Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Phoenix man


Phoenix man

16 February 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The Eagle account has behaved disruptively at Sree Kumaramangalam Public School and its related AfD and appears to be created purely for that purpose. They have also created 3 AfDs here, here and here to make a WP:POINT.

They are also both stacking votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sree Kumaramangalam Public School so if these accounts are being operated by the same person then it is misuse. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

17 February 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

the puppeteer already got banned for sockpuppetting. This IP's first edits were on the AFDs of the same pages the puppeteer voted on. Daiyusha (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Clerk note: It's certainly possible, but there's just not enough evidence here to justify a block at this time. We can always come back to this later if there's more suspicious editing. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18 February 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

I came across this one because I created it through ACC because the data presented did not warrant a check. They created this and this AfD in their first couple of edits and soon jumped into editing the Sree Kumaramangalam article and contested its deletion. The username is also highly ducky. Requesting CU for sleepers. Blablubbs|talk 12:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have G5'd one AfD and left a note at the other one. Also noting that
27.61.53.70 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
is very likely this editor logged-out. It's on the same Airtel /18 as the one reported above. Might be worth considering a softblock on the range. Blablubbs|talk 15:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

22 February 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Similar behavior. The puppeteer has already created one sock to vote on an AfD. This new account too does the same. Created and voted on same day. Daiyusha (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we check this one too? Account seems to have been created simply to vote stack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sree Kumaramangalam Public School. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

27 February 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

This is the latest one. Has created 9 AfDs on rival Kerala schools and then created Sree Kumaramangalam Public School, Kumarakom again. I'm of the opinion that it's worth checking for sleepers as well as this sockpuppeteer is becoming incredibly prolific. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

  • Actually, I'm creating the article Sree Kumaramangalam Public School, Kumarakom. Is there anything wrong about it? I don't know. Comes to know that the article previously written by the above mentioned person is deleted. So, I decided to write it again with valuable and notable references! I've already put 'Under construction' templete there, which means the article is not yet finished, right? Then why you nominated this for speedy deletion? 'Spiderone' is such an arrogant person I think.! Anyway, go to hell, Spiderone. I'm saying good bye to this Wikipedia world. These kind of people (Spiderone) not allow others to become Wikipedians. You bitch (Spiderone) !! JaiMahadev (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JaiMahadev If you really want to continue editing on Wikipedia then creating new accounts to evade your block and behaving in the exact same way that led to your initial block (i.e. the blatant promotion of your school and the disruptive and inappropriate AfDs for other schools in Kerala) is not the way to go. You'd be much better waiting a few months and then politely requesting an unblock of your master account, once convincing an admin that your behaviour really has changed and that you are here to contribute constructively. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone, I don't want to continue in Wikipedia anymore. It's just because of you. JaiMahadev (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

07 March 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

appears to be the same user, see overlap here, here CUPIDICAE💕 13:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

This may take some time to fully unravel, so here's a starter. User:Abhivaadhyah = User:WikiShakeshere = User:Abhivadhyah = User:Abhivadhya. I suspect there's more. When I say "=" you can interpret that as "definitely at least sharing the same chair". -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed:

-- zzuuzz (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 March 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

One of the socks of Phoenix man Abhivadhya was blocked on 22 March 2021. Just after some hours, this account Logical puzzle was created. Abhivadhya had interest in Divya S. Iyer. See [1]. This user also has the same interest. [2]. Both are also interested in creating drafts which seems like written for promotional purpose. See [3]. Another editor already expressed their concern regarding using multiple accounts on another suspected sock Yogeshwarah. See [4]. And that user removed it without clarifying it [5]. They later said it is used by their sister. This user Yogeshwarah also just joined 8 days back after Phoenix man was blocked. Shows the same interest; creates lot of drafts and requests help at teahouse. I doubt both Yogeshwarah and Logical Puzzle are another two socks of Phoenix man.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Thanks for alerting me to this SPI, Kichu, and sorry I was slow to respond. There are two things that should be mentioned here: first, re Logical Puzzle, here Yogeshwarah says that that account has changed hands; if we apply a lot of AGF and assume that is true, the Logical Puzzle account is compromised and should be blocked for that reason. Second, Yogeshwarah has been nominating articles about Indian schools for deletion, just like several of the previous socks did – JaiMahadev, Eagle_eyer333, Bornfromashes, Phoenix_man. (I know Blablubbs already mentioned this at the other SPI but it should be documented here as well.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bonadea. This is the first time that I had opened an SPI. I was sure from the beginning itself that this was the same user who launched personal attack against me [6]. I just waited to collect evidence. Because my actions to collect some evidence were misinterpreted the last time. Once again, than you for your guidance and I will try to improve next time if I have to open an SPI again. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question about new User:Sharath Abhivadyah - their first edit after creating their Talk and User pages and changing their username was !voting in the Prashanth Nair AfD [7], which I tagged as having made few or no other edits outside of the topic [8]. The similar username to other socks, e.g. 1, 2, participation in an AfD where a sock had previously participated, and what seems like a more than basic understanding of Wikipedia (e.g. changing their username [9], participating in AfD) may be relevant in terms of the SPI discussions that have happened. After I tagged their !vote in the AfD discussion as having made few or no other edits outside of the topic, one of their next edits included a !vote in an AfD for a school in India, [10], which may also be relevant. I realize that this could all be a series of coincidences, but I figured I would mention this due to the history of these investigations. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, without basic knowledge? I was using Wikipedia since 2019 with IP address. Anyway, Let the checkusers decide whether I'm a Sockpuppet or not. Hope they can see my IP details. Sharath Abhivadyah Talk Page 01:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have more experience on Wikipedia than I do, and I apologize. I am speaking with concern for Wikipedia in the context of a complex investigation that has developed over time. I had also interpreted the Registered Editor badge on your User page [11] to mean you were indicating you had "1 edit and 1 day of service." Yogeshwarah had also appeared to be new to me, 1, 2 and it turned out I was wrong. Beccaynr (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blablubbs, On what grounds you are accusing me? By the signature given above? I just copied this signature from a person on the teahouse and edited. This is such a very dirty game. How can you accuse someone without a proper proof? Requesting checkusers to clarify this very soon, please. This is kinda personal harassment. I'm just fed up with this all. 😭 signed, Sharath Abhivadyah Talk Page 11:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blablubbs, you might wanna have a look at this [12] to get an idea about the behaviour of this user. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have also recently been some deletions without explanation by an IP editor at Divya S. Iyer [13], [14], after I mentioned on my Talk page that I am working on the article 1. It could be a coincidence with the prior interest in the Iyer article, but it may be relevant due to the history of these investigations. Beccaynr (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There has also recently been what appears to be disruptive editing at the Divya S. Iyer article [15], [16] from another IP editor. Beccaynr (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   In progress - I am running a second check in this case in light of the additional evidence presented above. Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, looks like Tony and I ran checks at the same time. I agree with all of TonyBallioni's findings below, and since it seems like his report covers everything, I'm going to go ahead and close this SPI case. Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07 April 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Quacks like a duck and has a name that resembles other socks in the farm. Doing a lot of POV pushing which I reverted here, here and here apart from others. Vikram Vincent 08:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the previous reports in a bit more detail and would have to agree with you, Blablubbs. Can we close this sock report. I'd prefer to wait this one out. Best! Vikram Vincent 06:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

  • This user blanks their talk page warnings without explanation, which was also done by the earlier socks in the farm. This may be also a coincident. But the similiarilty in their usernames and editing behaviour gives a strong reason to believe this is also a sock. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • @Vincentvikram: I struggle to see how this pattern matches past socks; looking at the archives, I don't see this sort of political editing, the username might well be coincidental and blanking warnings is fairly common as well.   Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Blablubbs|talk 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11 April 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

31 May 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


The behavior of this new user seems to be experienced user using multiple accounts here for socking. The user has nominated several articles for Afd and involved in voting for deletion in this short period. While checking the contribution's contribution in cross wiki the user has requested for OTRS permission for verifying the uploads there. The user claims the copyright holder himself and mentioned a name there Sharath Abhivadyah which is the same user who has been blocked here before under this user. All the the confirmed socks of Phoenix man as similar behavior here.- ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

  • I've started this account as powerful karma and later renamed. I've created and voted around 97 nominations. You can check those all. Most schools in Kerala which belongs to SNDP and other Hindu schools starts with Sree. (Sree is using as an hon'ble word). We use that before a person's name too. I nominated biographies more than schools. AgentCody 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blablubbs, let me ask you one thing? Is there only one person in the world with the name Sharath Abhivadyah? And it's true that my name is Sharath Abhivadyah. There are so many Sharath Abhivadyahs in India. That all are me??? AgentCody 01:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

20 June 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Since joining apparently last week, they have put dozens and dozens of Indian schools up for AfD again with copy and paste rationales much like the previous socks in the farm. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.N.U.Jayaraj Nadar Higher Secondary School vs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiganj Surendranath Mahavidyalaya and several others.

See also some interesting conversations at User talk:Trap133. Blatantly not a new user and clearly the same as Phoenix man even though they're trying not to behave in exactly the same way as they've gone for a much more minimal user page this time. I would still comfortably bet my house that this is him again. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

edit

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

  • I am grateful to Spiderone for their report. While AGFing I had my suspicions from the start and had a conversation with Oshwah 24 hours into their account. I was unable to identify a potential puppetmaster at the time, so, rightly, no action was taken then. Quacked like a sock drawer, and I wil bet that there are sleepers. CU recommended at your discretion. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also This ANI report. It identifies a possible alternate master. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid for an alternate report. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone-- My edits are not only related to Education. I just started tagging educational schools and colleges from yesterday night you can see my previous edits. I edited articles related to Islam, and more and of course I am not a Sockpuppet. Trap133 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

07 July 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Obvious ipsock. Created and submitted Draft:Prasanth Nair, about one of the favourite topics of previous socks in the archive. bonadea contributions talk 06:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding Sreeram Dilak, due to some potential behavioral similarities, e.g. the account was created on July 7, 2021, began editing on July 13, 2021 [41], and began editing Divya S. Iyer after Nakshathra Nair stopped editing the article [42]; since then, they have shown a fairly advanced understanding of Wikipedia, including by creating an AfD (opposed by Nakshathra Nair) [43], requesting rollback permission [44], putting several articles up for GA review [45], the Iyer article up for a DYK [46], and most recently adding Welcome messages to editor pages. They also changed their username from Shaji issac, and have what appears to be a similar interest in creating articles on IAS officers [47], [48],[49] as Nakshathra Nair and Phoenix Man. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

22 September 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Venkat TL was created after the latest SPI was filed.

Modifies same section as other sock on Shahdol district.[50][51]

Activity at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.[52][53]

Same degree of familiarity (nomination, listing, etc.) of AFDs as earlier socks.[54][55] Editorkamran (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: The story is that Yogeshwarah is confirmed to Phoenix man,[56] and Yogeshwarah's behavior also matched with Wahhid.[57] To me, they all seemed related and that's why I filed the report here.

Phoenix man had a number of accounts such as Trap133 with more than 550 edits, and AgentCody which had more than 700 edits. Hulged (confirmed to Wahhid) had more than 6,000 edits.

Yogeshwarah did Hindu temple AfDs,[58] like Venkat TL.[59] Again, the degree of familiarity is same in terms of creating AFDs, listing them, etc.

I find other similarities such as use of Twinkle for tagging "more citation needed",[60][61] "third-party",[62][63] mass edits in compliance with Indian cities: Hulged[64][65], Venkat TL.[66][67]

It must be possible to get the account checked with both Wahhid and Phoenix man. Editorkamran (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

This case is being reviewed by Spicy 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.

  •   Additional information needed - Editorkamran: I'm a bit confused because 2/3 of your diffs are from Hulged, who is part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahhid, not the Phoenix man case, and I'm confident that those two cases are unrelated to each other. In any case, the behavioural evidence presented so far doesn't seem strong enough to indicate a connection to either Phoenix man or Wahhid - it's not surprising that users with an interest in India would edit two of the same pages related to India, especially considering that Venkat TL has over 2000 edits, and Venkat's AfD participation isn't the usual behaviour that Phoenix man engages in at AfD (disruptive mass nominations of school articles). Can you clarify whether you believe this is a sock of Phoenix man or Wahhid, and provide some more evidence that these accounts are related, such as similarities in edit summaries, writing style, etc.? Spicy (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wahhid was found to belong to a different SPI case, so we can't use comparisons to Hulged as evidence for a connection to Phoenix man. The commonalities shown in the filing aren't unique or significant enough to justify a check against either master, and my own investigation did not turn up significant actionable evidence either. Closing without action. Spicy (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02 November 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Pro forma report (filing purely for the record). See below. Mz7 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

22 July 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

19 August 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

There is some behavior by Imperfect Boy on my Talk page that reminds me of PM sock Yogeshwarah, e.g. asking for help, first for an article with questionable notability, i.e. on my talk page, i.e. subsequent AfD notice on their Talk page, i.e. discussion of previous speedy deletion, then asking for help on my talk page with a draft article that seems more clearly promotional, after it was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G4.

The general topic area, request for help creating likely promotional content, and recreation of deleted articles seems similar to behavior I observed in the past, e.g. Yogeshwarah asking for help with a promotional article on my Talk page (note the extra punctuation in the article title, which may be a recreation tell), after I assisted with the Divya Gokulnath article they had started.

They also say they are new and behave as if they are very new, e.g. appearing to not understand notability guidelines in attempts to ask multiple editors for assistance, e.g. [68], [69], [70], moving drafts to mainspace despite editors cautioning against this, but are also sending articles to AfD, where they appear more familiar with notability guidelines. e.g. Thera Para AfD, Vrithakrithyilulla Chathuram AfD.

Based on this edit [71], requesting CU because of a behavioral overlap with another editor making a similar PA, attempting to recreate a previously deleted article with a history of a move from draft to mainspace, and a similar topic area, as discussed here. Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

01 September 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

117.230.186.228 and 116.68.102.254 showed up at Teahouse today inquiring asking about an article for Izin Hash (Special:Diff/1107841458) and making inquiries regarding acceptance of Draft:Mallu Traveler (Special:Diff/1107910260). That draft was created by now-blocked sock Imperfect Boy. 117.230.19.104 began editing the draft few hours after the sock was blocked. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

After they were blocked, I struck a keep !vote by Imperfect Boy in the Ragy Thomas AfD [72], which included a keep !vote from new editor Nomatter No no that also asked established editor/creator of the nominated article Timtempleton, "why you hate this man?", which seems like a reply to concerns raised by Timtempleton in the discussion about possible socking by the AfD nominator. The AfD nom 多少 战场 龙 then pinged me [73], suggesting Nomatter No no is a sock. Nomatter No no also !voted keep at the Bev (Company) AfD, another TimTempleton creation recently nominated by 多少 战场 龙.

There has since been a discussion on my Talk page about suspected socking. As 多少 战场 龙 continued to edit, I noticed their activity included participation in an Indian school AfD (a previous focus of Phoenix Man) and soliciting help from another editor (slightly different than Imperfect Boy, because as noted by MrsSnoozyTurtle on my Talk page, it was 'subtle canvassing' for participation in their AfDs [74], as opposed for help with questionably notable and/or promotional articles).

As discussed on my Talk page, there are questions as to which case is best for expressing concerns about possible socking. I have filed here due to some potential overlaps with PM behavior and request a CU to help sort this out as needed and check for sleepers. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This might help this SPI. 多少 战场 龙 has a suspicious edit history. On July 15, as a brand new account, they made 51 rapid, mostly unnecessary wiki-linking edits in 40 minutes, all reverted, and then nothing for five weeks, and then two Twinkle AfD nominations of articles I did two years apart, one with a history of being targeted by socks. This was an earlier SPI I opened after numerous sock accounts started targeting Sprinklr and its CEO Ragy Thomas with POV-pushing about a minor controversy in Kerala. My theory is that the editor is part of a covert editing farm that has one team generating autoconfirmed accounts that are then handed off to another team of more experienced editors, to target articles. Has this pattern been seen before? Any way to automatically check other new accounts for similar rapid editing right off the bat? In any case, WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith I do have nothing with any sockfarms as the TimTempleton said here. I just nominated a poorly sourced and highly promotional article and they started spawning conspiracy theories. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
117.209.207.169
117.242.87.140
117.193.137.253 PravinGanechari (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just another potential IP for this investigation
I have come into contact with Imperfect Boy before on WP:TEA, when I was still relatively new. I helped them recreate an article, Sruthy Sithara, that was speedily deleted under WP:A7 after they repeatedly moved it to mainspace. I submitted the new draft to WP:AFC, which was accepted. Imperfect Boy posted again on my talk page asking me to take a look at another article created by them which is currently going through AfD. Their behavior is similar to some of the behavior described in this sockpuppet investigation.
I haven't come into contact with them again until today, when an IP address posted on my user talk page (latest message) asking me to recreate a page which Imperfect Boy created and was deleted in the same fashion. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 01:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

08 September 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Usual known target Draft:Mallu Traveler, new account but clearly not new to Wikipedia as they used the {{AFC comment}}-template on their draft – NJD-DE (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

According to Mallu Traveler, an article by this name has been deleted several times, including a version created by User:Imperfect Boy, later blocked as a sock. User:Thriuvarppu, who created this newly appearing draft, may or may not be a sockpuppet. There is also a history of article deletion at Shakir Subhan and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakir Subhan. David notMD (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

16 October 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Now blocked sock കോട്ടയംകാരൻ created the article Shahi Kabir a month ago. Mcbath created an article on the same subject which then got deleted. They then moved an existing draft on Shahi Kabir created by Indian cellular IPs into mainspace. Just moments later they nominated it for deletion using Twinkle. Also their first edits were to create user and user talk page. All in all rather strange behavior for a new account. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

29 September 2023

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Relatively a new user who recreated Shahi Kabir, a UPE article which was attempted to recreate multiple times by the socks. 202.83.57.179 (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

12 October 2023

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

This might be a bit hasty, but this user seems to be recreating Draft:Shahi Kabir, which has been deleted under CSD G5 before due to disruption by this sockpuppeteer. For that reason, I'm requesting CheckUser. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • CU can't be conclusive about this, but based on the evidence available I'd say this was technically fairly   Likely. Jumping straight into that draft so soon after the last sock was blocked is too much to be a coincidence - blocked, lock requested. Girth Summit (blether) 18:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I ran this as well and I'd put this as likely to confirmed as well. Mkdw talk 06:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

User is very keen to create Shahi Kabir, which suggests a clear Phoenix man connection. That said, the account is 6 wks old, and has made 200+ edits, before getting into that, which is why I hesitated to block per duck. I guess the earlier accounts are all stale, but just in case not, and/or in the hope that some lurkers are found, I'll ask for CU. More looking for 2nd opinion, though. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Girth Summit. I think I'll drop this, then; I don't think I could convincingly explain why I've blocked them. Besides, this user has gone on to edit in plenty of other topics, and meanwhile someone else has created Shahi Kabir anyway. I'll just close this case, for now at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • DoubleGrazing - this is definitely possible. I'm comparing against some fairly old data, but they are using a range that we have seen socks from this case on before. It's a wide range, so it's not a strong enough connection to block on based purely on CU data; it sounds like you're familiar with the master, so if you think the behavioural link is strong enough go ahead and block (and request global lock too, or I can do that if you haven't done it before). Girth Summit (blether) 16:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed as inconclusive, with no action. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phoenix_man/Archive&oldid=1281348700"