Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LucrativeOffer/Archive
LucrativeOffer
- LucrativeOffer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 October 2021
editSuspected sockpuppets
edit- Za-ari-masen (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (
Clerk note: original case name) - LucrativeOffer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Accounts created around the same time with Za-ari-masen on 22 May 2014, and LucrativeOffer on 2 June 2014.
Za-ari-masen and LucrativeOffer have been removing mention of an Indian city on Asia and replacing it with "Chittagong".[1][2]
In fact, both have removed mention of "Kolkata" and replaced with "Chittagong" on infobox of Asia.[3][4] They mention on edit summary that they are adding "Dubai" but never mention their addition of "Chittagong" on infobox.[5][6]
The listed IPs started to edit war on Bakarkhani,[7][8] restoring same edits as Za-ari-masen.[9]
After Bakarkhani got protected, LucrativeOffer, having never edited the page before, joins to restore the IP's edits with a dubious edit summary.[10]
LucrativeOffer then starts edit warring at Bakarkhani over same content just like Za-ari-masen used to do.[11][12][13][14]
Za-ari-masen got blocked two times for edit warring on Bakarkhani. Once for a week and once for 61 days as the block log shows.[15] And today, LucrativeOffer has made 6 reverts on this same page as described on ANEW report filed by me.
Za-ari-masen somehow shows up to file a retaliatory report against me when I haven't even violated 3RR.
Both LucrativeOffer and Za-ari-masen appear to be evading the argument by WP:WIKILAWYERING on technical aspects of the actions on Wikipedia. LucrativeOffer claims that reverts are "not reverts" if they don't "have tags like "Undo" or "Manual revert"",[16] and Za-ari-masen claiming that it is not a "valid warning" if it "doesn't show any link to WP:EW or WP:3RR".[17]
It seems clear that logged out editing in violation of WP:EVADE is at least obvious here. LucrativeOffer could be Za-ari-masen's sock but that will have to be confirmed by a CU. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments by other users
editAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
It is quite appalling the way Aman.kumar.goel tries to battle everyone who opposes their POV and now literally asking checkusers to fish. I'm not blocked from any article neither sanctioned, why would I create another account to edit Bakarkhani or edit without logging in? Looking at the geolocation of the IPs made me laugh.
Bakarkhani is one of the most popular food items in Dhaka and in Bangladesh, there are in fact popular legends associated with this bread and many Bangladeshis would want to see these things correctly mentioned in the article. So everyone inserting Dhaka in the lead becomes my sock?
You have inserted a lot of diffs but the versions that I edited and those edited by LcurativeOffer surely don't match. I relied only on the source from Banglapedia but LucrativeOffer added a bunch of sources from different news agencies which seem to be better edits than mine. And going with their contributions, they clearly have different interests than me.
Chittagong is the second largest city in Bangladesh. I'm sure it's not only us, naturally there must be several others who wanted to see and had tried to insert mention of Chittagong in the Asia article. Now all of them are my socks? Here as well, the diffs don't match. LucrativeOffer in their edit replaces Lahore and Kolkata with Chittagong, Dubai and Ho Chi Minh City. In one of my edits, I replaced Kolkata with Chittagong and on the other, replaced Davao, Incheon and Kolkata with Riyadh, Chittagong, Doha and Dubai. My rationale was that those were minor cities and should be replaced with the latter major cities. How does it imply sockpuppetry? There are numerous users on that article adding/removing cities like this, one just needs to check the article history.
And it's not the first time I have reported Aman.kumar.goel for administrative intervention, you have been reported several times by me before. What makes you think you will continuously edit war and still get away with it? Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit- Very thin. The users' only major interaction in 7 years is their present and fleeting conflict with the reporter on Bakarkhani.
Check declined by a checkuser ST47 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC) 
Clerk assistance requested: - Please move to LucrativeOffer and close with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)- Moved case. Closing per above. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
17 November 2024
editSuspected sockpuppets
edit- Ahammed Saad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools
[18], [19]. From recent contributions, it appears that this account is typically used to edit controversial topics in other articles. C⚛smLearner 💬🔬 20:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Comments by other users
edit- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- This is very much a WP:BATTLEGROUND SPI case by the OP. He is engaged in a POV/content dispute at 2024 Chittagong unrest with Ahammed Saad and me and instead of discussing, he has filed a SPI case against the two editors he is in dispute with. I would a request a strong reprimand against the OP before closing the case. LucrativeOffer (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Closing without action. No evidence of socking has been provided and two accounts disagreeing with an editor is not evidence of socking. @CosmLearner: Please follow dispute resolution mechanisms in the future instead of reporting people for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
