitimizing the mistake by saying "I've contributed 10000 times and here for decades" isn't a valid thing. I hope you understand. Bobwikia (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• But you two share similar interests in the common(1) and seems like an admin is favoring him a decision. Also, the 4 (Rasnaboy, Bhagyasri, Aman kumar goel, Psychologist Guy) shares similar interests in common and This is why rasnaboy thinks "Wikipedia is his family-run website and he can push his agenda even if someone is against him, his Wikipedia friends who share similar political interest will favor him". Independent editors like me are just useless in front of y'all, right?

  Is it Wikipedia or a site for privileged people only? Because I strongly sense that there's manipulation through favoring

  1. He pushed crap into an article. and an editor complains it is unsourced. Meanwhile, another user who has similar agenda of rasnaboy comes and favors him in a consensus decision.

  2. When he is unable to cross the three revert rule in editwarring, his sock friend helps him.

  3. Here, admins even seem like favoring him

  In the three, I notice that they all share similar agendas (ideologies as well) and manipulate the articles and the Wikipedia system. I think bureaucrats only will be neutral and unbiased. Bobwikia (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93 Bobwikia (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A few years years back, I was editing Wikipedia by using IP address. I tried to create an account with rediff mail but I lost the account username and password. And file a spi case against me to protect your friend while diverting this spi case. Let's see what will happen. I suggest you and your friends to read WP:NOBITING and WP:QUICKSOCK.

  So 2 admins have the same agenda which Rasnaboy has. Your contribution proves you were protecting your friends (Such as Aman kumar goel). I noted your behavior you're too interested in brahminism and hindutva agenda.

  Rasnaboy, Bhagyasri, Aman kumar goel, Psychologist Guy, Doug Weller, and Vanamonde. I expect to talk with uninvolved admins who never related to Rasnaboy before. Bobwikia (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doug_Weller I can't help with this Wikipedia bug which didn't ping you when I answer you. But this is absurd that 6 guys who have similar propaganda harassing 1 guy to protect their friend and divert his case. Bobwikia (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any similarities between the two editors and find them to be two different persons. Though I find it really suspicious that how the filer who registered barely 12 days ago is already forum shopping in multiple noticeboards to get these 2 users sanctioned anyhow with skilled wikilawyering. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rasnaboy has edited many of the same articles as Bhagya sri113 but he is entirely open about that, for example, if you check the animal rights template (which I also edit) you can see both users adding content to it [2]. The checkuser has said they are not on the same IP range but in the same town. If you check their editing history for a quick example on February 1 Rasnaboy was editing from 12:01 to 12:46 [3]. Bhagya sri113 was editing from 11:41 [4] to 11:56 [5]. If you check Rasnaboy editing on 30 January at 15:59 [6] compared to Bhagya sri113 editing at 15:51 [7]. I have gone back over a year on both their editing history and whilst it is true they are not online at exactly the same time you will see they are editing within a timeframe of 7, 10 and 20 minutes on many days on different articles. I find it unlikely this is one person based on the closeness of some of the editing (within 7 or 10 minutes). Would someone really be able to edit on a completely different IP range repeatedly and change accounts within 7-10 minutes over a period of year/s? What would the purpose of that be in this case? Neither of the accounts are using Proxy IPs or are trying to hide anything. Rasnaboy's contribution has been entirely positive to this website and he has improved 1000s of articles. I can understand the concerns because of the overlapping of editing interests but I do not believe this is sock-puppetry. It is likely to be two different people. I would also agree with the user above that the new user who filed this is a suspicious account because they have extensive knowledge about Wikipedia guidelines but their account is less than 2 weeks old. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The amount of overlap is quite striking, so I ran a check: these two accounts geolocate to the same city, but do not overlap on any ranges - if they are the same person, they are careful not to edit from the same connection.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note If these are the same person, they are playing a long con of considerable proportions and to no apparent purpose. I see instances of them editing within minutes of each other, which would be difficult to arrange on a regular basis. I also see no obvious signs of disruptive tag-teaming, as one would expect for a sockmaster. There are minor behavior differences that are a very careful act, or signs of two people editing. I can't strain AGF enough to believe the former possibility.
  That said, I do think there's cases where these users may have been coordinating more closely than is appropriate. WP:MEAT is also policy, and if you are editors in the same city with the same interests editing the same topics you need to be extra careful not to tag-team. I don't think there's a basis for admin action, but it's something to keep in mind.
  I share some of the concerns expressed above about the OP: an editor with 29 edits has no business mucking around at SPI. I'm going to AGF for the moment, and restrict myself to reminding them that we're here to build an encyclopedia.
  I think this should be closed with no action, but I'll leave this open for other clerks/admins. For the record: I believe I am uninvolved here. However, Rasnaboy and I share a broad geographical area of interest, and after ten years of editing it's possible I'm forgetting something. If there is evidence I'm INVOLVED, please let me know and I will move my comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93 I paste the reply again here.

  But you two share similar interests in the common(1) and seems like an admin is favoring him a decision. Also, the 4 (Rasnaboy, Bhagyasri, Aman kumar goel, Psychologist Guy) shares similar interests in common and This is why rasnaboy thinks "Wikipedia is his family-run website and he can push his agenda even if someone is against him, his Wikipedia friends who share similar political interest will favor him". Independent editors like me are just useless in front of y'all, right?

  Is it Wikipedia or a site for privileged people only? Because I strongly sense that there's manipulation through favoring

  1. He pushed crap into an article. and an editor complains it is unsourced. Meanwhile, another user who has similar agenda of rasnaboy comes and favors him in a consensus decision.

  2. When he is unable to cross the three revert rule in editwarring, his sock friend helps him.

  3. Here, admins even seem like favoring him

  In the three, I notice that they all share similar agendas (ideologies as well) and manipulate the articles and the Wikipedia system. I think bureaucrats only will be neutral and unbiased. Bobwikia (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note I agree with Vanamonde's comments. I also note that the SPI was brought by someone as their 14th edit. Thus clearly not a new editor. @Bobwikia: have you had other accounts? Doug Weller talk 09:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Bobwikia states on his talk page "I already answered. Don't waste my time by arguing with me to protect your friend and divert his spi case.". Boomerang time I'm thinking. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doug Weller Please see the above section, don't need to create a scene. Lol! Bobwikia (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doug Weller I paste the reply again here.

  A few years years back, I was editing Wikipedia by using IP address. I tried to create an account with rediff mail but I lost the account username and password. And file a spi case against me to protect your friend while diverting this spi case. Let's see what will happen. I suggest you and your friends to read WP:NOBITING and WP:QUICKSOCK.

  So 2 admins have the same agenda which Rasnaboy has. Your contribution proves you were protecting your friends (Such as Aman kumar goel). I noted your behavior you're too interested in brahminism and hindutva agenda.

  Rasnaboy, Bhagyasri, Aman kumar goel, Psychologist Guy, Doug Weller, and Vanamonde. I expect to talk with uninvolved admins who never related to Rasnaboy before. Bobwikia (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why 6 people(Including 2 admins who interacted to rasnaboy before many times) harass 1 guy at the same time. Despite i'm being a helpless orphan Anyways jokes apart,

  I respectfully welcome "uninvolved admins" (Who never interacted with Rasnaboy before) to make decisions here. Because it's the only thing I trust in how Wikipedia's system truly runs. I fear that people who have the same propaganda and interacted with each other many times will (already) spoil the Wikipedia system by manipulating the system in consensus, judgments, and anything but artificially.

  As I said before, He does these things as full-time job

  Harassing new users and good faith editors, and pov pushing:

  Rasnaboy pushed the crap into the South India article. Many users were reverting to that crap due to its unsourced and crappiness. He was doing edit war with them. A user noticed Rasnaboy was accusing vandalism of others to retain his Pov crap on the article despite there being no evidence. This is how he harassed me on my talk page too. He harasses users who revert his pov crap by false accusations. He's being friends with admins who have the same agenda as his agenda. Whenever he becomes caught, the admins will favor him and his friends (Such as Aman kumar goel).

  • 1 - On may 15th, 2022 An ip injected his POV into the main summary of the article without a valid consensus and solid refs.

    1 2 345 - within 2 days of the POV injection, Random Wikipedia readers started to revert the Rasnaboy's POV with leaving the reasons like "Sanskrit and Hindi not even spoken by most of the population of South Indians and South Indians have their own aka names for "South India" in their own languages such as Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Many".

    1234 - Rasnaboy is the master behind the POV, so he started to do editwarring with the users since the POV injection. He did that more than 20 times.

    123 - Bhagyasri involvement in his POV reverts. She was being as his sock when he is unable to cross the three revert rule in editwar.

  After the dispute resolution, an uninvolved editor declared its an unsourced crap and it's a name of an political organization which imposes hindi language on non-hindi speaking regions.

  Later, he removed his pov crap from the article. I don't know still how many articles he and his friends have been pushing his communal and political agenda onto.

  I had to spend 3 weeks on the pov removal thing. It implies how hard is to cope with these corrupted hands who abuse the Wikipedia system with their friends base and some admins who already have red flags in their history. For this one article, I had to struggle very much. Think how generally new users suffer from these kinda editors from multiple article issues.

  He doesn't have any fear. Because if he breaks rules, his well-established friends who are longterm editors and some admin friends will favor him by creating support and votes. Editors like me will get the middle finger from them (He and his friends) if we are supposed to revert their pov craps or add info that is against their pov. He involves in these (who knows.. his friends might be, I didn't analyze them)

  1. Biting newcomers and harassing them if they revert their pov

  2. Edit warring and disruptive editing with them

  3. Pushing pov by using his friends base

  4. Gaming the system by using his friends' base

  5. Meatpuppet obviously

  and Wikipedia's guidelines and rules are not rocket science to understand for newcomers. By the way, I'm in my early 20's. Some of these involved folks will get ego and angry due to this, who knows they will target me from now on. I kindly ask the uninvolved admins to warn them "Don't bite newcomers and harass them, and don't push any crappy POVs to articles". Because I can't waste my time on these useless things consistently. I have my own life struggles apart from this Wikipedia and its POV pushes against the culture and country. I hope these corrupted editors have a life too.

  I have noted this: Racism/casteism/Colorism based POV pushing is prevalent here. I can see it from the boomer uncle editors and their friends' circle activities.

  @Doug Weller Grandpa, I've read about your history from abusing editors to arbcom incident. In this cancerous period, just enjoy your life with your family and grandchildren instead of abusing the good faith editors why try to develop Wikipedia further. Just wanted to say, don't take it offensively.

  Thanks for your valuable time and reading this. Bobwikia (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bobwikia You know I was elected to ArbCom twice? No idea what incident you were referring to but I've never been sanctioned. What incident are you talking about? No editor abuse either. Do you see anything on my talk page that might suggest you are wrong? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved admin here; Bobwikia's extremely hostile interactions with other editors strongly suggest to me that they are either unwilling or unable to edit collaboratively, so I have blocked them indefinitely. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like the OP was the only person who was convinced that these accounts were socks; they're now blocked. Closing without action. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]