Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Sulshanamoodhi

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

30 May 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Name: No need to explain much, both are Kbfc (Kerala Blasters fan club)
  • Account creation: Both account are created around same time, May 2020 and Kbfc1234 can be seen as a backup account for Kbfcfan as Kbfc was blocked on 20th and Kbfc1234 created on 27th, and so the user might have thought of creating another account incase the initial get blocked again.
  • Purpose: Both are editing only Indian Super League (ISL) related article; its clubs and players, Kbfcfan (Kerala blaster fan) is doing edit only Kerala Blasters and it's players' articles, and Kbfc1234 editing other clubs and players except Kerala Blasters. (in an attempt to show they are different users)
  • Editing pattern: Both the account editing, totally ignoring the wikipedia guidelines, most importantly, the guidelines of
    WP:FOOTY, and "citation", made the pages as news article updating football players transfer and rumours and puffery and disrupt various articles. Even both the account hardly use edit summaries. In the mean time, Kbfcfan has been blocked for a 24 hours, for vandalising. Though I was suggested when I brought the user again to AIV, that ANI would be perfect, since the user has vandalised again even after getting final warning for unexplained removal, edit warring and zero interaction. But before that Kbfc1234 started doing edits at the other club pages and similar pattern brought me to SPI. Drat8sub (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    RoySmith and Callanecc Here and here the user clarified that Kbfc1234 is indeed Kbfcfan, and with same old excuse of forgetting the passowrd. As I said, the edit pattern was saying that only. Anyway, I think you need to block both Kbfcfan and Sulshanamoodhi now and a warning to Kbfc1234 would be enough. Drat8sub (talk) 00:37, 31 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.

  • @Drat8sub: I'm a little confused. You said, Kbfc was blocked on 20th. I'm assuming you meant Kbfcfan was blocked on the 20th (which is true), but there's also a Kbfc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) account which has never been blocked, and if they're related, would be the master here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - There's enough here in the username similarity, common interest in football, and account creation dates to justify CU. On the other hand, (Kbfcfan) has shown some interest in non-football topics, and User:Kbfc1234 created a user page which the other didn't. CU will tell for sure. Given the age of User:Kbfc, I suspect they're not related at all (not to mention stale). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • RoySmith Yes, I was talking about Kbfcfan only. And thanks for bringing Kbfc, see the user's only edit, that too at the same article. I think we should see the pattern of their edit. If not same user then definitely a group of users working together here. See I've no problem if individuals working together, but this group failing to understand the basic policies of adding citations, not add rumours of players transfer, not to add puffery. They simply don't want to read what the guidelines and polcies says and repeatedly doing the same mistake and both of the editing pattern is same, ignorance to the highest level. Kbfcfan is a good example, even after the user was banned they did not learn and not even cared to go trhough the polices and repeatedly asking question why this and why that, when I have already addressed their mistake related to policies. Drat8sub (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Kbfcfan and User:Kbfc1234 are  Unlikely to be one individual but that doesn't rule out coordination based on behaviour. However, User:Sulshanamoodhi is  Technically indistinguishable from the individual behind User:Kbfcfan. Maxim(talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maxim and Callanecc: Given the CU finding, plus the otherwise unrelated interest in Shivani Memon ([1] vs. [2]), I'd call Sulshanamoodhi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Kbfcfan to be proven, and rename this case to Sulshanamoodhi (Kbfc is older, but I'm proposing to AGF and ignore them).
    I'm thinking indef Kbfcfan, 1 week for Sulshanamoodhi, uw-agf-sock for User:Kbfc1234.
    The nearness in account creation dates between Sulshanamoodhi and Kbfc brings the later back into suspicion, but given that they've not edited in a couple of years, I'd not do anything about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, sounds good to rename this to Sulshanamoodhi then indef Kbfcfan as a sock, 1 week block for Sulshanamoodhi and an uw-agf-sock warning for User:Kbfc1234. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diffs provided by Drat8sub (here and here) are interesting, but don't really prove anything. I've warned Kbfc1234, indefed Kbfc1234 Kbfcfan, and blocked the master (Sulshanamoodhi) for a week. If there's more socking in the future, I would consider the AGF bank to be severely overdrawn. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Rollup of socks from c:Category:Sockpuppets of Sulshanamoodhi (flagged by Special:Permalink/997221545#Shahoodu → Sodhi27shahoodu - hat tip to CptViraj) Cabayi (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronologically, on commons :-

  • Sulshanamoodhi - reg on 3 Mar 2020, & blocked 1 May 2020] Com
  • Kbfcfan - reg & blocked on 1 May 2020 Com
  • Shahoodu - reg & blocked on 4 May 2020 Com
  • 30/31 May 2020 - the date of the last SPI on enwiki after which we "consider the AGF bank to be severely overdrawn." (ping RoySmith)
  • Capellawikiphoto - reg on 7 June & blocked 10 June 2020 Com
  • Capellawikiman - reg & blocked on 10 June 2020 Com
All of them CU confirmed on commons.

On enwiki Shahoodu & Capellawikiman have both contributed since the 30/31 May case. I'm just reporting this one, not clerking, Cabayi (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Actually, I havent done anything wrong here. From this account, I have never misused my editing privilege to cause disruption. Its true that the the user Sulshanamoodi and kbfcfan were my two accounts I used as socketpuppet. I did that during my early days without knowing any guidelines and all.. After I got blocked I created this account, learned about wikipedia policies and other stuffs. I firmly says that I have never misused this account for any purpose. Anyone can check that just by going through my edit history. Indeed, I am now one of the major contributor in Indian football related pages, which I always try to improve. When I started editing in commons, I may have done anything against guidelines without propelry reading guideline ( I got blocked for repeatedlt adding licensed images).Once again I swear I have never misused this account on english wikipedia. Ready to face any consequences if find so. And please tell me how can I unblock myself from wikimedia commons;because dont want to end up in any problem like this in future. Shahoodu (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block: The editor has a tendency of disruptive editing on enwiki. Several warnings have been placed on the user talk page which the editor promptly deletes, which is not illegal, so that a cursory glance does not indicate problematic editing. This also includes repeated removal of "Db-disambig" notice I had placed. See Special:MobileDiff/995856786 and prev edits on that page. Vikram Vincent 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: Thanks for the ping. Between the previous investigation, the admission of socking in this report, and the CU findings on commons, indefing Shahoodu and Capellawikiman and tagging as proven to Sulshanamoodhi. Capellawikiphoto hasn't edited on enwiki, so technically not a sock here. Also requesting locks for cross-wiki abuse. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


I am not sure of the CU logs if they are kept, but I would ping RoySmith to take a look at this evidence because to me  Looks like a duck to me.

Kashmorwiki didn't have enough edits when the last SPI was filed here on December 2020, and he became active after earlier socks were blocked.

  • Just like Shahoodu, Kashmorwiki also seems to be a hardcore fan of Kerala Blasters FC as visible from the large additions from these accounts to particular sections on that article.[5][6]
  • These users ask User:John B123 to patrol their new creations,[9][10][11][12] and even writing same requests: "Please Review".[13][14] Then ultimately leaving "The special barnstar" to this user in the same ungrammitical style: Thankyou for..."[15][16]
  • Prefer making request on
    WP:GOCER.[21][22]
  • Asks User:Materialscientist for admin action.[31][32]
  • Same idiosyncratic style of writing:
  • "request other major contributors to tell your opinion regarding this" [33]
  • "familiar with politics to tell your opinion regarding this"[34]
  • Apparently same edit summaries:

There is a lot more for me to add but per

WP:BEANS this much evidence appears to be enough for making a conclusion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

  • Comments Is this some stupid witch-hunt? Half of the notes above don't add up, it's all conjecture if you ask me. I don't see how this block can be enforced. Kashmorwiki has done some good work on wikipedia, so this whole process feels floored. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mz7, RoySmith, seems strange that Chicdat is reverting me here at List of fictional nurses, saying this sockpuppet is "a good-faith editor" despite being blocked as a sockpuppet? Is this yet another sock? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, their latest Wikipedia contributions are in the same vein as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik I am not a sockpuppet of Kashmorwiki, or anyone, for that matter. I created my account independently on February 15, 2020. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 13:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Erik, A cursory examination of their editing interests and some technical indicators makes me think it's quite unlikely that Chicdat is a Kashmorwiki sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - This does indeed seem pretty ducky. I note that the only non-stale account in the archives, Kbfc1234, is going to go stale any day now so @Mz7, Maxim, EdJohnston, Ponyo, and ST47: pinging a few CUs before I even dig into it very deeply. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I'm a little confused by the history here. Kbfc1234 is not currently blocked, but it looks like they were given a "uw-agf-sock" warning while Sulshanamoodhi and Kbfcfan were blocked. I also noticed that at the time Maxim gave an "unlikely" result with the check. Did we ever definitively decide that Kbfc1234 is a sockpuppet of Sulshanamoodhi? Mz7 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mz7, Based on this diff, I'm virtually certain Kbfc1234 is the same person as Kbfcfan. I didn't block them for AGF reasons, i.e. I took them at face value that they lost their password and created a new account. They would still be useful to compare Kashmorwiki to. As I noted originally, I haven't really dug into this too deeply yet. If it wasn't for being on the cusp of going stale, I wouldn't have endorsed yet, but didn't want to miss the window. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the scrap of data that is available for Kbfc1234, the best we could probably conclude is that Kashmorwiki is  Possible to Kbfc1234. Through a bit of serendipity, however, I looked at the CU log for Shahoodu, and I discovered that I myself had previously checked that account for sockpuppetry after I had discovered that the user was blocked for sockpuppetry on the Commons. I looked through some of my personal notes, and I found that I had saved a small amount of data for Shahoodu from when I checked that account. Based on that data, I am prepared to say that Kashmorwiki is  Likely to Shahoodu, and combined with the numerous behavioral similarities listed above, in my view there is sufficient evidence to block Kashmorwiki as a sockpuppet of Shahoodu. Additional information is available for CUs at [47].  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also blocked and tagged Kbfc1234 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mz7, Thank you for going the extra mile on this one. Maybe I'm being petty, but it really irks me when I dig deep into my AGF supply for somebody only to get taken advantage of. Maybe if stuff like that bothers me, I'm just in the wrong line of work? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: Heh, I remember when I first became a CU, KrakatoaKatie told me that working here will surely suck the AGF right out of you. It's been over a year now, and while I've tried to avoid consciously becoming one of those cantankerous, grouchy admins, the jury is still out... Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

ken Tony re-created so many articles which were deleted as per G5 and previously created by Kashmorwiki. For instance Ashalatha (singer). However most of the articles passes GNG but why he re-published only those articles which were previously created by Kashmorwiki? GermanKity (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hello. I'm Ken. I'm shocked to see myself suspected as a sock of Kashmorwiki. I'm not a sock of Kashmorwiki. I began recreating some of the articles created by Kashmorwiki, after making a discussion with

WP:GNG while the time he created them. If anyone look at the way I edit and compare it with the way Kashmorwiki does, you can see a great difference. It's true that Kashmorwiki was a good friend of mine who guided me during my beginnings in Wikipedia. I've put a list of recreated articles with credits given to him in my user page. I'm in Qatar and Kashmorwiki is in India. I request someone to check the IP address of mine and Kashmorwiki someway if you haven't believed what I've said. You can also ask Star Mississippi for further information. I didn't knew I would get a treatment like this for helping Wikipedia expand and making friends with another Wikipedian. Thank you. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 17:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I came to know Kashmorwiki because of our common interest in football. We both are from

Kerala Blasters F.C. He was always a mentor to me. He made me feel home at Wikipedia. As I said earlier, I live in Qatar and he lives in India. I'm not fabricating this sentence. This information is present in my user page for a long time. I edit Qatar footballers articles and edit non-Indian football articles more often. But Kashmorwiki does less contribution to non-Indian football articles. I edit cricket-related articles too but not Kashmorwiki. I'm saying from the bottom of my heart. I'm not a sock of Kashmorwiki. There are many things that differentiates us. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The evidence presented is insufficient. As Ken Tony stated above, his recreation of the articles previously deleted per G5 was done after discussing the matter with Star Mississippi. As no other behavioral evidence has been offered beyond the mere recreation of previous articles, I am closing this case without action. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: For organizational purposes, please merge this case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi, which is the main case page for Kashmorwiki, then close this case without action. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged and closed per Mz7 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla (KBP) created his account on 25 May 2021, just three weeks after the CU-block of Kashmorwiki (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (KW), who had repeatedly engaged in sockpuppetry. KBP was clearly not new: the logs show that he immediately created a user page, user talkpage, and sandbox, installed scripts, and participated in the deletion process. The similarities to Kashmorwiki et al. are striking:

  • Both identify as Malayalis from the Indian state of Kerala. [48] [49].
  • Both create articles about the rather niche topic of Malayalam cinema: compare KW's [50] [51] [52] (and others here) with KBP's [53] [54] [55].
  • Both have similar scripts in their commons.js file: three of KBP's four scripts (Reflinks, RedWarn, and MoveToDraft) were also used by KW. [56][57]
  • KM applied for (inter alia) the pending-changes reviewer [58], AfC reviewer [59], and new page reviewer [60] permissions. KBP has applied for the pending-changes reviewer [61] and AfC reviewer [62] permissions, and has expressed an intent to apply for the new page reviewer permission [63].
  • Just five days after creating his account, KBP was already using a complicated signature [64] with several HTML tags and colors.
  • Both edit from a mobile device (see the tags on [65] and [66])
  • Both are frequent AfD nominators and participants. KW !voted keep 15.4% of the time and delete 79.4% of the time [67]; as of press time, KBP !votes keep 14.5% of the time and delete 85.5% of the time [68]. Their AfD participation pertains mostly (though not exclusively) to India-related topics.
  • They share some unusual linguistic quirks. A sample:
    • KBP uses the rare uncapitalized form "WP:Before" (as opposed to the more normal "WP:BEFORE") [69] [70], which was paradigmatic of KW (e.g. [71] [72] [73] and many more).
    • They are the only two users to have ever used the phrase "nothing were found": compare KW [74] ("Nothing were found on doing a WP:Before") with KBP [75] ("Nothing were found on a
      WP:Before
      ").
    • Both use the typos "definetly" (KW [76][77] and KBP [78]) and "recieved" (KW [79][80][81] and KBP [82] [83])

This should be more than enough to show a connection; I have a few more pieces of information up my sleeve that I can share if necessary. While CU would ordinarily be stale in such a case, Mz7 noted in the last SPI that he had saved some old CU data (on cu-wiki?): if that's still available, technical analysis could be helpful here. Thanks in advance for taking a look at this, and let me know if I can be of any assistance. Regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more language similarities: the phrase "tell your concerns in" has been used by KBP [84] and KW [85], and no one else ever [86]. The rare "written for promotional purpose" makes appearances also: compare KBP [87][88] with KW [89][90][91]. Both also use the (surprisingly) uncommon phrase "thus failing GNG": compare KBP [92] ("she is not having significant coverage thus failing GNG") with KW [93] ("Also does not have any significant coverage thus failing GNG"). The more I look, the more similarities I find. This is arguably in the realm where a behavioral block would be justified even if CU is inconclusive. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2021 (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 - Most of the things listed here fall into my "Well, maybe, but that describes lots of people" bucket. However, the language quirks ("nothing were found" and "Definetly fails") impress me a lot more. I did some searching; "nothing were found" looks to be totally unique to these accounts. I found a bunch of "Definetly fail" and "Definetly fails" results, but still quite rare. I also note that despite neither Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla or Kashmorwiki having New Page Patroller, they both did a lot of moving of articles from mainspace to draft [94][95] -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: Afraid this one is quite  Inconclusive - it's a busy range with a common device. Kashmorwiki is  Stale for comparison ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no single smoking gun, but enough similarities (especially after Extraordinary Writ's update earlier today) to justify a behavioral block. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FanCode. These three accounts are quite similar in terms of their behavior elsewhere too (not going into details, but commonalities in Special:Contributions are apparent). There may be a superior sockmaster. MER-C 11:07, 9 July 2022 (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

26 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

The DavidEfraim account bears many similarities to the Alphaonekannan account: similar creation dates (11 May 2021 vs. 27 Apr. 2021), similar edit-count-inflating gimmicks with redlinks (compare [96] with [97]), and similar sleeper-account-like gaps in activity. Most saliently, both have been engaged in a lot of high-quantity, low-quality AfD !voting (compare 4 AfD noms in 11 mins. with 5 AfD noms in 39 mins.), and both share several language-related quirks: compare [98] ("There is no significant coverage. Violation of BLP") with [99] ("Violation of BLP. No significant coverage") as well as [100] ("No significant coverage. Fails GNG") with [101] ("No significant coverage. Fails GNG"). Clearly something fishy going on here (probably some flavor of UPE); checkuser might be useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting, GN—I remember Sulshanamoodhi (better known as Kashmorwiki) well and even filed one of the reports in that case. I didn't think of it at first, but now that you bring it up I suppose it makes sense: the account creation dates more-or-less line up (DavidEfraim was created a week after Kashmorwiki's block), Kashmorwiki socks have engaged in red-link-related shenanigans similar to the ones I mentioned above (e.g. [102][103]), and the strong interest in draftification/AfC is reminiscent of previous accounts (particularly Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla). I wouldn't have thought of it myself, but if that's what CU points to I'm inclined to believe it. A shame—as I recall, Kashmorwiki was a fairly capable editor, and the revelation that he was engaged in sockpuppetry surprised quite a few people. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm not sure how to explain the similarities when editing red links and voting at AFD. However, I can explain language-related peculiarities. I've studied a lot of AFD conversations to understand how this actually works here. I had taken notes throughout those conversations and copied a few phrases and sentences for later use. I'm not a native speaker of English. I'm not very good at structuring sentences. This was one way to deal with it. I also have a paraphraser app installed in my computer. "There is no significant coverage. Fails GNG." Its not the only term I copied. I've copied a lot. "Unable to find significant coverage". Article does not meet our notability guidelines. These two are also some of the phrases I copied. There are other users who also do mass AFD nominations within a short period of time. Im not the only one. This habit of mine started after I contacted User:Atsme to request her to be my teacher at NPP school. But every available spot was taken. So I decided to train myself. With the help of User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting, I discovered many unreviewed articles that deserved AFD nominations. This is what really happened here. I'm now learning how to use CSD criteria. My final word; I have no connection with this sock. Checkuser should unveil the truth. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DavidEfraim, I'm curious to know: how did you find this page? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amar Jit Singh Sandhu. There I saw a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man which accuses an user participated in that AFD for sockpuppetry. From there I came to the main SPI page. When I was going through the rows marked in yellow, I happened to see this which is at the last. DavidEfraim (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So within just a few hours of my filing, you just happened to see an AfD, just happened to click on an SPI mentioned there, just happened to navigate to the main SPI page, and just happened to click through a dozen different SPIs listed there until you just happened to find the one where you were mentioned? I don't think so—clearly you already had this page watchlisted, and only a sockpuppet would have a reason for doing that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the things you said above is true except the part Im a sock. Im a regular visitor of several AFD discussions. Thats how I happened to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amar Jit Singh Sandhu at the first place. I would like to ask one question. Am I not allowed to know what is going on within Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? Imagine my name has not came up here. With some means you found that I went through some SPI cases through the above process. So you would say Im a sockpuppet of somebody? What I have said is not something that should never happen. It is my nature to learn something new when I see it. If Wikipedia:New pages patrol took me to User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting and prompted to make mass AFD nominations. This AFD link took me to here. If I hadn't seen that link, I probably wouldn't have came here. DavidEfraim (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Confirmed sock Kashmorwiki moved Aniyan Midhun to mainspace a day after draft creation by Dhananjaydhanu246. Editing patterns of Dhananjaydhanu246 and Abdul.Aboobacker are both promotional. Dhananjaydhanu246 also has a declared COI at Nithya Mammen, created by sockpuppeteer Jehowahyereh. Are Jehowahyereh and Sulshanamoodhi related? Is it all one big paid editing ring? Who's sock, really, is Dhananjaydhanu246? All this, and more, you can find out on today's exciting episode of SPI: Miami. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

More evidence: [104][105], came after I gave COI notice to the former. Abdul.Aboobacker has also blown up his cover by saying the rivals PR team is been attacking this wiki page believing it's their competitor.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this SPI should have been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. After comparing the edits, I think Jehowahyereh is the sockmaster here. The editing pattern shows that Kashmorwiki's socks were not engaged in UPE editing. Their focus was on AFC and AFD. They had a huge participation in AFD discussions. Aniyan Midhun could have been one among their many AFC acceptance. I can't find any other connection here other than Kashmorwiki accepting this draft. I assume this is just a coincidence. There are no overlaps and no similarities in the editing pattern between Kashmorwiki's socks or Jehowahyereh's socks.
But Jehowahyereh is clearly a UPE editor. The articles that they and their socks created are the best examples. The editing pattern of Jehowahyereh and Dhananjaydhanu246 looks exactly the looks the same. Nithya Mammen was created by Jehowahyereh on which Dhananjaydhanu246 declared COI. Dhananjaydhanu246 went to sleep after July 2021. They came back in May 2023 to create another UPE article Drishya Raghunath.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Inconclusive RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure none of these users are Sulshanamoodhi: as the IP notes, Kashmorwiki made a large number of constructive and (apparently) non-UPE AfC reviews before he was blocked, so his involvement here seems to be coïncidence. (These accounts have very little in common with Kashmorwiki behaviorally.) I'm not quite convinced that anyone here is Jehowahyereh, but I haven't looked in great detail, so anyone is welcome to make a report at that SPI if desired. That said, since none of these accounts have edited in the last month, it might make more sense to wait to see if any of them resume editing and, if they do, just block them for UPE. Closing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulshanamoodhi/Archive&oldid=1165851802"