Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Padmalakshmisx

Padmalakshmisx (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
19 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

similar: articles edited, ignoring posts from other users about bad edits, repeating bad edits, verbally abusing and accusing other users
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Babyboy33
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Padmalakshmisx
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Charmee3Apples
BollyJeff || talk 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Comment I'd blocked Babyboy33 for 48h, subsequently Charmee3Apples came by with similar behavior although (anti-Bengali POV on film related articles). I think a sleeper check might be helpful as the first two were created together, but the third was identified as a standalone. —SpacemanSpiff 14:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


26 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

User:Ppwrong is an old set of sock, but appears to match this more recent SPI collection. Kaverijha23 is current and also similar behavior (edit-warring same types of material on similar set of pages and similar comment-style). As soon as Kaverijha23 was blocked, the .81 IP continued; then moved on to .252 when .81 was blocked (admits to using dynamic IP). DMacks (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (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:

Ppwrong is  Stale, but that probably is him, as well. Some IPs and some ranges have been blocked. –MuZemike 22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Similar: articles edited, ignoring posts from other users about bad edits, repeating bad edits, misleading edit summaries, abusing and accusing other users — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs) 11:34, 31 January 2011

Comments by other users

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

  • Comment I'd asked BollyJeff to file the SPI again as this user is prone to creating multiple socks at a time. I've blocked this one, but there might be some sleepers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed. Previous checks found some other accounts. Let's see if there's others unaccounted for. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Possible Different ISPs which geolocate to the same locality. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DUCK and since the technical evidence shows that it's possible I see that there's no reason to change that. In the absence of any other sleepers, this can be closed. —SpacemanSpiff 06:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
09 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The same edits on National Awards. The history of this page is full of edits made by his many other accounts. Shahid • Talk2me 18:48, 9 May 2011 (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
18 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Just logging that the two accounts above are  Confirmed sockpuppets. -- Luk talk 14:24, 18 May 2011 (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
19 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Very similar edits. Shahid • Talk2me 19:16, 19 May 2011 (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
  • Endorsing for confirmation. And can we get an IP block here? This seems to have increased as of late. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks23 is  Confirmed as Padmalakshmisx. However, Secret of success is  Unlikely as him. –MuZemike 17:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Please block this sock (it's clearly him), he posts some very insulting messages on my talk page. I think a permanent ban is in order now. Shahid • Talk2me 15:48, 26 May 2011 (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
31 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same interests and area of editing. I've blocked this account, but am endorsing for sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:50, 31 May 2011 (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 as being the same as

talk · contribs), but no sleepers. TNXMan 16:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

4 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Similar edits on

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh. --Commander (Ping Me) 12:20, 4 July 2011 (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

Also  Confirmed:

Another IP range hardblocked. –MuZemike 21:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

07 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


I'm not sure, but I suspect, considering the similar obsession on the National Film Awards pages. One thing is sure though, he is a sock, but I don't know whose. Shahid • Talk2me 20:47, 7 July 2011 (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
05 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

After his failure with Telugu cinema he has shifted his focus towards Cinema of India and is making disruptive edits. Similar style of commenting on talk pages Commander (Ping Me) 17:33, 5 August 2011 (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

I'm sorry, but checkuser does not generally disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TNXMan 17:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note IP blocked 1 month. Also note that this case was originally opened with Sreekar as the master, but they're blocked as a sock of Padma, so I moved it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
01 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

He hasn't gone back to the major problem articles yet, but his editing pattern is the same on other articles, e.g.

Akkineni Nagarjuna. Otherwise same edit warring behavior including a couple of blocks for the same. Clerks/CUs will know what I mean, and am not commenting further on beans. Been around a while, this one was created right after HelloAnnyong's block of one of the IPs. He's used different ranges in the past, I've blocked one, MuZemike's blocked another and quite a few other IPs have also been blocked. Check for sleepers required please. —SpacemanSpiff 07:21, 1 September 2011 (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 the following are the same:

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. I was just going to add Arunashields1 to the CU request when I edit conflicted (for the nth time on this SPI!). —SpacemanSpiff 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Not a sock:

Reason below:

I did not dominate hyderabad article,

which attempt of mine shows I am into dominating the article, please check hyderabad article page and look at the way I came to Consensus with other aggressive user omer123hussain, may be he is a sock puppet (Eeenadu (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeenadu (talk • contribs) 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whether i get blocked or not is a secondary issue. the other editor omer123hussain is being very disruptive on this article - Hyderabad check his edit history and my edit history and behavior also again that editor, reverts ur edits, then u will acecpt it??? All my contributions were constructive and neutral I did not demand my way, more agressive was this other user, u see how i made consensus on hyderabad talk page As far as I know I did not dominate Hyderabad article with my views like the other sock puppet. further, this user omer123hussain, anways will revert it. my suggestions to admin MikeWazowski is please protect hyderabad article, after reverting the image from Raj bhavan road to Abids shopping center

the user mikewazowski undid the image i replaced to raj bhavan road he suspects I am a sock, but I reached consensus, the other user omer123hussain was aggressive in his approach and not me.

I wasnt blocked, I was a suspected sock, which I am not, I have no idea who the other user was, u please check the hyderabad article edit history, revision history and discussion page. I am new to wikipedia (Eeenadu (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]


Obvious sock is obvious; specifically compare the edits of Eeenadu and the most recent sock,

Talk:Hyderabad, India. Editor also started editing 9 days after DB4 was blocked. Since the last CU turned up several sleepers, I recommend yet another sleeper check here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

  • Was on my to-do list by Q beat me to it. We've had a few rangeblocks from prior SPIs, I don't know if they expired (the one that I did expired a while back) or he just jumped ranges. A longer term rangeblock might be helpful if there isn't any significant collateral damage. —SpacemanSpiff 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not a Sock

whether i get blocked or not is a secondary issue. the other editor omer123hussain is being very disruptive on this article - Hyderabad check his edit history and my edit history and behavior also again that editor, reverts ur edits, then u will acecpt it??? All my contributions were constructive and neutral I did not demand my way, more agressive was this other user, u see how i made consensus on hyderabad talk page As far as I know I did not dominate Hyderabad article with my views like the other sock puppet. further, this user omer123hussain, anways will revert it. my suggestions to admin MikeWazowski is please protect hyderabad article, after reverting the image from Raj bhavan road to Abids shopping center

(Eeenadu (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

You just don't get it: you don't get to form a consensus. You are indefinitely blocked. It means you cannot edit here, period. And, also, pages are never protected and kept in a single way indefinitely; full protection is only a temporary thing to force discussion. Finally, why won't you understand: if you are blocked, you are blocked. You cannot edit Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if your edits are kind, benign, reverting vandalism, or per consensus: blocked means blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt blocked, I was a suspected sock, which I am not, I have no idea who the other user was, u please check the hyderabad article edit history, revision history and discussion page. I was new to wikipedia (Eeenadu (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

You are a suspected sock right now. I'm almost ready just to
WP:DUCK block you, but I'm patient enough to wait for a CU. If it finds you even somewhat likely, then you should definitely be blocked. And, in fact, checking all of that edit history is what convinces me, completely, that you are the same person as Dragonbooster4. Are you saying that you are not Dragonbooster4? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's an interesting question--how did you find out about this sockpuppet investigation? How did you know where to look? I didn't notify you on purpose, which is explicitly allowed per SPI rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I see it was mentioned on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I am not dragonboosetr for sure, it was user omer123hussain, demanded his own way, not me u check his approach towards fellow editors and speak, I was the one who insisted him not to be disruptive in his edits the revision history page and discussion page of Hyderabad article. I think u should take ur case back. further, I am into editing with neutral statements, you check my other edits and edit summaries in other articles. You also check with user omer123hussain. edit habits and then use judgement. (Eeenadu (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Not a sock, why because I am actually not resisting to mikewazowski's edits

  • to undo my edits, but the edit I undid now was initially not accepted by me
  • the edits of urs I undid was not my view, my view initially was to retain raj bhavan road
  • but after going through consensus, I replaced images as per consensus with omer123hussain

I am just confused (Eeenadu (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

02 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


This one's a little tricky as it wasn't unearthed in past SPIs, but Padmalakshmi has used many many ranges so it might have been one of those things. I semi'd

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh as Padmalakshmisx was IP hopping on that, and suddenly today I find this editor on the talk page and also visiting some of the Padmalakshmisx socks favorite pages. Was created in July, but autoconfirmed only today. —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC) —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 2 October 2011 (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
  •  Clerk endorsed - Hmm.. that account dates back to July, so I think it would've come up in previous sweeps. Nevertheless I think it's possible, so I'll endorse for confrimation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Possible. This account uses the same ISP as Eeenadu (
      a/c) 00:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
12 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same POV pushing on

Talk 06:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Comment: Similar style of editing in talk pages, especially the signature. Deleting comments made by me in others talk pages. POV Pushing, verbally abusing and accusing other genuine users of sock puppetry. In the past they made similar attacks in my talk page like this. --Commander (Ping Me) 08:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed that the named accounts have the same operator. Technically
    •] 23:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same areas of interest and similar style of language in edit summaries. He has had some problems with me in the past. I think he is trying to get me into some trouble by having a username which is similar to mine. Commander (Ping Me) 17:01, 16 October 2011 (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 the following:
20 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar areas of interest and same style of editing talk pages. Just a suspection, but he has lot of untrue claims in his user page Commander (Ping Me) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (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
25 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same areas of interest. He has re-added the same POV statements which were removed earlier in

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh. Commander (Ping Me) 15:01, 25 October 2011 (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 the following are the same:

26 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

He has now shifted his focus towards Tamil cinema after being blocked Commander (Ping Me) 07:47, 26 October 2011 (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

A  Likely match to previous accounts. TNXMan 14:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created only for editing certain(same) articles, just like the other socks. The contributions say everything.

Secret of success Talk to me 10:38, 31 October 2011 (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
19 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

The user is trying to impersonate me by creating an account name similar to mine. This is definitely not an alternate account of mine as he claims in his user page. The sock has created this account to drag me into some problems. Commander (Ping Me) 11:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

The user Secret of success undid and edited user vensatry's talk page on suspected sock puppet notification, straight obvious proof for

meat puppetry (Vedanthbasappa (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)).[reply
]

HelloAnnyong,
Talk 14:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed. I've blocked Vensatryy, but am endorsing to find out what's going on here. Confirmation and sleepers, please. And can we see if Vedanthbasappa is also related? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical evidence  Confirmed that Vensatryy is operated by Vedanthbasappa. I did not expect to be able to make a direct link to the suspected master, because available data for Padmalakshmisx is not very recent; this is borne out by my results, which suggest only that it is  Possible the two socks are Padmalakshmisx. Geolocation info suggests all are editing from the same subcontinent, but ISP and other indicators are inconsistent. Behavioural evidence will have to be relied upon in determining the likelihood of a link.
    •] 16:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  •  Clerk note: It's Padmal. Same area of focus, impersionation of users involved in the area, and immediately going after the SPI pages. Blocked, tagged, and closing. Alexandria (chew out) 16:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Quite evident from his contributions. He has a strong vengeance against me and intentionally undoing my constructive edits on

Akkineni Nagarjuna and other Telugu film-related articles. —Commander (Ping me) 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Same areas of interest. Similar style of edits in talk pages and edit summaries. —Commander (Ping me) 17:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is with no doubt Padmal. I could hear a loud quack seeing the contribs. —
Talk 01:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This is definitely padmal for sure. See this edit which was exactly made by one of the previous socks in the past. —Commander (Ping me) 06:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

For edits, this link might be enough. This one shows that he is bent upon adding specific names of little significance to the article, just like the last couple of socks. Also, another feature we can notice is the wrong edit summaries he uses to mislead others, again, like the last two or three socks. His signature is also very similar to almost all the past socks. (a bracket enclosing the sign like (sign) this)

X.One SOS 13:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed. Please provide diffs of the problematic behaviour showing similarities between the accounts. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I quickly went through the contribs and saw nothing that screams Padmal to me (doesn't mean technical evidence says otherwise). I'm going to echo Deskana's request for more info. Alexandria (chew out) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirded. The evidence given until now has been insufficient. Abhishek, just saying "it is because it is" is circular logic. We need actual evidence rather than just saying it's because of their contributions. Give us something to work on. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grounds for suspecting Intercell is a sock are clear to me: the account edits exclusively within the subject of Indian cinema. Padmalakshmisx is a prolific socker who also only edits within this topic. The account was created around the time that the last round of socks were blocked, and could very well have been missed by the previous checks: Indian ISPs are notoriously funky with their assignment, and sleepers can easily fall under the radar.
    [•] 11:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • information Administrator note I'll call it. Blocked and tagged on behavioral grounds, plus help from the CU results. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

See below.

a/c) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (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 by checkuser when doing a routine check on an unblock request, just reporting here for the record.

a/c) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

20 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar areas of interest and same style of editing talk pages. —Commander (Ping me) 14:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I also suspect this account. Both the accounts seem to have a lot of pages in common. —Commander (Ping me) 10:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed for sleepers  1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny for hite. Blocked and tagged as such. Alexandria (chew out) 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. There are a lot of accounts on the range with the same user agent, but most of them have no edits at all, and many that do are clearly not socks. Some of these might be sleepers, but I am not sure. If another CU wants to give their opinion on the accounts, that would be good. J.delanoygabsadds 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


22 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Obviously a sock, blocked a couple of days ago is back again —Commander (Ping me) 14:02, 22 December 2011 (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
01 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same edits on

South Indian film industry like User:Hiteccity
and others MThekkumthala (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (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


03 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created just before a few hours. Same areas of interest. —Commander (Ping me) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (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,  IP blocked. TNXMan 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Very likely. Same range of articles, uses wrong edit summaries like this to mislead others and his annoying nature of adding lists of people to the

X.One SOS 13:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, and he also copied an edit summary from an other user, plausibly due to him running out of ideas, and some sight on the history page might raise some hints.
X.One SOS 13:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
For a confirmed behavioural account, this is the deadline.
X.One SOS 17:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments by accused users

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

Mr secret of success, please answer this question:

1. Tell me where I have included list of names??? there are long lists of names of of actors in Tamil cinema and kannada cinema article, u remove them why ru not accusing them?? what annoying behaviour i showed in my edits today???this is just ur personal grudge I have 100 IP addresses, I will see how u will not allow me to edit you lobby with wikipedia admins, you do POV editing in tamil cinema and u accuse me (Redacted)

2. I am not a sock puppet, this user has a personal grudge over me and is using this approach to trap and make me a victim.

3. All my recent edits are constructive

4. I am willing to solve this issue with secret of success, with co-operation from admin

5. I am really frustrated and annoyed with the above users irresponsible abuse, I am feeling provoked

(Aarakshan (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Comments by other users

Yup, it very likely seems to be Padmal. —

Talk 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: Aarakshan: please do not continue to disrupt this case. If you wish to report a user for sockpuppetry please do so in a new case below, not on top of this case. Make sure you provide valid evidence when doing so. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed: Self-endorsing. Fairly obvious duck (don't know if an admin wants to swoop in now before his 24 hour editwarring block expires done by PeterSymonds - cheers) just based on the mannerisms:
Also some content stuff:
Endorsing for a sleeper scan (just in case), but more importantly to see if we can get a block on the underlying IP here, please, as that's worked for a while in the past. Many thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no obvious sleepers that I see. However, there are quite a few accounts that match technically, but have not edited. Since this is such a busy range, I would rather wait until they out themselves instead of preemptively blocking potentially innocent accounts. TNXMan 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: right, cheers Tnxman. As the account is now indefinitely blocked and tagged I'm closing this. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Quite obvious from talk page edits and other behavioral aspects —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:31, 20 January 2012 (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 as being the same as Aarakshan (talk · contribs),  IP blocked. TNXMan 20:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


[2] and the contributions. Nothing more to be said. I'm also expecting more accounts in the same range, and a check would be cool.

X.One SOS 09:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

This is a
duck. The style, the canvassing, the protestations etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It's obvious from the areas of interest, edit summaries, style of commenting in talk pages, ect., —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

18 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

X.One SOS 09:03, 18 February 2012 (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
10 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Analogous style of addressing someone i.e. the "hiiii...." with more than one "i", signature inside brackets (1) and attaching lists of names to

Secret of success (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Quite evident from the contributions, edit summaries, talk page comments and the repeated habit of blanking their own talk page whenever a welcome template is added for no reason. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well his arrogance in persisting on reverting suggests experience and the likelihood of a repeat offender. He has since stated that I use "kindergarten english level and unprofessional language", "I make wikipedia a hell of a experience with non sense and POV" which, well if you look at my user page... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Hyderabad" section of
User talk:Abhishek191288; Abhishek has also accused Moviehub of being a Padmalakshmisx sock. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check, while I block and tag. Per:
  • Consistent talkpage blanking: [3] [4] [5]
  • Very minor changes between socks revision and currently suspected sock: [6]
  • Removing mass amounts of text: [7] [8]
--
(ʞlɐʇ) 19:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

 Confirmed and  IP blocked. One of the ranges he operates from has a bit of false positives, so I cannot differentiate amongst the unrelated accounts and whatever socks may be over there. --MuZemike 19:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created with a username promoting a company or organization, similar to

Secret of success (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2012 (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

spamusernameblock}}, so there's nothing else that can be done. --MuZemike 20:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

06 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Seemingly new editor, however, sounds quite experienced (not that his edits seem constructive). The history page of

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh says enough. Secret of success 13:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments by other users

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


dear editor, please revert back your sockpuppet case filing on me, because it is quite obvious who is being constructive and who is being destructive, I used wikipedia 10 months back, and now I started using it, the first duty of a responsible wikipedian like secret of success is civility and adherence to wikipedia policies. I have infact largely improve the article. The history page of

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh
says enough. (Panickroom (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Quite evident from the contributions and last but not the least the signature style is similar to that of the previous socks. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is quite evident indeed. The way he tries to gain attention of other editors against those who have disagreed with him, blanking his talk page frequently to remove warning messages and his signature style says it all! —
Talk 15:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh God! He knows many things in Wikipedia with hardly few hundred edits old. It took atleast 10K edit for me to learn many things in Wikipedia, and still learning the site as a whole. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes absolutely, I know many things in wikipedia, that is why I utilized dispute resolution, and I discussed my issues with a wikipedia admin, and I have also discussed on the serious issue of Agenda-driven editing (NPOV, COI, etc) by certain users on south Indian wikipedia articles. I am not a sock puppet. (Panickroom (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

For the record, Panickroom did not use any Dispute resolution methods, and instead chose to make things worse for himself over a trivial matter. I have blocked him for civility issues, edit warring, and a general battleground mentality. Lynch7 21:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Panickroom is now indefinitely blocked and tagged as a sock of Padmalakshmisx. --MuZemike 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar style of addressing. "Hi.." with more than one "i", signature inside brackets (1) and does numbered lists manually (2). Secret of success 05:10, 10 April 2012 (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 the following are the same:

10 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


DRAGON BOOSTER is yet another new account who jumped right in with a similar editing pattern - and the name was used before by a confirmed sock account: see Dragonbooster4. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

What? DB has been around for over 2 years. BollyJeff || talk 15:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Bollyjeff makes a good point. This account has been around a while- can you provide more concrete evidence of a connection? TNXMan 16:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake - I could have sworn when I looked at the contributions list, it only had a few entries from today - must've been a glitch, or bad page load... you can close this.... MikeWazowski (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marking for close, no worries. TNXMan 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same range of articles, personal attacks, storming user talks (1), similar to previous sock edits (2). Secret of success (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given diffs above. He edits the same range of articles, appeared soon after his previous socks were blocked, seems very experienced despite being a newbie, and specifically creates a separate section for each comment, even if no other intermediate post exists. I have given a similar diff from one of the latest socks above, User:Moviehub. Secret of success (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like the closing admin to take a look at a very similar case from the archive, just as a reference to range-jumping by Padmal. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2012 (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

Could you provide some more specific info/diffs? More specific evidence would help process this case. TNXMan 15:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Same areas of interest (Telugu cinema, Hyderabad-related articles, etc.,), disruptive behavior, similar style of commenting on talk pages User talk:Vensatry#hii which is same as that of previous edits made the sock. Given the number of concerns, I strongly suspect the account of sock puppetry. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral samples as wanted for Checkuser; one from master 1 and one from his puppet 2. §§
talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments by other users

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

  • Comments by Accused Party : which areas of interest?? Kindly check my edit summaries, and edit behaviour, I am talking about not merging SIIMA and 1st SIIMA and further I never edited Telugu cinema articles, I think you are getting confused, it is funny that u find me disruptive, while you are being disruptive with you Point of view and abusing other editors, let the admin check your talk page and my comments in it Paansing (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Additional information needed to process a checkuser request as diffs

are required as evidence to compare the accounts.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

28 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same range of articles related to

Secret of success (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

  • Accusing other editors of vandalism, misleading edit summaries and storming talk pages, something which is more common to that of the previous socks. This being a four year old account might be a compromised one also. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Storming the

Secret of success (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks AGK. Here you go: 1, 2, previous sock and another one. His style of saying 'hiii..' and "pinging" multiple users in order to bring their attention to this case is all through the archive too.
Secret of success (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments by other users

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

hii buddy there is a situation??? some user named secret of success has reported me of a sock, of user Pavn123 who is blocked, can any user who is blocked as a sock, can edit a semi protected article, the next day?? Head12hunter (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Additional information needed: Please give diffs showing identical POV statements by the current account and a recent sock. I can't find any correlation between Head12hunter's activity and that of previous socks, it is not my responsibility to establish a connection (I'm completely unfamiliar with this article), and the fact that the account has edited the page is not sufficient evidence in and of itself. No behavioural determination can be made until you give this information. Thank you,

[•] 12:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

28 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

* 12pavan34 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) * Secret of success (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) * Abhishek191288 (

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

Same range of articles,

Secret of success (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

the user secret of success again started storming telugu article (promoting himself as experienced editor) and abusive behaviour and edit warring, same range of articles and same edit behaviour Nandhakishore (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • These are
    quacking socks, but I have limited on-wiki time for a while, so I'm not going to block as I may not be able to provide any explanations if required. However, rather than a duck block, a sleeper check would be beneficial as there are serial accounts now. —SpacemanSpiff 10:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Please see the latest edits by User:Vensatry clicking here 1 which clearly shows that he has put information which is disputed for nuetrality clearly violates

WP:NPOV. This information includes usage of phrasess like Tamil films dominate Telugu Films, they have overtaken Telugu
films in the local market. Vensatry and Secret of success both from a Tamil land themselves; they are using their experience on wikipedia to compromise the Telugu cinema article.

The edit i made before Vensatry is this. In User:Vensatry's diff it also clearly shows that he has deleted well cited Guinness records and also tried to write two different records into one sentence trying to make reader not to differentiate them as two different records. He has not spoken anything on the talk page but reverted changes which had POV-statement and POV-section tags.

See my edits that I put immediately after him.

He has tried to accuse

User:secret of success

12pavan34 (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree on the disciplinary action on the two users (Vensatry and Secret of Success) is definitely needed, they are conspiring on who ever edits Telugu cinema article, it is really frustrating, definitely there is no sock puppet among us. And also another quacking behaviour pattern that these two editors show is, they delete the conversations over constructive edits by other editors in their talk pages. I think this is a kind of meat puppetry by the two users. Nandhakishore (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough quacking. Could you show us some evidence for the allegations involving myself with the reporting User:DRAGON BOOSTER? We share a good rapport. It was you who tried to get him into trouble by impersonating him. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain who were you referring to as sock here? —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[User:Nandhakishore] was reffering to me as sock as he believed me to be one as accused by you, you are the first one to accuse me to be a sock puppet click here, it has not been proven that I am a sock but still you call me a sock, seeing which [User:Nandhakishore] innocently believed me to be a sock. Now You have also accused [User:NandhaKishore] as a sock.

12pavan34 (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vensatry, If speaking in defence of one's own self when accused of sock puppetery is commented as QUACKING then I must say your calling it as quacking is not in good faith and you are simply trying not to give me a chance to explain. Remember, I am a suspect only and so are you a suspect.

You have addressed that you have not accused

WP:NPOV

Why have you avoided addressing them ?

12pavan34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear vensatry, why are u deleting my messages on your talk page, without giving proper explanations in reply, and who is impersonating whom, be clear in ur communications, Please note: this is for you and other user secret of success, just because u suspect some one is sock, blindly without checking my edit summaries and other constructively opinionated behavior, doeasnt make u a humble and good editor, you will be liable for disciplinary action by admins, if you ever try to use your experience on wikipedia for your point of view's, vandalism and conspiracy over other editors. Nandhakishore (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this. I believe we have wasted precious time just to listen to quacking. It is pertinent to refrain from responding to the messages of these socks, let them be.
Secret of success (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


These investigations are of no use, the contributions will be any ways be made by several other editors who are not socks or may be a new sock group will develop, if not me, you just dont waste your time on this article.

Enough of your irresponsible accusations on other editors, you secret of success, kindly refrain from this, what kind of a experienced editors u are, creating conspiracy on fellow editors will make u viable for disciplinary action, definitely one of us will not proved as sock, then you will have to make apology Nandhakishore (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed as Padmalakshmisx:

Both accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. Frivolous accusations crossed out. --MuZemike 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Per

WP:DUCK. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:35, 14 September 2012 (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:

[•] 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • information Administrator note All tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Per

WP:DUCK —Vensatry (Ping me) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Quite obvious from their contributions, and the habit of talk page blanking —Vensatry (Ping me) 01:41, 28 September 2012 (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
  •  Clerk endorsed I agree this is him and the master is known for juggling many socks at once as evidenced by the archives so endorsing so a CU can flush his other accounts.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the two cases, Stemsell is  Confirmed Padmalakshmisx, and there are sleepers, i'm just digging through the other user and sleeper results.
    (ʞlɐʇ) 11:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  •  Confirmed:
13 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual POV in

Secret of success (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2012 (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
  •  Clerk endorsed to flush sleepers as he usually has several socks at once.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously  Confirmed, but all the socks I saw were already bagged and tagged. The two ranges they use the most were sufficiently clear of collateral damage that I could apply generous blocks (even hardblocked one); this should help hinder a bit. — Coren (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged, range blocks done by Coren, so hopefully we don't have to meet again too soon. —SpacemanSpiff 03:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


This and this on my talk page show the same objection to other editors "storming" the

Daggubati Venkatesh. Stfg (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2012 (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

 Clerk note: I have blocked the accused for disruptive editing in this case for 72 hours. Please see the history of this case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

08 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

First set of edits to either

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh or Genome Valley, two articles edited almost exclusively by his past socks. All 4 suspects are new users, and Wheelwat created DragonSupremo's talk page, confirming his relation. Diffs for the socks: puppet, previous sock. Secret of success · talk 14:03, 8 November 2012 (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
03 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Large interest towards

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh as soon as the creation of account consisting mainly POV edits. Consistent talkpage blanking similar to previous socks. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

RTPking claims that also edits under this account in his user page. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. His idea to remove the "Dubbed films" section was tried out by different socks in the past. [9], [10]. Also see his problematic edits and compare with those made by the previous socks. Above all the habit of constantly blanking the talk page is very common among all the socks. See Prev sock and edit made by RTPking. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:55, 9 January 2013 (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
  • berate 22:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

If Kondakotaiah is RTPking, then edits like this and this make me doubtful. Note that Lathyruss (talk · contribs) is a CU confirmed sock. Elockid (Talk) 04:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: This doesn't look like the same user. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Closing, again. The users are in different countries. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Storming talk pages, abusive behaviour, POV pushing in Telugu cinema article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similar habit of spamming talk pages often in a harsh way abusing others . The same can be seen at
    Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh/GA1 also, something that is highly common with that of the previous socks. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:56, 16 July 2013 (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
27 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

First, I know that Murralllli was earlier listed here, but new evidence has arisen. Next, a clarification: the IP all but admited that they are Murrallli. Muralli reverted a sequence of edits I made on

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh (the article the problems are occurring on, and one of Padmalkrishmisx's long term targets). Then, I reverted, with a note in the edit summary recommending logging in, and I left this message on User Talk: Murrallli. After I did so, the IP responded on my talk page with [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian&diff=570349752&oldid=570316209 this edit], where he states explicitly that it "doesn't matter whether he logs in or not"--this, to me, is tacit admission of being the same user. Furthermore later, Murrallli did log in to remove my warning/explanation
from his talk page. Lastly, if you look at the numerous sections at the bottom of my talk page, you'll see comments from both Murrallli and the IP, and the writing style is exactly the same, with the same types of errors and formatting. As such, they are clearly the same user .

So, how do I connect them to the Sockmaster? The writing styles are practically identical, along with the obvious goal of trying to preserve every single piece of text on

WP:BEANS
out, but should make the connection clear.

If possible I think a sweeper check should be made. I'm not sure if any of the prior socks are not stale, but if we at least confirm Murrallli and the IP on behavioral grounds, we could then look for other socks compared to those. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Qwyrxian (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Quick comment: I saw this first a few hours ago as Cinema of AP has been on my watchlist since the Padmalakshmisx drawer was opened. I've been away for WP about six months, so I haven't kept up with this set, but behaviorally this looks to be part of the same set, geolocation is also the same. There are some very obscure common pages too. I'm convinced enough to do a suspected sock block, but I'd rather wait to see if anyone else has another opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update, req for sleeper sweep: On checking further through the SPI archives, I think there's sufficient technical evidence to warrant a block. However, there's a /23 range, and we ought to check for sleepers, there's a distinct possibility of at least one more account that's active on the same page and other articles currently, so a sleeper check would be beneficial.—SpacemanSpiff 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly a sock of Padma. I even reported this once, but the CU turned down saying that the accounts are no way connected to each other geography-wise. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Murallli was declined due to lack of behavioral evidence; subsequent edits (including the angry outbursts on my talk page) I think clear up the connection. It was RTPKing who was declined as being on a different continent. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Murrallli is a  Likely match to Padmalakshmisx. The following are  Confirmed matches to Murrallli.

no No comment on the IP address. However, there was a request on my talk page for a possibility of a hardblock on the /23 range of the IP listed here. There is significant collateral at this point and I would not advise any hardblocks if an admin decides to implement any new blocks. Just as a note, Indian IP ranges tend to have a lot of collateral. Elockid (Talk) 12:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator noteBlocked and tagged the four named accounts. Marking for close—SpacemanSpiff 15:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Constant POV pushing in Telugu cinema and Cinema of India articles. Rude behaviour, and consistent talkpage blanking. —Vensatry (Ping) 10:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Comment – This account was created shortly after the previous sock (User:Murrallli) was blocked, something that was very commons with the previous socks. A look at the edit summaries of Gnyan1's early contributions makes it quite obvious that he isn't new to this project. It's unlikely for a new user to quoting our policies in edit summaries with in days after creating an account. While comparing this account with Murrallli, the previous sock, common edit summaries with the usage of words like "cohesion" "references" and "original research" (inappropriate in most cases) raises my doubts: Murrallli and Gnyan1. Besides, the way in which both of them used reflinks is quite similar: [14] and [15]. —Vensatry (Ping) 18:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined All past SPI history for Padmalakshmisx is stale (over 3 months old) and is therefore gone; thus, nothing remains for a CU to compare with this user. Any SPI allegation would need to be established via a comparison of behaviour — and in order to do this, we need more specifics; please supply diffs explicitly showing close similarities between Gnyan1's editing and that of Padmalakshmisx and her previously established sockpuppets. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: New information (including diffs) has been provided; see above. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys could've have pinged me :). I'm very familiar with his MO and such and still have his technical details on hand. That account is  Confirmed to Murralli. Also confirmed are Tharunu (talk · contribs), Tween20 (talk · contribs), and Kendall rayanne (talk · contribs). Elockid (Talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elockid! A lot of CUs/admins who were earlier involved in this case seem to be less active now. —Vensatry (Ping) 05:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and blocked the accounts. Elockid (Talk) 11:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Similar patterns of abuse and badgering on user talk-pages (Bioasia2013 here, Vgnome here). Let me know if more evidence is needed. Requesting a checkuser to smoke out any socks. —indopug (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Yep. I've been going through a lot of the edits and there's no doubt in my mind. Huge DUCK, almost a SWAN. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. A clear case! —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 June 2014 (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
  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsed based on the username and the content and style of writing and the diff. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following are technically indistinguishable:
All of the above accounts are now blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Interest in Tamil and Telugu cinema, and bombarding talk pages with multiple sections, as well as his style of talking. Moreover, he seems familiar with many of Wikipedia's policies despite making his first edit on 28 July 2014. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is very similar to this comment by Padma's blocked sock Murallli, both in style of talking as well as content. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2014 (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
  • Kailash29792 I checked based on my own behavioural investigation, in the future it would be helpful if you could provide diffs of the reported sock and a blocked sock doing the same thing, have a look at the last one in the archive for an example. The results:
Based on technical data only I'd say this is  Likely but behaviour will be the clincher here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ʞlɐʇ) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following are  Confirmed to the archive and each other:
The following are  Likely to the archive, but  Confirmed to each other:
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Pretty obvious

duck. Same areas of interest, a penchant for edit warring, and a rude tone on other's talk pages. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, has anyone yet investigated into this? If you check Bewakoofian's contributions page and compare the edits to those of Padmalakshmisx, he should be dismissed as a golden duck. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pavanjandhyala and Vensatry, I believe you both know how Padmalakshmisx edited. Can you please help me prove Bewakoofian guilty, by presenting evidence which proves him a sock? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments by other users

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

  • @Kailash29792:, The request was made here for evidence as seen below. Your response above leads me to believe that you must have missed it.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed -  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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case is Rejected without evidence presented. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 23:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same area of interest - mainly Telugu cinema, and he shows a penchant for bombarding other user's talk pages with multiple sections. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


This user Kailash29792 is wasting his time on these sock puppet investigation(s) on multiple users every few weeks. Some of your investigation(s) are not moving and some have turned out to be not a sock puppett. sock puppetry applies to abusing articles and not protecting them. I have been protecting articles. a sock puppet is never interested in creating new articles or adding additional info. I have contributed to almost all articles on Tamil cinema. Could you stop it. My advise to you is you please dont worry about wikipedia. If anything is going wrong here in wikipedia the admins are there to take care of it. Bhishek (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed - @
    (ʞlɐʇ) 17:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is the edit of a blocked sock, which is similar to this edit by Bhishek Both have the editor adding multiple sections to the page in imprecise English, and talking rudely. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed:
  • Highly  Likely:
--
(ʞlɐʇ) 15:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
05 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


The last group of Padmalakshmisx sockpuppets was blocked on 2 November 2014, and new account

Taram Marindi). I am not sure if those recreated articles are identical to the deleted articles, because I can't see deleted edits. But, they look like being identical, as I remember. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

While this sock is an
obvious duck, I request that the article K. S. Prasad not be deleted; the subject won a National Award, which is India's Oscar. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
28 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same area of interest (mainly Telugu and Hindi cinema), and recreated K. S. Prasad just as it was before deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2014 (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
  • Reported sock is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Can another CU take a look at the range please, there are a few other accounts on the range which are suspicious but I'm not sure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed to previous socks:
--
(ʞlɐʇ) 17:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
28 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Shows many similarities, including editing Telugu film articles, and pages on Indian film awards. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This shows that he has a similar style of communicating. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • @Kailash29792: Before we can proceed with the SPI case, we will need you to provide diffs that connects the suspected account to the master account or confirmed socks through behavioral evidence. Mike V • Talk 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kailash29792: I'm going to need more evidence than that. You'll need to provide an additional diff that illustrates the same tone as the one you've provided. Also, I need more evidence in general that will tie them together. Mike V • Talk 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I am familiar with this user, I believe there are enough behavioral similarities for me to run a check. However, again please note that the lack of additional will delay any future cases and may lead to them being Rejected. Anyways Grosshigh (talk · contribs) is a  Confirmed sock along with the following:
  • Accounts are blocked and tagged. Mike V • Talk 03:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Shows many similarities, including editing Telugu film articles, pages on Indian film awards and communicating with users in multiple sections using improper English.

talk) 03:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Elokid, I actually did plan on showing some diffs, but you came too soon. Moreover I did not open this SPI. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed - Please provide diffs which prove the link, or a link to a page history which obviously shows it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I am going stress that diffs NEED to be provided for a CU request to be fulfilled. I or perhaps another CU who is familiar with the case may not be around in the future and this case will be stalled. Guys, please be sure to submit more evidence in the future. Anyways, Anthimpag (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed along with:
  • Accounts blocked and tagged. Mike V • Talk 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

[16]

Simply documenting. NativeForeigner Talk 15:44, 27 February 2015 (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
08 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreating articles created by the sock puppets Wgolf (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I put this guy as a sock puppet here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj though it was this guy that I should of put it as-recreating sock puppet pages Wgolf (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2015 (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
​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

with the recreation of the Akkineni Akhil article just spelled as Akhil Akkineni (actor) instead. Wgolf (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2015 (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
19 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Editing similarities, and adds the names of the articles he edits, like his past socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2015 (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
01 July 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Boudhafaq is a new (3 days old) user who in the time-span of less than 30 minutes created 22 new articles. Many of those articles were previously created by Padmalakshmisx and than deleted as

G5. Articles previously created by Padmalakshmisx and now recreated by Boudhafaq are: Thriloka Sundhari, Jai Gantalu, Sangeetha Samrat, Chinni Chinni Aasa, Make-up (Kannada film), Raja Hamsa, Vijayam, Madam (1993 film), Andame Anandam, Raamachilaka, Tharam Marindhi, Welcome Obama. All are about Indian films. It is highly improbable that a new user is able to recreate all those articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I have put up tons of db-banned right now for this-found this earlier today but I couldn't remember the sock masters name for the life of me so I didn't do that till now. Wgolf (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2015 (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

29 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

He shows many of Padma's barely concealed traits: disruptive editing style, rude attitude, bombarding talk pages with multiple sections, all beginning in small-case letters and him being familiar with Wikipedia despite his account being created this year. He will certainly confess. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

An obvious

talk) 14:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

A series of attacks by Prabvb on Pavan's page which have since been removed by
POV pushing, which is actually what he does. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Anthimpag (Padma's sock blocked in February 2015) : "Kailash you please go on file SPI's daily on other users and dont contribute to wikipedia, but please waste your time on filing SPI's. I think you are obsessed with padmalakshmisx and soon need a psychiatrist" (source: contributions) and a message by Pravbv reads "dont waste your time, internet, and man hours on sock puppet investigations, no one is interested in SPI investigations now-a-days, unsourced content cannot be accepted" (source: Kailash29792's talk page). This is something suspicious. Also the way these two communicate are very similar to that of Padmalakshmisx and his previous socks.
talk) 13:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not a sock puppet, user Kailash has the habit of tagging every other editor he encounters as a sock puppet of padmalakshmisx. On the other hand, sock puppet allegations have to be made on some one, if he is into damaging wikipedia articles, but I am actually contributing to wikipedia constructively. Kindly check my edit history, and see what exactly I did. Pravbv (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Additional information needed - @
    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. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Can we use the data from the July check to compare Pravbv to previous socks. His edits are very similar, but I'm not 100% sure. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I don't have UAs to check the best I can do is  Likely but I have no doubt that this is Padmalakshmisx when combining behaviour and technical evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 January 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Recreated an article (K. Raghava) that was previously created by Danice thrall. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2016 (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

11 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Submission of Draft:Indian Cinema and Cannes Film Festival, an attempted recreation of an article that's been repeatedly deleted from mainspace in the past, at several different titles, because its creation and recreation and rerecreation has always been at the hands of known socks of this user. Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a quacking
WP:DUCK we just heard. This user's edit to another user's talk page at User_talk:Maharshi_chelukala also follows a writing-style pattern noted several times in the archived investigations: no capitals, "do not" spelled as "dont". I know the master's stale, but can probably be checked against some of the recent socks. Bearcat (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

For other related ANI threads, I have a note of them in my sandbox. Def. case of a sock account IMO. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets
General

Account created Feb 12 2016, which is a day after Favari was blocked. Manepally has been editing a lot of Telugu-language Indian film articles, like Kanche, Raithu Bidda, Sardar Papa Rayudu, Alluri Seetarama Raju (film), etc., but has also edited articles about Kannada films like Killing Veerappan and Malayalam films like Kaalapani. This tendency to focus on Telugu, but drift to other areas is documented in the archive.

Also documented in the archive, is a complaint by Vensatry (labeled as Commander), "Quite evident from his contributions. He has a strong vengeance against me and intentionally undoing my constructive edits on Akkineni Nagarjuna and other Telugu film-related articles." I experienced a similar instance where Manepally made a huge blanket revert that restored all sorts of problematic content to the article.

By Manepally's 11th edit he had created a category, which is not an intuitive place to start editing. By Feb 19, he's making changes, citing "peacok terms"[17][18], a concept new users would not necessarily know about. An earlier sock from 2011, Sreekar akkineni was also familiar with peacock terms.

By Feb 20, Manepally is tossing around "POV" in edit summaries [19][20][21]

Manepally tends to use one-word, or otherwise brief edit summaries, including here where he adds a reference using the shorthand "rf". Favari did this a bunch of times.[22][23][24][25] as did Kangarupadaku. (I think if you look at the edit histories of all three accounts, the similarity in their edit summaries looks a bit more consistent.)

Intersections

At Sardar Papa Rayudu, an article that has been edited 16 times since April 2014, the edit history shows that two other CU confirmed socks of Padmalakshmisx have edited there, Discoslip and Mathsraja, along with Manepally.

Manepally has recently edited this article, which also contains edits by Pad socks Bhishek, Mardaani, Discoslip, Murrallli, and GarylawyerNFA.

Manepally has also edited this article, which contains edits by Murrallli.

Manepally has edited this article, which has a lot of edits in Jan 2016 by Arichuvadi, a sock of Pad.

So, I think there's certainly enough info to warrant a CU, and given how prolific and unapologetic the operator has been, a sleeper check might be wise. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2016 (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 and tagged.  No sleepers

immediately visible. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

29 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK; this includes the fact that he is abusive towards other editors, bombards their talk pages with multiple sections, begins all his sentences with small letters, already knows how to edit well despite making his first edit on 24 February 2016, and tries to prove that he is not a sockpuppet, but futilely. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Since I don't want this to get CU declined for lack of evidence, here is some:

  • This comment by the suspected sock is odd: this Kailash is obsessed with padmalakshmi, and he accuses every one with that Vakthruthva has been editing since 23 February 2016. How would he know anything about Kailash's prior accusations?
  • Wait, did I say he made his first edit on 23 February 2016? That was a day after Bbb23 indeffed Manepally after a CU check confirmed that he was a sock of Padmalakshmisx. What a coincidence!
  • Several articles of intersection between Vakthruthva and a couple of recent socks, Manepally and Farvari.
  • This article, Kanche, which Vakthruthva has edited, has edits by two other Padmala socks, Manepally and Arichuvadi.
  • This comment, which was left on Kailash's talk page looks an awful lot like an admission. [Subject] i am willing to work alongside with u, let us end this padmalaskhmi [Body] you never understood wikipedia, i hate the word sock puppet, who is some on who spoils articles, I did every edit as per wikipedia guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I amen't sure who he/she is. But i find few things very suspicious in this case.

  • This user's account was created on 24 February, two days after Padmalakshmisx's sock Manepally was blocked.
  • This user has posted "I may have to report your behavior to arbitration committee, give respect and take respect, do you think i dont know basics of wikipedia, do you think only u know everything" on Cyphoidbomb's talkpage. I amen't sure that a relatively new user would speak like that.
  • How does this "new" editor know that Kailash29792 has abused "every" editor as Padmalakshmisx's sockpuppet? This was evident in the user's first in a series of messages "No matter how many times you do this, constructive edits cannot be stopped". Looking at the contributions, until Kailash29792 messaged to Cyphoidbomb, these two didn't even interact with each other in anyway.
    talk) 15:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I don't know why the user in question had brought up my name here. I'm not even remotely connected with them. My association with Padma's SPs ended almost two years ago. Given this behaviour (the ethnic slurs on Kaliash29792's talk page and their attempt to drag me into this issue), this is obviously a sock of Padma. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Edit summaries like "references", "clean up" and "banner", his habit of reverting to older versions of the article, and messages like "stop removing, articles, and dont remove references"; all these are traits of Padmalakshmi and his other socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2016 (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

17 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Brief (often single-word) comments in edit summaries such as "references", "info", "clean up", "‎ [[]]" and "rv" (meaning revert), as well as the fact that he edits mainly Telugu cinema-related articles (often deleting chunks of material and reverting to older versions of the article) are all already seen in Padmalakshmi's past socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2016 (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

  •  Additional information needed - @
    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. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After waiting for 8 days, I see no diffs provided, so I'm closing this. @
    diffs. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

01 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm re-opening Kailash's case, because I think there's sufficient evidence to warrant a CU. I do, however, wish Kailash would have performed some due diligence and dug up some more diffs, because it would have saved me some needless back-and-forth explaining guidelines to Lamppost3.

Kailash's original case:

Brief (often single-word) comments in edit summaries such as "references", "info", "clean up", "‎ [[]]" and "rv" (meaning revert), as well as the fact that he edits mainly Telugu cinema-related articles (often deleting chunks of material and reverting to older versions of the article) are all already seen in Padmalakshmi's past socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

To that, I'd add this:

  • Lamppost3 first created his account in 2013, then it went dormant until April 2016. His first two edits were to his user page. His second edit here was to add "*my IP address is 144.36.184.43". Well that's an interesting behavior for a brand new user. Log an IP somewhere, perhaps as a reminder so you don't mess up your sock farm, then go dormant for a few years? Doesn't matter. Could be red herring. What does matter is Duloxitine, a CU confirmed sock, also logged an IP on his talk page. Awardgadu another CU confirmed sock did the same thing.
  • Running an edit interaction report on the last few socks there is significant intersection with Ram Gopal Varma being a noteworthy standout. That's definitely one of his favorite articles. In fact, Lamppost3's first edit after his 3 year dormancy was to Ram Gopal Varma
  • Not coincidentally, Bbb23 closed the last sock report on 17 April 2016. Lamppost3 jumped out of dormancy 2 days later.
  • Looking at the edit history of Ram Gopal Varma you can also find Farvari, Arichuvadi, Luxpapa, and I'm sure others that haven't even been discovered yet.
  • Kailash was correct that the short edit summaries seem similar. Most of the edit summaries are in lowercase, not alternating case, and there are numerous stylistic similarities:
Lamppost3
(copy edit)
(para)
(spel fix)
Vakthruthva
(copy edit)
(para)
(spel)

This should be enough to warrant CU. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • For what it is worth, I am endorsing this CU request due in part to the obvious similarities at hand, and the likelihood of additional sleepers being saved for the purpose of future block evasion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

11 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

It all warrants a closer look by CheckUser professionals. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • One coincidence i would like to present here: Langarhouse made an edit on
    talk) 16:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The fact that he got rid of "Indian" and changed the wikilink from Telugu language to Telugu cinema is interesting, and I did explain in detail why this was problematic on his talk page as Lamppost3. That's pretty telling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before we archive, user page tics:
Rajanalakala:
*vikram 3
Langarhouse:
*bhole daaku
Dhaund
*Dhaund junction
End note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Please check for other accounts as well, as they typically have other ones cooking. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (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

23 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm going to indef on duck behavior, but Padmala often creates multiple accounts, so a CU will be necessary, please. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2016 (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

02 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck: first edit was creation of

OnionRing (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Comment With the page deleted, I can't see edits from this user. The page was originally created by TJK several years ago, but since then TJK has gotten generally better at editing. I *think* his current account is D'SuperHero, but an SPI was inconclusive. This new page doesn't have the capitalization correct and I think TJK would have been better at that. So it's perhaps TJK but I don't have a feel for it.

Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi
Ravensfire, from Talk:Karanvir sharma
:
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --JayaJohri (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It provides an introduction to a well renowned media personality "Karanvir Sharma". He's the blue eyed boy of the tinsel town and has gathered appreciation over years by being a part of over 200 advertisement campaigns, movies also he is going to be a part of upcoming series 24 season 2. Therefore I believe more people must have an access to his bio, likes/dislikes and his upcoming ventures.
I can't reprint the content from the article, because it looks like all if it was copied from here. Was this guy known for irritatingly blatant copyvios? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Based on the content and style, I think this is a sock of
    Ravensfire for their opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  •  Checkuser note: The account is  Unlikely to be Padmalakshmisx. I'm not familiar with TekkenJinKazama and the last archived case was in November of 2015 so it's  Stale.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Apart from this user's interest on Telugu cinema related articles, short one or two word edit summaries in lower case, and a rather meaningless user page, these are a few observations:

  • Basedverna created its talkpage by signing there simply, a trait observed in few of the sockmaster's previous socks Dhnk, Lamppost3, Gridhalur, and Rangasthal (user page) to name a few.
  • Creating new pages with the summary references, another similar trait observed in the case of the sockmaster's previous socks.
  • Intersection with sock Pravbv at Mahesh Babu: 1
  • Intersection with sock Vakthruthva at Narasimha Nandi: 1
  • One strange coincidence with other socks is presented below:

The summary of all these edits is "copy edit" and all the three films feature Mahesh Babu as their protagonist, whose article has been massively edited by the sockmaster's previous sock Pravbv. But, this does extend to other Telugu films as well, with the same or other edit summaries. For example:

The sockmaster is known to create multiple accounts at one go, and hence a CU shall be helpful. Regards,

talk) 09:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

  • Definitely a
    duck. I was suspicious ever since his first edit, but now I am convinced. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

26 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

This edit was to revert Ponyo's reversal of the prior sock edits. I'm comfortable doing a duck block here, but there are usually a few socks active and it wouldn't hurt to have this as a CU confirmed block along with the rest. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 26 July 2016 (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

09 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


This report is about the interaction between User:Thandrapaparayudu and User:Basedverna, a sockpuppet of User:Padmalakshmisx that can be found in the archive section dated 22 July 2016. At first I believed the new editor to be making basically the same edit as the previous sockpuppet, [37] vs. [38] before I realized what the new editor was doing was reverting back to the previous sockpuppet version, [39]. This might be okay, but each of the similar edits was done to a film article under the guise of an edit summary, "category," when they were reverting other changes made to the article in the process. This only might be okay if it happened a couple of times, but Thandrapaparayudu made these reversions back to Basedverna's version on 48 film articles, that are listed at the Editor Interaction Analyser, [40].

For some history, I did notice this on last month and started a discussion at a User:SpacemanSpiff talk page, a sysop who had blocked a previous sockpuppet to get their opinion on the matter, User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2016/September#Another Padmalakshmisx sockpuppet, where another editor, User:Cyphoidbomb also joined in. Thandrapaparayudu left me a message, [41], but since I had not yet decided what I was going to do, I let the previous discussion continue without responding on my talk page. Since I was going on vacation shortly, I did not want to open this without being around to respond and while on vacation Thandrapaparayudu deleted his comment from my talk page. The discussion ended thinking that the due to being four months apart, that this might be considered stale, but I thought I would present evidence for it anyways. Aspects (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

kindly take your case back. There is nothing wrong in reverting constructive edits of an editor as per wikipedia policy, the concerned sock has messaged me to revert his edits, as they were constructive. Thandrapaparayudu (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • It's stale, but the circumstances Aspects describes are highly suspicious and
    meatpuppet situation. Thandrapaparayudu, if you have a convincing explanation, you may request unblock on your own page. Blocked and tagged. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC).[reply
    ]

29 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets
  • Typical 1 and 2-word edit summaries. Note Arichuvadi's summaries here. "(copy edit)", "(references)". Or this edit and this edit by Thandrapaparayudu, which introduces the odd "(edit)" as an edit summary. Compare with Bhishoom here and here. And
  • Intersection at Dil Se, which has seen numerous Padma socks including Thandrapaparayudu, Luxpapa, Arichuvadi, etc.
  • Intersection at Operation Cocoon where we see Farvari has edited.
  • Akasa Veedhilo is not a heavily-edited article, which makes intersections stand out as peculiar. Bhishoom edited it recently, and in February 2016, Manepally did, as did Vikasbal the year prior. (Obviously these are Padma socks.)
  • Same thing here at Mission Istaanbul. Fewer than 20 edits since July 2016, but two confirmed Padma socks (Basedverna and Thandrapaparayudu) + Bhishoom.
  • First few edits are category additions, which is a bit of a weird place to start. Most people start with typo fixes and stuff, I'm pretty sure. By his eighth edit, he's formatting references like a champ.
  • Obligatory meaningless user page creation on day 2, no doubt to throw off the redlinked user name. This is typical of experienced sock operators.

Since the sock operator tends to use multiple accounts, it would be appreciated if a CU could look into it. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2016 (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

  • They're editing exclusively from webhosts and open proxies. That being said, the following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • All have been blocked and, based on behaviour and technical info,  Likely Padmalakshmisx. They've been extremely prolific so some clean-up will likely be required. I also came across Hseenigpg on the same webhost but with a different UA.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation to see if there is a connection.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey P, could you take a look at Varmapak and see whether a CU might be a good idea? The edit summaries are similar in some cases, and there's an intersection at this lightly-edited article and also at Ram Gopal Varma, which is stuffed to the gills with Padma activity. (Hmm, Ram Gopal Varma, Varmapak...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there's enough for a check. The account has been around since 2007 and has a very large range of interests with only a minor overlap with the Padma group. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You da boss! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponyo as far as Hseenigpg I think it could be linked to the original three of the Kichappan socks (the ones that were working with Padmalakshmi) as behaviorally there's a greater linkage there (multi language films from South India) though there are some of the usual Padma tells too. —SpacemanSpiff 15:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same exact edits and new page creation as U:Bhishoom, particularly on Dil Se.. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 15:00, 13 December 2016 (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

27 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar style of edit summaries. One-word, use of "spel". Has edited Nartanasala, which is crawling in Padma socks. His first edit was to restore content that had previously been removed for block evasion. That's pretty ducky. Also, the "look at me, I'm not a sock, socks have redlinked usernames" edit is telling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2016 (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

02 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck. Has been indeffed. I'm opening and closing this case primarily to note that I've been attempting to explain to Padma that the only option available to them is

the standard option. The discussion is taking place at User talk:Reddytrivikram. Since there have been over 200 suspected and confirmed accounts, I didn't want to forget which one I was having the discussion with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 2 January 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

16 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Created

G5 violations, so they moved it to the alternate name from the draft space. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 16 January 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

  •  Unlikely as the geolocation is off and I see no evidence of proxy/webhost use, though there is other technical overlap. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Overlap with several past sockpuppets. Same short-style edit summaries. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Sro23 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 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

  • information Administrator note I'm curious to see if it is him, since I went through a laborious discussion process with him at User talk:Reddytrivikram, explaining the standard offer, and so on. Here the user has emerged at an article that was previously edited by a Padma sock. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following are  Confirmed to the Padmalakshmisx sock Reddytrivikram:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All tagged, closing. GABgab 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


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 is the latest round up of socks who are  Confirmed to each other and  Confirmed to be part of the Padmalakshmisx promotional sockfest. As usual, they've been very profilic, so there will likely be some extensive clean-up and review required.
  •  Done and closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual:

And so on. Indeffing as suspected sock, but need CU to check for others, since he often creates more accounts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 28 April 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

13 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck, but CU is typically necessary for undiscovered accounts.

Also, just to really hammer home why he should probably never be unblocked, is this. He's been editing here for years and still doesn't understand that you can't cherrypick film reviews and then summarise that obviously biased selection as "positive". (I mean, let's not even get into whether two 3 star reviews plus a 4 star review = mostly positive...) Or maybe he does understand but has no ethical standard. Anyway, persistently disruptive, and either incompetent or deliberately here to inject bias into articles.

Indeffing, but CU still needed, please. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:38, 13 May 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

27 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Would appreciate a check for undiscovered socks and sleepers, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:21, 27 May 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

17 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Both users have been adding the same content as previous socks on

Kasinathuni Viswanath ([48] [49] [50]). Ulsd intersects with socks on other pages too: [51] [52] [53] [54]). Sro23 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 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

31 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical indicators including perfunctory user page hastily created with four tildes, and standard edit summaries. Also active in Indian film articles. It would be appreciated if you'd please check for other accounts as per usual. Here, he adds POV garbage about a subject appearing in a "super hit" and receiving "rave reviews", and here, where Padma notes that the subject is the son of a "mantinee idol". More evidence that Padma lacks the appropriate judgment to edit here constructively. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:41, 31 July 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

07 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


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

  • All named editors are  Confirmed to each other and also to recently blocked socks from this same sock farm (e.g. Varasari).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All accounts  Blocked and tagged. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

See User talk:Cyphoidbomb#Regarding standard offer.As clean evidence, as one could acquire.CU sought, in-case, this is some imposter.But, regardless, the block could be executed as this UAC is of no use to WP in any possible manner. Winged Blades Godric 14:09, 15 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

16 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

pretty evident from his one-word edit summaries in articles related to Telugu cinema, and the fact that he shows experience on editing in Wiki despite opening his account today (16 Nov). Kailash29792 (talk) 17:52, 16 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

  •  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. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very familiar with this sock farm and the edits are textbook examples of their recent activities. Also,  Confirmed.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Has the same feel as most other Padma socks. Same edit summaries, being a big indicator.
  • Perfunctory user page creation, done in the standard manner, signing with four tildes. He's done this countless times.
  • Is allegedly a brand-new user, but appears to be using reFill, has familiarity with INRConvert template, etc.
  • Padma, despite his experience and familiarity in some areas, historically drops the ball of competence in other areas. Here he uses the deprecated "2" switch in the Reflist template. Here he submits an unsourced DOB. These are things he should know better than to do, but that's Padma.

Interestingly enough, I don't believe that this suspected sock has any intersections with Padma socks, but the typical shape of their edits has Padma written all over it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 29 December 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

11 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Same overlapping interests and edit summaries (ie: clean up, references) in rapid succession and same user page creation, see also here. I know they often operate multiple accounts at once, so requesting cu for sleepers. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:09, 11 January 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

13 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. The same stuff. Perfunctory user page signed ~~~~, restoration of the stuff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandamuri_Balakrishna&action=history I reverted the last time he edited. Blocking. Please check for other accounts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:27, 13 January 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

19 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Same old, same old. Same style of edit summaries, same perfunctory user page, intersections with Padma socks at S. S. Rajamouli. Brand new user familiar with "POV pushing" and our BLP policies. This edit is interesting, as he pastes an IP address in his user page. Geolocates to College Park, Maryland. Wonder why he did that. Mistake? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:25, 19 January 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

30 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Same recreation of Kamalsuvarna's Film Festival articles, same rapid succession of "references" in ES on several articles, reverted Cyphoid's removal of block evasion of a previous padma sock on Picket 43...and then there's the username. Asking CU for sleeper check again. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second name, without spilling the
WP:BEANS the ES similarities are identical and there is significant overlap. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:45, 30 January 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

07 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

I've indeffed him, but am requesting CU. Usually when he goes through his "OK look, let's make a deal, I'll demonstrate zero self-control, and you unblock me" routine, he typically keeps his hands clean, so I don't think there will be any obvious accounts found, but he deserves zero trust.

The post above is yet another example of his inflated ego "Show me one editor who is competent enough to recreate that article", his persecution complex "Because of the damage you guys did to me, even standard offer is not guranteed.", his lack of awareness of irony "Wikipedia is wasting lot of resources and time on checkuser." and general incoherence "Why dont you communicate to arbitration committe, and bring changes to sock puppet policy using new software programs." As usual, the user wants other people to move pieces around. We're supposed to contact Arbitration Committee for him, because he's soooo valuable, as is evident here, where he introduces poor references like nettv4u.com, idlebrain.com, IMDb.com, mio.to. Total disingenuous nonsense. Oh wait, I also forgot about "This is the problem with you Tamil people. You always indulge in damaging your competetor." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 7 February 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

14 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Previous sock Volvoteach added this content, which was reverted. (Competence check: Please note the ridiculous statement that people "worked hard" on the project and sometimes "in the rain".) Anyway, Hulatroy, a brand new editor, who should have no awareness of article edit history restored the content.

Similar content restoration here and here. Intersection with other socks here. The bulk of edits at

Meher Mount
(an article about a spiritual center in Ojai, California of all places) are by Padma socks.

Anyway, per the usual, CU would be beneficial to sniff out his other accounts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 14 February 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 + Priedcraw (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • First edit was to user page for "four tildes" post, to remove redlink. We have this behavior well documented in the archive.
  • Padma sock edits at Chiranjeevi
  • Suspected sock edits at same article. (Apparently he thinks that modifying, but keeping "MegaStar" in the infobox is an appropriate decision for someone with as many years of alleged expertise as he claims.)
  • Padma sock edit at rarely-edited Chaitanya (film).
  • Suspected sock edits at same article.
  • Lots of edits here and here at Harish Shankar from two different puppets. Note that as recently as January 2018, this guy still thinks that adding unsourced birthdates is OK.
  • Suspected sock edit here at Harish Shankar.
  • Padma sock edits at Savitri (actress) in 2016.
  • Suspected sock edits same article.
  • Lots of edits by Padma sock here at S. S. Rajamouli.
  • Big surprise, suspected sock edits the same article. Note the failure to adhere to
    MOS:HEAD
    in "Personal Life" (vs. "Personal life"). Still demonstrating lack of capacity for editing basics, despite his chest-thumping in previous unblock requests.

Ducky, and I'm blocking him, but given that he often has duplicate accounts set up, I'm requesting a CU. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:04, 13 August 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

  •  Clerk declined - Unless I'm mistaken, all other socks are stale. There would be nothing to compare the user to. Sro23 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Repeated exactly same edit as Ritizubumab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at S. S. Rajamouli. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:06, 29 August 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

30 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

User edits multiple articles recently edited by socks of this master (

WP:DUCK. Possible coincidence; CU requested. General Ization Talk 18:52, 30 November 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

10 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


Sakura6977 and Crusader90

  • Sandbox edits:
    • Sakura6977 edited the sandbox of Crusader90 with the content "<!--ok-->?" on 29 December 2018 at 18:02. Until this point, the two users had never crossed paths - it's inexplicable how Sakura6977 landed on Crusader90's sandbox.
    • Sakura6977 edited own sandbox with the exact same content a minute later.
    • The edit summary used by Sakura6977 on Crusader90's sandbox was "chk" - a few days earlier, Sakura6977 had used the exact same edit summary while editing own sandbox.
  • Edit warring
    • A few days later, Sakura6977 had an edit dispute with User:Pinkbeast at the article Nizam of Hyderabad. Crusader90, who had never edited this page earlier, appeared out of nowhere and restored the article to Sakura6977's favored version.
    • Sakura6977 undid Pinkbeast's edits later that day.
    • When User:Kautilya3 undid Sakura6977's edit, Crusader90 restored Sakura6977's version.

Sakura6977 and Dhadhush

  • Dadhush is a confirmed sock of Padmalakshmisx, and was active on the Nizam-related pages. After Dadhush was blocked on 28 November 2018, multiple new accounts - including Sakura6977, Pandya34, and Crusader90 appeared in the next month, and started editing Nizam-related articles.
  • On hiwiki, Dadhush had translated the enwiki article Nizam Ali Khan, Asaf Jah II, creating a draft in user namespace, a day before being blocked. Sakura6977's first edit to hiwki was creating this article in the article namespace, with the exact same edit summary. Both the versions included HTML code <font style="vertical-align: inherit;"> etc.
  • Both Dhadhush and Sakura6977 have made 100+ edits to hiwiki, 28+ edits to tewiki, and 10+ edits to mrwiki.
  • On hiwiki, Sakura6977 has edited pages created by now-blocked socks of Padmalakshmisx, such as Abby313 [55][56][57] utcursch | talk 03:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Those two were always pretty quacky. It might also be worth revisiting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Quadirsaab/Archive - another socker who was a tremendous fan of the Nizam. I dunno what checkuser might turn up. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, although Quadirsaab and socks seem to have been last active in April 2018. On a sidenote, User:Sarvarkar is another Nizam-focused account that appeared in December 2018. utcursch | talk 16:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about Sarvarkar. As I understand it, the legacy of the Nizams - Muslim rulers of a predominantly Hindu state - is a bit of a vexed subject in India at the moment and it seems more than plausible that multiple Indian editors might independently be interested in the subject. Sarvarkar is less specifically obsessed, makes some perfectly good edits, and doesn't operate in close tandem with Sakura et al. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Pretty ducky based on most regular editing habit markers and I would block him myself, but I think we should have a CU look into other accounts. I also wanted to publish something here so that we know how long this issue has been going on.

He's still having problems with basic concepts like copying within Wikipedia, image uploading, and plagiarism. I mention this, because every time he pleas for an unblock, he boasts about how nobody else can do what he does.

Thanks Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2019 (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 and tagged. No other accounts seen.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Restoring the same exact rewrites the last couple of socks Rvls, Dunkoclump, Jabbulakonda, and Layercorey were trying to accomplish at Telugu cinema, Malayalam cinema, Aditya 369, Marana Simhasanam, S. S. Rajamouli and numerous other articles in last few months. Since persistent, I request a mass rollback of all edits if possible. May be please use a check user too as the user have the habit of creating backup accounts. 2409:4073:40F:E567:44C7:2AA1:B3C8:10E6 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2020 (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

16 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Reinstating edits of previous sock Karnakamalam at K. N. T. Sastry, Maa Ooru, B. Narsing Rao, Daasi, etc. Applying a rangeblock may be more useful than blocking accounts. 2409:4073:21E:9B5B:E1A8:2775:B71E:7940 (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2020 (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

The following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:

Tagged and blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Back again reverting to his versions [58][59]. Can anyone apply a range block. This has become a headache. 2409:4073:2098:9975:F581:DAB2:C105:4BAA (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (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

  • Sock indeffed. Nothing more to do. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Again, reverting back to his version on Telugu cinema [60]. 2409:4073:293:4040:79F1:4C4:9F64:869A (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2020 (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 JJMC89 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.

27 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

The edits from both Nixesdrive and this user are very similar. I'd also recommend protecting that page due to the sockpuppetry. ミラP 14:52, 27 January 2020 (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

restating names with checkuser template to work with tools... Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Account is fresh, plus the iconic edit in Malayalam cinema [61], restoring his version. 137.97.102.68 (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2020 (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 RoySmith as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case (including admin actions against suspected socks) without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

14 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

He is accusing me of having an agenda as with his previous socks. In case he comes back, he must be reported. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2020 (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

  •  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. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: No additional information given in over a week. Closing as stale. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

For the record. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2023 (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

29 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

In September 2022, I reverted one of the disruptive POV edits of User:Iamsanatani [87], a sock of Padmalakshmisx. Today, a user named "Jewishblood", who conveniently only edits [88] Muslim-related, mostly Indian/Pakistan articles (just like Iamsanatani [89]) reverted me, saying "let it be" [90]. How do they know of this edit I wonder. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2023 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Padmalakshmisx/Archive&oldid=1169926020"