Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RaviC: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 48: Line 48:


The meat puppetry also sets in the possibility that each of the socks are using separate devices and IP addresses from the master. A CU is necessary but a negative result on CU does not preclude the possibility of sock puppetry. I strongly advocate a study of the behaviour here too. [[User:Nauriya|Nauriya]] ([[User talk:Nauriya|talk]]) 03:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The meat puppetry also sets in the possibility that each of the socks are using separate devices and IP addresses from the master. A CU is necessary but a negative result on CU does not preclude the possibility of sock puppetry. I strongly advocate a study of the behaviour here too. [[User:Nauriya|Nauriya]] ([[User talk:Nauriya|talk]]) 03:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

*Noting here that Orientls has finally, after a mysterious absence, decided to come and defend himself at his arbitration case. This development comes after the filing of this SPI report, where Sdmarathe's lawyering for the absent Orientls was noted.


====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
====<big>Comments by other users</big>====

Revision as of 11:25, 9 July 2018

RaviC

RaviC (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RaviC/Archive.

09 July 2018

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

I have concluded after my search that all three accounts are linked. RaviC (registered on 1 July 2008) is the master and the other two, Sdmarathe and Orientls, are his sleeper accounts.

Sdmarathe[1] registered in the same year as RaviC[2] but despite 9 years since registration only has 426 edits. Orientls registered in 2014 but only has 196 edits.[3]

Sdmarathe-Orientls connection
  • Both these low-level activity accounts, Sdmarathe and Orientls, share a hostile tone, especially against the same users
  • And while Orientls is absent/nowhere to be seen, its Sdmarathe who is going to all the trouble of defending him at his arbitration case.[13][14]
  • There was more identical behaviour across several spaces. Both voted delete on these two AFDs.[16][17], had the same POV regarding infobox results on Talk:Kargil War.[18] and more.
These sleeper accounts exist to support each other.
RaviC-Orientls connection

While Sdmarathe is busy wikilawyering for the absent Orientls, RaviC frantically encourages a checkuser to investigate NadirAli, the filer of the arbitration case against Orientls.[19]. The same RaviC had earlier joined Orientls in aggressively demanding that TurboCop disclose their previous editing activity.[20] The hostile tone of the two accounts was the same and no other user prior to these two had any interest in TurboCop's previous editing history. This hostility degenerated into accusing TurbCop of being a sock[21] of a deceased user,[22] Faizan.

RaviC-Sdmarathe connection

RaviC and Sdmarathe each had no pre June history on Talk:Kargil War [23][24] but both appeared to support a change of the infobox result to Indian victory. Recently, RaviC jumped in to defend Sdmarathe in a different SPI case[25].  

RaviC-IP connection

This IP[26] - geolocation in India[27]- jumps in after Bbb23 closed the first SPI in which RaviC and My Lord had earlier collected together. My Lord later reverted that IP. The only other user in the SPI until then, besides My Lord, had been RaviC.[28]

This suggests that RaviC used this IP and also had advance knowledge of the second SPI which My Lord was going to file. This proves there is also off-wiki collusion between these users. We can also see from this[29] that one of the socks, Orientls, copy pasted a botched version of the entire Talk:Regional power which suggests he did that edit, containing his own scripted reply to another user, for somebody else.

The meat puppetry also sets in the possibility that each of the socks are using separate devices and IP addresses from the master. A CU is necessary but a negative result on CU does not preclude the possibility of sock puppetry. I strongly advocate a study of the behaviour here too. Nauriya (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting here that Orientls has finally, after a mysterious absence, decided to come and defend himself at his arbitration case. This development comes after the filing of this SPI report, where Sdmarathe's lawyering for the absent Orientls was noted.

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