Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin


Capitals00

Capitals00 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Apart from the fact their talk pages posts are clones of each other in style, we have the following. Capitals00 got into an edit war on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, following the page being protected and Cap00 being heavily outnumbered on the talk page the suspect sock turned up on support. He had never edited the article before. For style of language see thisCap00 and this by suspect sock, Bothe start sections with Hello, but both also use "in the talk page" rather than "on" Cap00 Was involved in a minor edit war against two user on the Mughal Empire article over the inclusion of the flag of Nepal, Cap00 revert, then along comes [1] suspect sock to revert. And assuming toolserver is working correctly, it is his only edit to that article. Throwing in the IP as its only edits are to the talk page of the 71 war article, in favour of Cap00 Darkness Shines (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the suspect sock was created on the first day of Cap00 getting back from a block for edit warring and tendentious editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Well, same way i got here after looking at your edit history i have got into these 2 claimed pages through the edit history of the guy named "Nikhilmn2002"[2] who i saw at the page of Maratha Empire, i found that he was inserting the same information in page Mughal Empire, but i went there other day. Now about the Indo-Pak page, you can see, because i was at noticeboard, also for other page Chennai Express, & i didn't supported any edit but inserted the information which i found in the page of Chuck Yeager which is now protected. I don't know who's 180.(ip) either. As for the "start sections with hello", it doesn't surprise me, because the section above mine, on that page[3], starts with "hey" thus i thought about the synonymous, which could be "hello". That's all. OwnDealers (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason you suddenly start writing very bad English and can't find the CAPS key anymore? Or is that just my imagination? Yintan  09:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - This is suspicious, but it's not enough to block on its own. Requesting checkuser to confirm or deny the connection. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). also add InfocenterM (talk · contribs) and BatteriesStaff (talk · contribs) to the confirmed list. Courcelles 17:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Master blocked 2 weeks, socks indef. No action on the IP at this time. Closing. Rschen7754 05:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Capitals00 id currently blocked for three months for edit warring, he was edit warring on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 also. The suspect sock has just added the same edit that Cap00 was edit warring into the article, the suspect sock is using a mobile to edit so this may come down to duck. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 15 October 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]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Editing the same page, with a mobile device is not enough evidence to conclude sockpuppetry. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at this a few days ago, and was not convinced either. Rschen7754 07:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created some ten days after the master was given a three month block for edit warring, not only is this account edtwarring all over the shop (see warnings on his talk) it has been slow mo editwarring in the same crap the the master was editwarring over, Master [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971&diff=prev&oldid=578685958 Sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 25 October 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]

27 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Like Capitals00, D4iNa4 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer who was indeffed until a few months ago. I suspect they're socks of the same user, or at least meat puppets. Each account only has a couple hundred mainspace edits, but their edits overlap to a suspicious degree, especially during content disputes on (sometimes obscure) India-related topics.

- Zanhe (talk) 03:27, 27 November 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]

  • This appears to be technically  Unlikely. I'm closing with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 19:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User: D4iNa4 and User: Capitals00 are actually one person and is using his/her ids inappropriately from a long time. And they both were blocked previously for using multiple accounts. See here and here. Sockpuppet investigation was launched many times by different users time to time. User:Zanhe also reported the same thing few months ago but was later ignored. Here I would like to present the same edits used by these two ids pushing their propaganda.

Now he is again back reverting with using his two ids on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism

  • 1st revert by D4iNa4 [25]
  • 2nd revert by Capitals00 [26]

User: Zanhe also reported the same thing here but was later ignored. I am pasting Zanhe's report also for further ease in investigation.

These two ids have been using different ids inappropriately and were blocked previously. I further request you to look into this matter. Please ! Terabar (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Agree with Terabar. Capitals00 and D4iNa4 work together to a highly unusual degree. Check out their user compare report: neither account is very active: Capitals00 with 858 edits and D4iNa4 with 643, but fully 460 of their combined edits occur on the same pages, frequently working in tandem during edit disputes, and as the diffs show, many of their edits are virtually identical. Both accounts have been blocked before for similar pattern of disruptive editing. Capitals00 has also had a sock blocked before (User:OwnDealers), and he's probably learned from the experience to operate the new sock via a proxy or VPN to evade CheckUser detection. -Zanhe (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

In November 2015, Mike V found these two accounts to be  Unlikely. With the lapse of time, I would go slightly further and say they are very  Unlikely. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bbb23, thanks for your comment. But can't you see that these two accounts are supporting each other's edits and are acting like meatpuppets? Don't you think that they are connected offline? Terabar (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mike V, can you look into this matter again? Terabar (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Capitals00 is again using his secondary accounts D4iNA4 and Rzvas to remove edits critical of Hinduism. These accounts work together in support of each other. Their languages are same to some extent whenever they revert other users. Capitals00 and D4iNa4, both were blocked for sock-puppetry earlier. Since then he has not improved his behaviour and is again using sock accounts. User: Zanhe reported the same thing few months ago. See previous reports.

Here are some edits where they are found to support each other's edits.

Earlier too, I reported the same thing where they were found to support each other's edits. I am pasting those edits below as clear evidences that they are sock-puppets.

Now he has admitted that his account must have shared IP address with Rzvas account. See [65]

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]

  •  Clerk note: explicitly retaliatory filing from OP being blocked for edit warring at Criticism of Hinduism against these three accounts, the editor's fourth block for edit warring in a little over a year. Just a few days ago the filer also thought these edits were by a sockpuppet of OccultZone (talk · contribs), leading them to edit-war into a one-week block which seems quite lenient to me. They then filed two unsuccessful appeals ([66] [67]), each one defending the edit war and wanting to be unblocked to file this report. They filed here when their block expired.
In previous investigations from which much of this evidence is rehashed, these accounts have been found by two CheckUsers to be  Unlikely (by Mike V on 27 November 2015 and "very unlikely" by Bbb23 on 13 December 2016). They are not the same user. Case closed for the third time with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
@Terabar: your repeated filing of sockpuppet investigations against editors who have been demonstrated not to be sockpuppets is harassment. Stop now, or you will be blocked from editing. If you have a dispute with these users that you cannot resolve on the article's talk page, please try dispute resolution. If you find yourself in another edit war with these users I suspect your next block is going to be a lot longer than a week. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Ivanvector instead of attacking me, you should have investigated properly. You should have seen that how these accounts are clearly inter-related. I only tried to prevent disruption on Wikipedia and nothing else. You don't need to harass me. Have a good day. Terabar (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Terabar: I have investigated. There is no connection, in my opinion. I'm not the first SPI clerk to tell you this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Ivanvector, so could you please tell that how these editors are not working together when most of their edits are supporting each other? I don't mean to hurt somebody. But still I would like to know that why these two editors are supporting each other? Or they are meat puppets?Terabar (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Terabar: it looks to me like they're just restoring preexisting content after you show up to revert them. The edits are the same because they're reversing your disruptive edits. Like this one, where you showed up to revert to an old version of an article that had been stable for over 2 months, having not discussed at all or even indicated in the first place what you thought the issue was, other than your cry of sockpuppetry which was previously shown to be incorrect. D4iNa4 was right to revert you, then you edit-warred yourself into a block. That was your fourth block for edit warring, yet you still don't seem to understand that it is your behaviour that is disruptive, not everybody else's. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Ivanvector, what about the report that User: Zanhe reported in this section? I was not the first one to report this user. Rather it was Zanhe. And in other cases too he is found to be using two ids but he has escaped very cleverly. He was also blocked for sockpuppetry earlier and you are forgetting that. Terabar (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Terabar: that is the first report I mentioned here which Mike V closed as unlikely. You're not going to get a different result by repeatedly asking different people to review the same evidence over and over again. There is no connection here. The only thing I can see that these editors have in common is that you keep accusing them of being sockpuppets when many people have already told you that they're not. Editors who refuse to listen when they've been told that they're wrong frequently find themselves blocked. I advise you to find something else to do here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look User: Ivanvector, you don't need to continuously harass me that I have to be blocked for not listening. I have a right to express my views and ask questions whatever I want. I was only suspicious about these accounts. There is nothing else in my report which can be considered as harmful. I have also not abused anyone here. Have a great day ahead. Terabar (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Diffs of changes of specific edits made by suspected sock puppets:

1) [[68]]

2) [[69]]

Most likely same person making edits with shadow accounts with similar arguments in the edit summary (arguing with terms like "not related" and "WP:OR"). Contribution history from both accounts also seem to be similar. Also see this user's archived sock puppet investigations >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capitals00/Archive Thanks. Casktopicsay 15:35, 9 September 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 is baseless and retaliatory, closing. GABgab 15:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Capitals00 has a prior history of sockpuppetry [70] and issues with WP:BATTLE, pro-India WP:POV, and WP:NPA across WP:ARBIPA articles which bear an eerie resemblance to MapSGV. There are some striking language similarities and editing overlaps between these two accounts, which are difficult to ignore per WP:DUCK.

MapSGV was registered in 2014, and was rarely used until February 2018 when one of its first edits involved inserting this disputed text into Siachen conflict (which Capitals00 supported on talk). For a user with below 100 edits prior to February and below 300 currently, MapSGV had surprisingly good command of Wikipedia jargon, noticeboards, acronyms, and editing know-how which was noted by admin Sandstein [71] The account was topic banned for relentless POV pushing and personal attacks (see decision here) which was removed on appeal [72].

Further details as below:

  • One of MapSGV's first 10 edits on Wikipedia in 2015: ([73]), insisting on repeated replacement of "defeat" with "ceasefire" on List of wars involving Libya ([74]), ([75]), ([76]), ([77]). Months later, Capitals00 restores the exact same edit ([78]), ([79]) with no prior involvement or history on article.
  • Capitals00 vehemently opposed MapSGV's first indef block and then topic ban, including on his talk: [116]

Behavioural similarities:

  • Calling other users "incompetent":
MapSGV:

(but you are being too incompetent that you have to cry out loud for disruption..) while displaying WP:BATTLEGROUND against Mar4d, (incompetent editor who can't keep discussion at one place), (He is clearly saying that editors are not allowed to be competent in Wikipedia with this much edit count, even though I am editing for 4 years)

Capitals00:

(but given your incompetence and WP:IDHT issues you just can't understand a thing), (NadirAli, let me be crystal clear that EdwardElric2016 is more competent than you and Xinjao put together.), (I can't do anything about your incompetence and WP:IDHT, I can only tell you the guidelines), (You should better blame your incompetence that you can't even detect) while arguing with Zetret, (and it is nothing but further indication of his lack of competence), (That's why I am in favor of indef block, due to your lack of competence)

  • Same language structure and level of proficiency eg. use of "despite":
MapSGV:

(Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed), (I am also topic banned from "Afghanistan" despite I never edited that subject), (your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future), (despite it was correctly sourced... despite he never even asked... topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite I never even edited Afghanistan)

Capitals00:

(you have clearly singled out MapSGV despite he is the biggest victim here), (I should describe my changes with "an accurate edit summary", despite I already have), (with a meaningless edit summary despite you are being the problematic editor... you can't even detect what is a copyright violation despite you have been warned enough times), (he violates his topic ban despite it has been clarified to him very clearly.), (despite Classical period is only from 200 BCE to 5th or 6th century CE)

  • Use of 'frivolous':
MapSGV:

(Sandstein first blocked me... by finding sense in a frivolous report filed by a ban evading sock... filing frivolous reports and he even trolled on SPI by claiming that CheckUser absolved him... and also for filing a frivolous report), (why are you buying into frivolous tagging... You can't edit war over such frivolous tagging... before such frivolous tagging you have to raise them here)

Capitals00:

(frivolous notification is just another example of your WP:IDHT), (I didn't even saw your frivolous warning I just went ahead to write a note on your talk page, highlighting your history of mass disruption), (By entertaining such frivolous complaints we are only encouraging editors to misuse)

  • "Refer":
MapSGV:

(that's not how you refer it)

Capitals00:

(and consensus was not to refer them as pseudoscience)

  • Elaborate use of commas; basic semantics:
MapSGV:
Capitals00:
  • Use of adverbs and verbs to begin sentences, simple mistakes, and lack of sentence structures:
MapSGV:
Capitals00:

Note that the two also virtually edit in the same time zones. MapSGV is likely a sleeper account, given it edits on-and-off every now and then on "bouts". It is also worth noting the remarks left by Zanhe on an older case, that "Capitals00 has also had a sock blocked before (User:OwnDealers), and he's probably learned from the experience to operate the new sock via a proxy or VPN to evade CheckUser detection" [128]. The use of VPN is further confirmed here [129] so please evaluate the behavioral evidence as there is a plethora of it in this SPI even if the CU comes out negative. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • It indeed looks very suspicious. I was suspecting other users rather than the one named, however if a CU is run, I'm sure the others will be caught or cleared.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really don't want to comment here because this would make me look that I am taking this desparation seriously. MapSGV's comments have been supported by nearly everyone and same with his few other edits that you have mentioned. They are simply based on what reliable sources say. I know it's a pity that you fail to get consensus for your POV but you are just alone with that. We all know they are unrelated accounts, editing from different timezones but I can expect you to ignore it, given your serious WP:CIR issues. Nonetheless, SPI has made me laugh! MBlaze Lightning talk 01:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is unhelpful, SheriffIsInTown has thrown a huge amount of evidence in there. You can laugh all you want but outside of this SPI. I see a lot of behavioral similarities in there, the evidence presented is not just about two accounts supporting each other, it has a lot more than that.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quotefarming irrelevant messages can make it huge, but there's no evidence. If you really want to speak about "behavioral similarities" then you are already giving up because with that logic, we see there are suspicious "behavioral similarities" between you and SheriffIsInTown, because only you two would believe in this frivolous connection as well as vote keep for a useless article like Left Bank Outfall Drain. I think that speaks too much of unusual behavior, not this funny SPI which only shows that these two users had genuine issues with problematic edits that violate Wikipedia policies. I agreed with them, so did other editors like Kautilya3, EkoGraf, Adamgerber80, D4iNa4 and universally whole Wikipedia does. I don't see this to be anything than failure to get POV accepted and inability to get over the block of FreeatlastChitchat.
SheriffIsInTown has previously assumed bad faith towards everyone who participated or contributed in that block of a disruptive editor.[130]
It is also ironic that MapSGV registered months before SheriffIsInTown, obviously he is prone to be more competent than SheriffIsInTown  like SheriffIsInTown himself admits citing the policy knowledge of MapSGV. I guess it's a bad thing for an editor like you and him, but I don't consider it to be bad, even if MapSGV had registered this year. MBlaze Lightning talk 03:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also suspicious that SheriffIsInTown files this baseless SPI, alleging accounts much older than his own as same person right after Bbb23 took break from Wikipedia.[131] Bbb23 has warned SheriffIsInTown many times for his disruption on SPI.[132][133] I assume SheriffIsInTown thinks only Bbb23 finds him problematic, when in fact all of us do. MBlaze Lightning talk 07:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SheriffIsInTown (SIIT) has deliberately failed to mention his only reason for this filing that his best friend (FreeatlastChitchat) got indeffed mostly because of his interactions with MapSGV and the observation made by Capitals00. SIIT was unhappy even when FreeatlastChitchat was topic banned for his long term disruption.[134] I would further agree with above that the SPI, because SPI only misrepresents diffs and provides least convincing evidence. You don't have to mislead people or make up fairy tales only because you want to take revenge for an incompetent sock puppeteer. Two editors telling you the very obvious doesn't make them one editor. MapSGV is unrelated to Capitals00. In 2015, MapSGV was frequently editing in October,[135] and Capitals00 was checked in November.[136] Why he wasn't caught then? Why do you think he will be caught now? This looks to me nothing more than usual vigilante trolling of SIIT. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the English similarities that have been mentioned here are common grammatical errors made by Indians using English as a second language. So there is not much of a case. I find that the timezones of editing don't match. So I think it rather unlikely that the two editors are the same. A CU won't hurt, but there are no grounds here for a behavioural match. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take exception to the attempted derailment above, and find the evidence quite compelling. An impartial review of the diffs shows there's far too much unbelievable amounts of WP:DUCK for any of these behavioural matches to be merely coincidental. The basic composition of words (e.g. repeated erroneous use of "despite"), vocabulary idiosyncrasies etc. are virtually indistinguishable and not "common" mistakes that 2 different persons would make. The obscure infobox edits on the war articles date back to when MapSGV had barely 20 edits, and no interaction with Capitals. I would trust Sandstein's earlier jugement over the editors above who were involved. Mar4d (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, I don't see any "derailment" but debunking of a bogus SPI filed in bad faith and speaks only about the filer's misconduct that is always apparent in SPIs. Rather than misrepresenting statements and activities of others, why don't you just accept the fact that both Capitals00 and MapSVG have been editing same articles since 2014? Capitals00 has went through some checks during that same time when MapSGV was actively editing, which alone shows they are unrelated. Naming very trivial similarities only for taking revenge for the block of a familiar editor really don't count as evidence. Your defense of this bogus SPI and admin shopping raises concerns only about you, and even if you really think that there is any "evidence", I can do nothing but caution you that you will only find yourself hopeless, because these are obviously unrelated editors and your expectations will fail. MBlaze Lightning talk 12:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like an open and shut case. The similarities including attitude demonstrating WP:BATTLE, WP:POV pushing and personal attacks are too similar to be ignored. MBL, the SPI filed by SIIT and the evidence presented by him/her is much better than the frivolous Witch hunting you have been doing off-late. Atleast acknowledge that the evidence presented carries weight, unlike the baseless SPIs posted by you where you have been presenting WP's default setting as evidence . The evidence behind these two users being the same is not just incredibly strong, its beyond doubt. No credibility should be attached to MBL, formerly caught socking himself by the filer SheriffIsInTown, [137] after a long evasion. Nor should Kautilya3's opinion be seen as honest given that he misrepresented sock policy[138] to protect Ms Sarah Welch (a sock), who had successfully socked for years, and who was even privy to Kautilya3's off-wiki business.[139]—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPI is already getting out of hand but given the CheckUser results, we are already done here. @Ivanvector: can you take a look and close this? MBlaze Lightning talk 14:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to suggest that a CheckUser analysis be done, but since its already done and the results are in I think that's that. EkoGraf (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yunshui and Ivanvector: A behavioral investigation would be a good idea at this point as there is a plethora of behavioral matches and there is an evidence of use of VPN/Proxy mentioned in the last paragraph of my evidence and I quote here for more visibility:
“It is also worth noting the remarks left by Zanhe on an older case, that "Capitals00 has also had a sock blocked before (User:OwnDealers), and he's probably learned from the experience to operate the new sock via a proxy or VPN to evade CheckUser detection" [140]. The use of VPN is further confirmed here [141]” Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • A technical relationship between Capitals00 and MapSGV is  Unlikely. Both consistently use different ISPs to edit, and whilst they geolocate to the same country, the precise locations are disparate. This will need to be decided on behaviour alone. Yunshui 雲水 12:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoroughly unconvincing. What I've determined from a behavioural analysis is that there are two people in India or Pakistan, or possibly more than two. This report, like nearly all of the reports in the archive, is clearly an attempt to weaponize SPI against an opposing POV. SPI is not going to solve your content disputes for you. Case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

At the Aksai Chin article:-

1. Revert by Abhishek0831996 diff1
2. Again Capitals00 reverted the same diff2
3. Again Capitals00 reverted the same diff3
4. Again Capitals00 reverted the same diff4
5. Again Capitals00 reverted the same diff5
6. Again Abhishek0831996 reverted the same diff6
At the Article 370 (film) article:-
1. An edit by Capitals00 added some text diff1
2. Abhishek0831996 added text diff2
3. Capitals00 reverts the same diff3
4. Capitals00 reverting the same diff4
5. Another diff5 2Farishthe (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2024 (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]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser. This compilation of diffs is of several users reverting a confirmed sockpuppet, who is also the editor who filed the report. @SheriffIsInTown: if you have your own evidence to submit then please file a new report, but restoring this one is awfully close to meatpuppetry and proxying. There is nothing to investigate here; closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capitals00/Archive

Leave a Reply