Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Buddhakahika


Buddhakahika

26 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


All have a history of editing the same Buddhist- and Hindu-related articles, and all have edited Buddhist Brahmins, which was started by Buddhakahika. Buddhakahika and Truth to be known 888 have made very similar edits here and here. Several have also edited Karma: The New Revolution, which was also created by Buddhakahika. That I have nominated for deletion as non-notable and as PR for the Zenji Museum and for its founder Zen Acharya. Truth be known 888 has added references to both the museum and its founder here and BuddhistPHD has added references to the Zenji Museum in multiple places (such as here or here). The Museum seems to exist only on the net, so I have cut many of those references. Buddhist PHD has created a page Nio Zen that I have tagged as original research, which makes unfounded assertions about Nio being based in Shaolin and other earlier traditions, which Buddhakahika has made as well. (Note that one of the above edits was reverted as whitewashing.) I suspect that, while it does not seem that any of these users have been warned for specific disruptive behavior (although some of their edits have been reverted as original research or unsourced), they all seem to be editing from the same viewpoint, one that is likely related to that of the Zenji Museum and its founder. The use of multiple accounts thus seems to be used to create the illusion of support for a minority position, or to advertise a particular religion. Michitaro (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Michitaro (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

It's been months since most of these accounts have edited. For the two that are active, I see no overlap in edits that would indicate a violation of our multiple accounts policy. Can you show any current disruption and/or socking? TNXMan 14:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true some of the older accounts are no longer being used, so it is hard to tell whether the newer ones are just different people with the exact same ideas or new accounts by the same person. The two current ones, BuddhistPHD and Truth be known 888, both have edited Vajrapani, Buddhist Brahmins, and Karma: The New Revolution, both in ways that either insert spurious information (about the Zenji Museum) or cut reliably sourced information. Whether one considers it proof of disruption or not, other editors have found problems with the latter article (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karma:_The_New_Revolution) and with the article BuddhistPHD just created (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Nio_Zen). Michitaro (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might note that a new user, Wikipolice911 (talk • contribs), has suddenly appeared on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karma:_The_New_Revolution to defend the film. If this is the same person as the above sockpuppeteer, then it only underlines how this user uses multiple accounts to create the impression of wide support for his/her positions. Michitaro (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, a new editor, Factoid 111, has appeared to revive the Niō Zen article, which had been reduced to a stub by consensus. The position advocated by the edits (about Dharmaphala) is that advocated by the above suspected sockpuppeteer and sockpuppets. Michitaro (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to keep on adding comments, but the user Truth be known 888 has also appeared on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karma:_The_New_Revolution may have inadvertently admitted he/she is Buddhakahika by stating that Karma: The New Revolution is "my article": [1]. I worry that these multiple accounts are being used to influence an AfD. Michitaro (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is the final comment I need to make, but Buddhakahika has become active again, re-editing Karma: The New Revolution and voting on its AfD. If Buddhakahika, Truth be known 888, and Wikipolice911 are all the same person, there clearly is an effort to disrupt an AfD which fits WP:ILLEGIT. Michitaro (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed the following are the same:

17 September 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Contributing to exactly the same dubious articles, mostly involving synthesis/OR of obscure sources. Consistently citing sources in the same idiosyncratic way and refusing to discuss. Has absolutely no intent on collaborating, as previously. Some diffs will follow shortly. Sitush (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been indef'd following ANI report but likelihood of socking now seems high. I'd like this to be confirmed because a lot of the article creations are simply absurd coatracking and we should be deleting more or less everything that they have originated. - Sitush (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the similarly-targeted articles, please not the continued and consistent idiosyncratic citation style, eg: this from a prior sock cf. this from the new one. Practically every citation by this person takes the same form, eg: this from another of their socks. - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Confirmed, but   Stale to all previous socks:
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Blocked and tagged the set per the behavioral evidence above linking to prior accounts. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 September 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Similar interest in inserting information regarding saints, gurus and other religious figures
  • Similar mixture of sourced and unsourced additions
  • Similar idiosyncratic citation style - sock vs (for example) this from a prior sock and this from another prior sock
  • Created soon after previous accounts were blocked.

There were others in the drawer on the last couple of occasions, so a checkuser is desirable. Sitush (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


22 September 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Has made an inappropriate edit to talk page. Please revoke. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 October 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

New account created not longer after prior sweep and block. Same interest in Hindu saints, same idiosyncratic referencing style, same use of tabular form, minimal sourcing and See also articles - all at List of Vaishya Hindu saints. Previous CUs have found multiple socks. Sitush (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Takshak Nag whose first edit was to create an article created first by Rockin It Loud (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC) (signing hours later, where's the bot?)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • The following accounts are   Confirmed to each other and some sockpuppets in the archive:

  Administrator note Blocked and tagged, marking for close now. —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreated List of Vaishya Hindu saints which had been created before twice before by socks of Buddhakahika. Due to the large number of socks I'm asking for a sleeper check. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Some notes:

Abecedare (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP recently used is 111.93.166.186 (talk). These various IPs geolocate across different continents - presumably some sort of proxying? - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
09 November 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreation of List of Adivasi Hindu saints. Check for sleepers please. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
14 November 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked as obvious socks due to article recreations. Can we have a check for sleepers please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
22 November 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Latest obvious incarnation creating another list of low caste Hindu saints article. I assume that any admin familiar with previous socks could block under WP:DUCK, but CU would be useful to check for sleeper accounts. Btw, can we consider this user as banned by now,or is a formal community process needed ? Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Obvious sock, also editing as 136.159.160.65 (talk · contribs). Our banning policy at WP:BAN allows community bans by discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI, ArbCom bans and Admin bans in certain topic areas where there are restrictions. Also, "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" Quoting that because I didn't remember that one! I deleted the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. I asked about the "ban" only to know whether articles created by Maleabroad/Buddhakahika socks could be tagged with WP:CSD#G5. Given the last bit of your quote from the policy page, I think that would apply. Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just added The Emerald Warrior (talk · contribs) - blatantly obvious recreation of an article. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
09 December 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

The usual mass reinstatement of their dodgy content at List of Shudra Hindu saints. We'll need a CU for sleepers, sorry. Sitush (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mailer diablo:, there are only three attempts to get their way, all on the same article and in the space of a few hours. But the archives for this master have umpteen diffs demonstrating a tendentious reinstatement of this and similar material across a variety of articles, all deploying the same idiosyncratic citation style etc. Surely that is enough to substantiate? The diffs are effectively the three edits made by this account. As the archives also show, this master not infrequently has other socks in the drawer. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

Somebody must take a look at this one, also this guy Ora7 is him! Because he uploaded a image which was uploaded by Blolay, in Hinduism.. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the connection here. Ora7 seems mostly to have been editing Albania-related articles, not ones related to Hinduism and other Indic religions. Am I missing something obvious? - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just thought that Buddhakahika and Rajputbhatti are same thing. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious sock, eg [2] by a confirmed sock, and Neotruther's edit here. Needs a check for sleepers as this guy is not going to quit. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dougweller has it right. Here's another such example: this change by Rockin It Loud, a confirmed sock, added lots of material including this quirky formulation: "even in ancient times such Raikva did with his pupil Janasruti Pautrayana." The exact same formulation appears in this change by Neo-Truther. It also appears in a blog post dated September 2011: "Influential Sudra", so we can see it was copied and pasted into Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, folks. I've now reverted every edit made by those listed below following NF's additional finds. Except for those edits that had already been reverted by others. It seems to me that the sock is spreading their coverage a bit, although they're still creating articles about Hindu saints and adding redlinked, pov-y categories. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
NativeForeigner Talk 01:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26 April 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

I'm wary of providing details because of WP:BEANS. They're back making obscure, usually highly POV contributions to articles about Indian religions, as has been their wont using numerous other identities in the past. I'm happy to divulge the logic by email but hopefully a quick glance at, say,. this and this will suffice. Note the style, per WP:DUCK. Checkuser will be required because they often have several accounts on the go. Sitush (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Historical Vedic religion: Rockin It Loud [3] Lord Senapati [4]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhakahika created Buddhists born to Brahmin families (also heavily edited by another sock, Rockin It Loud. This was deleted March 16th and Senapati recreated a virtually identical version at Buddhist Brahmins today. Please check for sleepers. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See edits to Gorakshanath by Lord Senapati[5] and by User;Tākatnāth[6], another sock. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK, Recreation of same content with a slightly different page title see recent creation, previous page (now a redirect) Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Obvious sock is obvious: the style is identical and if anyone investigating wishes to email me then I'll explain why. Please note that there have been suggestions in the past that the sockmaster in this case is not in fact the oldest account - this person has been repetitively disruptive over a prolonged period, in large part recreating the same rubbish hobbyhorse articles etc. Maybe now is the time to salt some of those.

A CU sweep will be needed. They usually have sleepers knocking around. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhakahika (talk · contribs) is the same person and we have archived stuff at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, King. @Salvio giuliano: you mention God's Saint (talk · contribs), which caused me to look at their contribution history. From that, I noticed the contributions of Divakar Warrior (talk · contribs) and they bear a similarly remarkable resemblance to the master, both in style and subject matter. Is that one too old to check? - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, @Salvio giuliano:. Hopefully, the clerks will accept that this is a duck case. My offer of off-wiki explanations stands but just looking at the various articles created by the user accounts mentioned in this report should demonstrate the similarities in style (esp. refs) and subject. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
09 September 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


[7] same as edits that were removed by Abecedare [8]. He used to get caught after editing List of Shudra Hindu saints-[9],[10] so he created List of Şudra Hindu saints. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard to acknowledge that this user has been editing for so long with this new sock account. He probably got many accounts, I don't know when did CU investigation took place last time as suspected socks were blocked quickly. CU is requested. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

  • Agree, this is a duck. Similar idiosyncratic citation style, similar creation of articles about alleged crossover between Hinduism and other religions, similar creation of articles about Hindu ethics. A CU may produce a few in the drawer but this account itself can be blocked without one and indeed should be because they tend to be quite prolific when they get going. - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bladesmulti, one reason they have not been picked up sooner is because they've changed their tactic regardings recreations of articles reliant on very idiosyncratic synthesis of sources etc, which have been discussed at WT:INB in the past. What they've done this time is recreate using slightly different articles titles, which means they were missed by those of us who were watching previously-deleted titles. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • Yoddhānāth blocked and tagged, I could find no obvious socks (it's possible there were a couple of sleepers, but the range is trafficked and the user agent common, so the risk of a false positive was high; therefore, I did not block). Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10 September 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Creation of Jain Brahmān, an article previously created as Jain Brahmins by another sock of this account. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

And Buddhist Brahman, deleted yesterday under title of Buddhist Brahmans. Articles deleted, editor blocked but not tagged yet. We might need another CU. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Same POV-pushing. This edit reminded me of Rockin it loud aka Buddhakahika: changing "historical Vedic religion" into "Vedic Hinduism". Also editing Gorakshanath, just like Lord Senapati. @Bladesmulti: @Sitush: do you recognise his style here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I have this page on my watchlist, that's how I came here, I have called Sitush[11] too.
He is Buddhakahika because he is creating duplicate pages, e.g. Hindu warrior and monarch saints, Vaishya Hindu Saints. He creates his own pages with duplicate titles so that you cannot catch him. Caught on List of Shudra Hindu saints[12]-[13] before, so he made List of Sudr Hindu saints.[14] Bladesmulti (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed status to CUrequest. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duck quacking loudly. This is the same guy because of his unique style of including verses and quotes, and because of his overarching intent to show that the supposedly low castes have high attainment. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Sikh Bráhman. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dev Monk, yep. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: - that's a bit of a mess above, so I hope you don't mind the ping. I've got a fair amount of experience in dealing with socks of Buddhakahika and, regardless of inconclusive CU results etc, the accounts listed above are behavioural matches. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of cleaning up to do. My suggestion to anyone watching is to ABF once the case is closed: if you can revert what the blocked/tagged accounts have done then do so because they often misrepresent sources (and those are often offline) in an attempt to abuse our trust. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not for Buddhakahika. But it is typical that three newbies turn up wuthin a month with the same specific interest in the Sarasvati River and Michel Danino. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Verdeev and Tapasya Dev are   Confirmed as the same editor. Verdeev seems to have returned to editing after Tapasya Dev was given a DS alert. Their relationship to Buddhakahika will have to be determined by behavioral evidence. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I did not. I simply amended the case status based on Doug's results. The mess of text in the section above didn't make it very clear what was going on and I failed to see the new request; my bad for not being more thorough. That said Siddhdev (talk · contribs) is   Stale, Dev Monk (talk · contribs) is   Confirmed as being the same editor as Tapasya Dev, and Omshanthi (talk · contribs) is   Inconclusive as they appear to be using proxies. Best, Tiptoety talk
  •   Additional information needed I've blocked most of the accounts listed here based upon the behavioral evidence. @Joshua Jonathan: Can you provide additional diffs that establishes the behavioral link of Nisha rawat, BodduLokesh, and JaguarEyes to the current or past accounts? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 19:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately without any evidence that ties the accounts together, I won't be able to act upon your request. If there's more conclusive proof please reopen the case with the new information. As the remaining accounts have been blocked, I'm going to close this case now. Mike V • Talk 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31 March 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Duck. Recreating pages previously deleted, with slightly different titles in yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny. Eg: see List of Shudra Hindu saints cf List of Šudra Hindu saints. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Abecedare has a point. Even though it is a duck, the master has a history of creating sleepers. A CU sweep would probably be useful. Apologies for not saying so in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31 May 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

For the record, previous titles in this ongoing series include: List of Dalit Hindu saints, List of Adivasi Hindu saints, List of Vaishya Hindu saints, Dalit saints of Hinduism, List of Shudra Hindu saints, List of Atavika Hindu saints, List of Şudra Hindu saints, Hindu warrior and monarch saints, Vaishya Hindu Saints, List of Sudr Hindu saints, Sikh Bráhman, Jain Brāhman, Buddhist Bráhman, List of Šudra Hindu saints. And that's just a partial list. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
4 June 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


(Re)created Buddhist Bråhmans, Sikh Bråhman, Jain Bråhmans, Sudra Hindu saints.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Brâhmans and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Buddhist Brâhmans. JimRenge (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
edit

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

  • A total duck case: recreated seven articles (under new titles), at least some of which used identical wording to earlier sockpuppets' versions, and also showed several other characteristics of this sockpuppeteer. I have blocked the account, but in view of the extensive sockpuppet history, I am asking for a CheckUser in case of sleepers or other accounts that have not yet been noticed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • I'm reluctantly granting the CU request. The last case found no sleepers, and an "extensive sockpuppet history" in and of itself doesn't warrant a sleeper check on a duck case.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11 June 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreated Brāhman Buddhists, Brāhman Jains, Vanavasi Hindu sants, Harijan Hindu sants, Sudra Hindu sants.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Brâhmans. This is an obvious duck. JimRenge (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Yep, it is a duck. Rapid recreation of their usual content - one edit per article. I've tagged the articles per CSD G5. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 July 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreations of similar articles/lists as the master. Might need a CU sweep. Sitush (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argh: master is Buddhakahika (talk · contribs) - my typo using Twinkle, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit difficult for a mere mortal to give diffs when practically everything ever done by the socks etc is deleted as CSD G5. Maybe check the previously deleted articles with the current batch? The only evidence I could give relates to a stylistic idiosyncracy and I'm not prepared to do that here per BEANS.

As for CU, well, there have been plenty of sleepers in the past, although admittedly none at the time of the last couple of reports: that's your call, you've made it, and time will tell if it was correct. As my recent contribution history shows, I'm losing interest in this entire thing anyway, so my apologies for any unintended snarkiness. - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Diffs such as this show the hand of Buddhakahika who has always put forward the idea that lower caste Indians have contributed saints. The format of the article is Buddhakahika's usual style, with a table of saints. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • Everyone keeps asking for a sleeper check, and, frankly, I don't see why, so I'm declining the request. Also, Sitush, diffs are required, at least one from the new account and one from the master or confirmed sock. Please don't assume a clerk is familiar with this master. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Administrator note Blocked and tagged per behavioral evidence. —SpacemanSpiff 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Doug Weller talk 13:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed   Blocked and tagged Doug Weller talk 13:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Behavioral evidence shows they are Buddhakahika socks, CU ties them together. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, now he is. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreated Hindu Sudra sants as Sǔdra Hindu saints with the same content. See deleted contributions or this - MrX 01:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

I have reinstated the CSD G5 at Sǔdra Hindu saints per IAR. There seems to be some confusion about the tagging, which was added, removed, added again, removed again etc but the creator is clearly Buddhakahika via this sock account. These have been routinely accepted as G5 even before the SPI has completed - it is WP:DUCK stuff. I do wish we would continue to salt their creations as well as delete them - that's what was happening at one point. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

CU confirms identical with blocked socks User:Crimson Zoom and User:Red Daredevil, behavioral evidence obvious link with puppetmaster. Blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


[a] Same editing style: 1, 2;

[b] Same citation style: 3, 4;
(compare, for example, exactly the same "P. 18 Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture By D. R. Bhandarkar " by both users: 5 and 6)

[c] working on the same article Asceticism, without response to questions on Talk:Asceticism;

[d] both relatively new accounts, with both active with massive Copyvio, see blanked-1 by @Kautilya3 and @Diannaa and blanked-2 by @RegentsPark and @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi in June 2016. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

15 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

DUCK sock. Compare citation styles, interest in Buddhism & deployment of obscure sources or email me per WP:BEANS. CU will be needed yet again for sleepers. Sitush (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Additional information needed - @Sitush: 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) 09:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The citation style is pure Buddhakahika and very much a tell, while the interest in Indic religions using obscure sources also follows the pattern. I may be jumping the gun here but this guy causes havoc once he gets going. See this for an example of both. Sitush (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed along with I'm a ninja, I'm a hoodie ninja (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03 September 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


[1] Asurasena has been SPI'ed before and blocked. [2] Both accounts have disrupted the same article Asura. Other socks of @Buddhakahika and the new account have disrupted Asceticism in the same way (see SPI archive of @Buddhakahika dated 13 July 2016, @Rugged Player etc). [3] Both have re-added the same content and cites, specifically 1, 2; for example, "Vrtra had practiced penance for 60,000 years." etc [4] May be WP:Duck. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

11 September 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Restoring content added by previous socks, and attacking Sitush. bonadea contributions talk 21:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

20 November 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Quack, quack; quack quack. Already blocked, figured it'd be nice to have a CU for sleepers, since his history shows he makes them in batches. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

26 November 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Really Duck-y username and edit on Physical characteristics of the Buddha, a sock target at one point in the past. Sro23 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

03 January 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

WP:DUCK: Star Wars-themed username, editing on Indian subjects (Kalash people). Requesting CU due to prolific socking and use of sleepers. GABgab 23:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Not just edits to Indian topics, but simultaneously bad and precocious edits. Blocked on behavioral evidence, but yeah, we need a CU for sleepers. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

01 April 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Edits (edit-wars) at Zenji Nio, which was previously done by Buddhakahika. See User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Zenji Acharya, SPI-archive, and WikiProject Japan Archive. Also, strong similarity in usernames: "BuddhistPHD" versus "Professoremeritus." User:Dharmapress created the Zenji Nio page; User:Drenrique contributed substantially to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also contemplatingzenacharya for the various aliases "Zenji Nio" has been using ("Zenji Acharya," "Zen Duke"); Niō Zen, created by User:BuddhistPHD, a sock of Buddhakahika; and this quote from zenji.org:
"The sutras make it clear that when the Lord Buddha returns as Maitreya, He will be born to a Brahmin Buddhist family. Above all, in the Lotus Sutra is says that paramparo or lineage based schooling is the highest schooling and that all Heavenly Buddhas have Bharadwaj Gotra which is the exact same gotra of Zenji's lineage! Therefore, Zenji's responsibility and role as a Brahmin-Buddhist Acharya is of incalculable significance (the term Acharya itself was originally for the exclusive use of Zenji's lineage - a tradition that India upholds to this day). (Inset - Zenji being ordained as a Brahmin where he shaves his head and gives up his social identity for the Dharma)."
Need I say more? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes: User:Artbitration diff. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats at Talk:Zenji Nio. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

My involvement with Wikipedia has been less than a year. Initially I forgot my password and so made a new account as it always prompts us to do that. I am unaware as to how that goes against the rules. I have contributed to several articles in good faith. I have not used 2 accounts at the same time, best to my knowledge Professoremeritus (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

Professoremeritus is   Possible. The other two accounts are   Stale. Indeed, I'm not sure why accounts that haven't edited for at least six months are even listed, but I'll leave the entire disposition of this report to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. @Bbb23:, Artbitration seems to be a possible sock, and if not, a meatpuppet. What do you think? Doug Weller talk 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Did you want me to run a check, even though the account is already blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{re|Bbb23)) Yes, I'd like a second opinion. CU shows that there's some relationship. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Doug Weller talk 16:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artbitration is very   Likely to previously blocked socks. Technically, they are   Possible to Professoremeritus (I'm assuming your "some relationship", Doug, refers to that). Based on this intersection, I would up my previous finding of Professoremeritus to at least   Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Doug, if you want more technical details you may not be aware of, please e-mail me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged Artbitration, closing. GABgab 14:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The two accounts were created within minutes of each other, and both went straight to Kalash people, removing every mention of Hinduism, Dardic origin etc, replacing it with claims about the Kalash people decending from Alexander the Great's soldiers, having an own Kalash religion etc etc (History Ph.D Source, Ajin Nagayi) just like countless previous socks of Buddhakahika have done. The username History Ph.D Source also matches multiple previous socks with names including PhD and/or professor. Requesting CU since there might be sleepers and/or socks that have been active recently but no longer are (judging by the page-history a number of throw-away accounts have been used on the article over the past couple of months...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There's a confusing overlap between Najaf ali bhayo and Buddhakahika on this article, User:Mountaineer A1 was CU-blocked as a sock of Najaf ali bhayo and User:Punchlinegag was CU-blocked as a sock of Buddhakahika, yet their edits are almost identical, making the exact same claims (Mountaineer A1, Punchlinegag). So there's no way for me to know if these socks should be reported as Buddhakahika-socks or Najaf-socks, but I chose this SPI since the edits don't have a real Najafy feel to them... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

07 March 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

13 March 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Restoring a poorly-sourced 2015 version of the article Ravana:

utcursch | talk 20:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may be related to Buddhakahika, one of whose socks similarly restored a previous version of the article. utcursch | talk 20:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

31 March 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Brahmin-focus diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff; restoration of Rockin It Loud-content diff (this edit restored an older version of that page; see history. Rockin' Rocket restored 24,325 kb; last version was 20,352 kb). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed + Enterprise Explorationist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to each other and to other socks. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01 April 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Same edits at Lingayatism diff diff as User:Rockin' Rocket diff.[ Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

15 April 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Adding category "Brahmins" to articles without any source to support.
1) In Nagarjuna article

2) In Shantideva article

3) In Mahākāśyapa article

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed + Linkin Parker Spidey (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Sprocket Crocket was blocked on 16 April after inserting a lot of inappropriate categories to Buddhist-related biographies, mostly involving adding Category:Brahmins. This account began editing on 19 April in the same style in terms of adding the wrong cats. Sitush (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aware of BEANS but please note this style as is well documented in the SPI archive. WP:DUCK. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

22 June 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Multiple socks edit warring to revert the article Mahabali to a version preferred by accounts already blocked as socks of Buddhakahika. Deli nk (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed:

  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Obvious editing pattern and similar usernames to two recently blocked socks: Dr. Indologist and On-Target ReseArcher. – Uanfala (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

31 January 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Repeated blanking at Kalash people [23], [24], a few days after User:Apparatus Electric was blocked for same [25]. Re-creation of Category:Claimants of Hellenic ancestry [26], speedied db-g5 last April. Flapjacktastic (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

15 February 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


the usual Brahmin-focussed edits, including Jain Brahman and Buddhist Brahman. See diff, User talk:Structure of sentences#Speedy deletion nomination of Buddhist Brahmans, [[User talk:Structure of sentences#Speedy deletion nomination of Jain Brahmans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit


15 February 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit 


Doug Weller talk 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

Blocked as an obvious sock.   Confirmed as identical to User:247 Forever, User:Apparatus Electric (blocked as an obvious sock earlier by User:Favonian) and User:Baliraja. I've blocked Structure of Sentences and Baliraja but leaving tagging to clerks to sort. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


dif] diff Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: okay; but why not? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: thanks; I see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • @Joshua Jonathan: I'm not a template expert, but if I knew of a way to remove that option ("expressed a concern") from the template, I would do it in a flash. Why should anyone put that on a userpage? First, nothing prevents the user from legitimately removing it. Second, you are filing a report about the user, so a determination will be made if the user (a) is a sock and (b) if they should be tagged. Finally, it transforms a red link it into a blue link, which subtly sends a signal, at least to someone like me, so I automatically click on the link and see, oh, that blasted thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

U:Composer Compiler and U:The Replenisher are new accounts focused on the addition of categories to articles on tribes, Hinduists, Buddhists etc. Both accounts have received warnings because their activities appear to be disruptive [27], [28].

  • The Replenisher starts rapidly adding inappropriate categories to articles (reverted by other editors as inappropriate) on 20:10, 3 June 2019 until 21:37, 3 June 2019 [29]. Composer Compiler continues with the same pattern of edits 21:41, 3 June 2019. [30].
  • The Replenisher creates the category "Totemism" (this category is being considered for deletion) 20:31 [31], Composer Compiler adds this category 21:50 [32]. The Replenisher creates the categories Tribes of Kashmir [33] and Vanara tribe [34], about 2 hours later these categories are added to Vidyadhara by Composer Compiler [35].

Please ping me if you need more evidence. JimRenge (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC) supplemented JimRenge (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editing pattern and tempo suggests that U:Composer Compiler and U:The Replenisher are socks of Buddhakahika ([[36]]). Confirmed Buddhakahika socks/throw-away accounts U:Sprocket Crocket, U:I'm The Invincible Man, and U:ResearcherAtWork show the same editing pattern [37], [38], [39]. U:Utcursch has already suspected U:Composer Compiler as a sock of User:They call me Mr. Farenheit (Buddhakahika [40], [41]) [42]. Please consider to merge this SPI with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika. JimRenge (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Add Pioneerist: created at the same date, editing the same kind of articles, at the same time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed + Clan Member (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to Buddhakahika (talk · contribs · count).   Blocked and tagged.   Clerk assistance requested: Please merge into Buddhakahika.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive&oldid=1142508435"