The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sock puppeteer

Kumarrao (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

• MigratoryRefRequest (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

• Indianprithvi (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• Basing on edits of both users on Talk:Rajus like ther Phrases, presentation, qouting similar historical words n forcing ther POVs, I am apprehending they are of one and same user Kumarrao using two diff IDs with diff IPs. Can you please clarify me whether two users made ther edits from same place/region (n also same network) on september 1st, 14th, 15th.

I don't agree with this evidence. Some ISPs may not provide static IP and they provide DHCP instead. Dynamic IPs change every time whenever user reconnects the client. ISP provider do not voluntary provide two or three different IPs to same user even if he\she uses multiple computers via same subscriber line. Even my IP address can change whenever I reconnect. That's because we have DHCP system. It is possible to assign either single static IP or DHCP that has bulk number of IPs. It is not possible to assign just 2 or 3 IPs in contrast to static IP and DHCP.

Kumarsarma (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't see any problematic editing here. Perhaps the submitter, User:Swaq, could explain how this matter came to his attention? MigratoryRefRequest has no edits outside of Rajus and Talk:Rajus and I don't notice Swaq being involved on that page. This editor seems quite civil. The claimed puppetteer, Kumarrao, also seems to behave well. I suggest that this report be closed unless some evidence of misbehavior can be found. Does the signature of Indianprithvi below this report mean that he endorses it? He seemed to be getting along fine with MigratoryRefRequest in the discussion at Talk:Rajus. Perhaps there is more evidence that has not yet been submitted. If not, I suggest that the report be closed with no action. I notice that neither the claimed puppetteer nor the sock have yet been notified, which is the custom. I am notifying them now. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: What follows is the signature of Indianprithvi. I will write to him to see if he is endorsing this report: EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indianprithvi (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont say they are vandalising. when asked them about sockpuppeting, MigratoryRefRequest told he is from a different Region, just wanted to confirm whether both IDs are being used from same Region, as it was important from discussion point of view. If can tell whether they are from same region that info will be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianprithvi (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of WP:SOCK so far as anyone can determine. If there is no abuse, admins will not make a study just to satisfy curiosity about where an editor is from. Indianprithvi, there is still time for you to withdraw your allegations if you wish. That might help to ensure good relations with these editors in the future. Note that you appear to have made a mistake when you submitted the original sockpuppet report. You attached Swaq's name to the report, but he was never involved. I am going to change the records on this. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely unfortunate that this kind of allegation has been made against me. Wiki administrators may investigate the matter. If proven false, action should be taken against User:Indianprithvi for making false allegations.Kumarrao (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. I now observe that the report was actually submitted by Indianprithvi not Swaq, so I'm changing the name of the submitter above. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets does not (for now) deal with technical investigation. We therefore can't tell you whether or not they tell the truth about their location.

I note that User:MigratoryRefRequest's editing interest is only on Raju, so he is technically a WP:Single Purpose Account. While I suggest caution, it can be a legitimate user. I doubt these two are the same user. If the behavior becomes disruptive, you may wish to ask a checkuser to perform a technical investigation but I don't think it is warranted here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---