Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin


OccultZone

OccultZone (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
03 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


When it was revealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision that OccultZone had been using sockpuppets, I recognized Delibzr as an account I had had suspicions about some time earlier. I had previously connected them to at least one other account, but I didn't have enough behavioral evidence at the time to make a case. I began an investigation and, after finding numerous other accounts, I submitted my evidence to ArbCom, and now that the case is closed, I am presenting my findings.

Note that OccultZone's high-rate, high-volume editing makes it somewhat difficult to analyze his editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:17, 3 June 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]
  • Except for OccultBot, which has never edited, all of these accounts are  Confirmed to one another. I'll also note that, other than the rate and volume of OccultZone's editing, I saw no obvious evidence of automated editing from any account other than AmritasyaPutra. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make it clear, Occults and OccultBot were the only disclosed alternate accounts. The rest were violations of the sockpuppetry policy (and quite shocking, filthy violations too). All accounts  Blocked and tagged by DoRD already. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I realize that there are listed accounts here older than OccultZone, but I chose this case name due to the results of the ArbCom case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Began editing as an established user fully aware of Wikipedia's policies and deep into topics that OccultZone (talk · contribs) was banned by the Arbitration committee for at the end of the case. Editor's first edits were in the space of OccultZone's past socks'. Specifically, Bladesmulti (talk · contribs) at List of asanas. The editor also has extensive contributions to the TFD section that OccultZone was in and acts in exactly the same manner. Given the extensive history of OccultZone's interactions and that Algirical exactly mirroring all the activity, acting on the page of OccultZone's sock and within OccultZone's usual spaces - I have to file this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: - I didn't open it at OccultZone because I messed up. Pardon my ignorance of it because I thought it was user I am reporting and not the suspected master. Could someone move it if necessary? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algircal's first edit is to List of Asanas the same page another sock (named Bladesmulti) edited [4] Edit shows experience with Wikipedia from first edit.
  • User jumped right into OccultZone's TFD liking with the first edit to TFD being within 50 edits.[5]
  • Editor has used multiple socks in TFD. See [6] which shows OccultZone nominating and supporting with the confirmed socks of Hajme and Bladesmulti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering he CUblocked Habiibil but did not remove Sdmarathe as a suspected sock, I'm inclined to leave it all as is for the time being, until Mike completes his investigation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Actually SDmarathe's Userpage was created by Amritsyaputra which forced habibul to add him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sdmarathe&action=history Who's sock is habibil? --112.79.39.68 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps! But what is your actual username here?--112.79.36.231 (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can ask the same question to you also. You are someone who uses the same ISP provider and also lives in West Bengal.112.79.35.27 (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK! So you're from West Bengal. But what is your actual username here? How can you be so sure about Habibul?--112.79.35.108 (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't who this guy is asking for my Username. Believe me, he is someone who uses the same ISP.112.79.36.104 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @ChrisGualtieri: 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) 08:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Per the evidence and previous socking, I am endorsing CU. Note to clerks (including myself): if socking is proven, it might be worthwhile to notify ArbCom by asking clerks how future socking should be reported to them, if at all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress This may take a little while as there are some other aspects I'll need to review. Mike V • Talk 17:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following accounts were  Confirmed to each other, but personally I believe it's  Unlikely to be OccultZone:
Nathannoha7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hendulib (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Habiibil (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Gbfuture (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Maguri920 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
T-rex vs crocodile (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ThinkTwiceRight2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DontolloMartell (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 16:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


According to user:Terabar, both of these users (Bladesmulti and D4iNa4) use the similar or same style of writing [7]. user:OccultZone has been exposed as an extreme sockpuppet user. He continues to deceive people with new accounts. Sadly, D4iNa4 was allowed to post again after an indefinate block that lasted 1 year. D4iNa4, like Bladesmulti often clear out entire articles that are critical of India and Hinduism. Here [8] user:Bladesmulti frequently removes new content on the Criticism of Hinduism article. Similarly, user:D4iNa4 blanks out entire sections of the Hindu section of Slavery and religion, over here [9]. These are only some examples. User:D4iNa4 has a long history, similar to user:Bladesmulti of systematically censoring content that is critical of Hinduism, over here [10]. You can clearly see that he repeatedly removes sourced content without proper discussion, similar to user:OccultZone and user:Bladesmulti. He has also blanked articles related to military history in which Hindus lost, see here [11][12]. He blanks out pages in wars/conflicts in which India has lost. User:Human3015 also has a long history of removing legitimate content. For example, it is historical fact that Bangladesh won independence in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, however, user:Human3015 keeps on removing mention of Bangladesh alongside India in the results section of the article Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. A discussion on the talk page here [13], clearly shows that most users want to include what is historically factual and include Bangladesh in the results section, but he keeps on removing it as it may be seen here: [14]. He also has a history of removing more neutral terms such as South Asia on the Indus Valley Civilization article and his writing style is similar to those users we previously discussed, as it may be seen here [15]. Referring to Al-Qaeda as a good source for justifying the usage of an outdated term shows the level of intellect we have to deal with. Xtremedood (talk) 02:26, 20 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]

22 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


user:Bladesmulti was exposed as a sockpuppet of user:OccultZone. user:D4iNa4 was also exposed as a sockpuppet here [16], however, he was allowed after a year to operate again. user:D4iNa4, removed sourced and relevant content several times without discussion and consensus [17][18][19][20][21] and was later supported by a new user which I suspect to be his sockpuppet, user:Capitals00 over here [22]. Over here user:D4iNa4 is working together with user:TheRedPenOfDoom to make the same reverts [23][24]. He also asked him to assist him over here [25], which is canvassing. Similar edits were made previously by user:Bladesmulti here [26][27]. user:Bladesmulti was previously exposed as a sockpuppet of user:OccultZone. user:Capitals00 [28] over here has reverted back to a fallacious claim of an Indian victory in this article, which is similar to what user:OccultZone has done in the past over here [29]. Xtremedood (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Xtremedood (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a well-organized effort to censor materials on India-Hindu related articles. Xtremedood (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Just a quick question. I am uninvolved here, but just clicked the compare tool. It takes me here. The user HUMAN3015 is mentioned in the user compare. Why is the tool comparing this user if he has not been mentioned in the sock investigation? doesn't the toll compare only the accounts which have been listed in the SPI? Is the tool wrong or has a new sockpuppet been detected here? Just would like someone to explain this weird thing if they can. I'll just copypaste the report I am getting here.

  • total edits to combined pages:
  • Bladesmulti: 3784
  • D4iNa4: 226
  • Human3015: 2707
  • OccultZone: 4718
  • total combined edits : 11435

Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely redundant to report OccultZone. He was a good-faith editor and utilized Wikipedia for many years. It is thought that other editors are making edits via using his Ip range in order to obtain CU's attention. 78.149.204.23 (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, The complaint here included totally different materials than the last one. I do not see a justified warning here. Also, why are user:Capitals00 and user:D4iNa4 still allowed to cause disruption if they are confirmed socks? What other options are there to stop the disruptive edits of these users? If I revert it is an edit war, if I report (with new materials) you are saying it is disruptive? How then does Wikipedia become a place of impartial and collaborative data, rather than a POV database of edits with more resources pushing their own POV? Xtremedood (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @Xtremedood: This SPI is being closed as frivolous and disruptive. You recently brought another report that I declined in which you alleged that D4iNa4 was a puppet. I pointed out that the user was a confirmed sockmaster. Capitals00 is the same, another confirmed sockmaster (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00). TheRedPenOfDoom is an established editor and has absolutely nothing in common with OccultZone. Your theme is always the same: other user's views on India-Hindu articles that apparently clash with your own. This is a warning. If you file another baseless report, you risk being blocked for disrupting this forum. FreeatlastChitchat, you'll need to take up your issue with the developer of the tool. Two things. One, many of the wmflabs tools are unfortunately buggy. Two, another anomaly in the output is it did not include Capitals00. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I noticed that this user has a remarkable similarity with the in 2015 Arbcom banned user Occultzone, and especially, with numerous of his blocked socks.

  • Lorstaking was created on 2 March 2015, shortly before DoRD filed the successful SPI against Occultzone, but Lorstaking actually became actually only active on the 6th of June 2016, about a year later.
  • They all (incl. this new sock) sign their comments the same way, without any "dash" (e.g. "-", "--") or anything, which is peculiar I can say based on my experience here, and more importantly which is fully in line with how the sockmaster + all CU socks used to leave comments, e.g. [30]-[31]-[32]-[33]-[34]-[35].
  • They both have the exact same article interest. All on India, with an "occassional" edit here and there on another distinct topic to make it seem not that suspicious. All previously blocked accounts did so as well. More importantly here, all articles that Lorstaking has edited, have at one point been edited by Occultzone and his socks, e.g.;[36]-[37]-[38]-[39]-[40]
  • Completely similar English proficiency compared to the sockmaster and already blocked socks
  • Often makes large/controversial edits without leaving any edit summary,[41]-[42], exactly like the sockmaster/CU blocked socks used to do, e.g. [43]-[44]
  • On his 17th edit, while argueing with user "JoshuaJonathan" (a user Occultzone/Bladesmulti had alot of stalkative issues with in the past) he was already citing advanced WP rules.[45]
  • Cares an extremely odd amount about fixing sources, fixing typos and other marks, removing tags,[46][47], and even about fixing blacklisted links (!)[48] in an exactly similar way as Occultzone and his socks (e.g. Bladesmulti) did. In fact, one of OccultZone's main things on Wikipedia (he even had a bot for it) was to do such stuff.

Pinging DoRD as he was the one that initially filed Occultzone and the rest of the socks back then, and perhaps he can state anything additionally about this. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I made a minor typo in the title of the page. Could any admin solve this on the way? Thanks in advance :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More articles which Lorstaking, the sockmaster, and CheckUser blocked socks have edited;[49]-[50]-[51]-[52]-[53]. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New; I know that user "D4iNa4" is supposed to be a sockmaster by himself, but I just noticed that there's actually some pretty crazy amount of overlap between D4iNa4 and Lorstaking, and with Bladesmulti/Occultzone as well. Given that Lorstaking only became active very recently, its very much possible theres something more complex going on here.
- Here Lorstaking reinstated the EXACT same edit that D4iNa4 made.[54]
- Same target articles.[55]-[56]-[57]-[58]-[59], just to name a few.
Whats even more peculiar, I noticed as well, is that most edits made by D4iNa4 are on articles where OccultZone/Bladesmulti have edited as well (articles which you'd expect I mean, not just random ones), e.g.;[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]. In fact, some of his edits are large on articles which, for example, Bladesmulti had even created himself, and apart from him almost no one ever touched, e.g.[69]. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • More evidence: This definitely needs to be looked into. I have added another sock who claimed some time back that, he has five socks currently active and you are currently edit-warring with them. I know who some of those are but cannot name the names until I have some hard evidence, collecting which takes a long time and I am busy with personal life. As he claimed that he have five active and we have some strong piece of evidence presented by LouisAragon. It would be only wise to run a CU and get our suspicions cleared especially when a serial socker such as OZ is involved. Just a side note, Sheriff is Free must have been created using a proxy so it does not show with the ones which he is using seriously to contribute to Wikipedia disrupt Wikipedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

These two accounts came to my attention when they edited a series of pages that the OZ socks were interested in at one point in time. I should note that although this is filed under the OZ case, I am chiefly going to use the sock account Bladesmulti for analysis, because the huge volume of the OZ account makes analysis near impossible. I understand that the OZ accounts are mostly stale, but I'm hoping comparing the IPs used by these accounts to the ones used by the socks might tell us something.

Also, note that the two accounts listed here are not very similar to each other, but they both have marked similarities to the OZ accounts. Although I had noticed the similarities myself, they were also brought to my attention by @JoshuaJonathan:

Ekvastra
  • The same diffs also show that both accounts use English in a generally comprehensible manner, but filled with grammatical mistakes of a similar nature. Among the quirks Ekvastra shares with the OZ socks is a strange use of the word "purge": see [77], [78].
Marvelous Spider-man
  • Overlap with Bladesmulti is large: [79]. This is admittedly inflated by MSM's use of automated tools, but Blades used zero automation, so the overlap still strikes me as significant.
  • Blades and MSM have a markedly similar, and unusual, history of timestamps: Blades, MSM; a fairly uniform distribution of edits through about 20 hours of the day, with the 20-24h (GMT) period being the only slack period.
  • Folks, my apologies: I had intended to add more evidence earlier this evening, but was kept off wiki by some RL stuff that had popped up. The stuff I was going to add has mostly been mentioned: the undeletion request, the high level of automated editing from MSM, the accusations of POV at my RFA that sounded a lot like similar accusations that have been leveled by OZ socks, and the slightly odd, if not actually incorrect, uses of English that seemed to me to be quite similar to many of Blades' quirks. Anyhow, since the CU has been performed, there is not much more for me to do. My suspicions of MSM remain, but the CU appears to clear them of being a part of this set. Let me add that I have seen this post, and it strikes me as a little disingenuous. I was aware that AP had been unblocked, and had noted that they had mentioned they were switching accounts. I was not aware of the circumstances of their unblock. There was nothing that would let me assume that Ekvastra was the alternative account they were mentioning, including what little I know about their RL identity, which did not match any disclosures made by the Ekvastra account. If it actually was a legitimate alternative account, why not just acknowledge it, in public or to ARBCOM? Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There may be more accounts; AP wrote that he was going to use another username diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this statement, Ekvastra is AP's new account. Bit clumsy not to state so at the userpages. Also clumsy to start editing as Ekvastra at 23 july 2015, while continuing to edit as AP until 31 august 2016... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, AmritasyaPutra and Ekvastra are the same individual by their own admission and, frankly, I don't think it was news to anybody. I don't know what he means by I know his "real life identity." I have just exchanged emails with him at an account called "AmritasyaPutra". That doesn't prove anything. Whether AP and OZ are the same person(s) is still an unknown, but I personally believe they are not. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Huggle Huggle is able to load and review edits made to Wikipedia in real time, helps users identify unconstructive edits, and allows them to be reverted quickly.. Nevertheless it doesn't load to show me, which articles were previously edited by OccultZone and Bladesmulti. I see possible vandalism on the Huggle and Stki window and revert them. I initially voted oppose in Vanamonde93's RFA and moved to support. And @Joshua Jonathan: can file SPI himself, instead of Vanamonde93. However, an SPI by a sysop will be given preference. The evidence is very week. The overlap in articles is due to Huggle and Stiki. My interests and their interests are mismatched. Bladesmulti was editing only in Indian articles. If they annoy me again, I will report them to WP:AN. And other administrators who don't use Huggle, should survey how Huggle and Stiki fucntions. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright Ill break down their edits to see if a pattern is found.
    • Ekvastra started editing on 26th of july, 2016, ended on 16th of september 2016
I will check Ekvastra's and AmritasyaPutra's time of edits. Ekvastra is confirmed to AmritasyaPutra and they have admitted to be same person. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check users can also see when I was logged in, however didn't edit. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ekvastra edits selectively within WP:INDIA.

Ekvastra is AP's new blocked account. Their selection of usernames and articles, and my username and interests are contrasting. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 25 August 2016, I edited Ingrid Thulin. I remained logged in and googled for references. Ekvastra 05:35, 25 August 2016, 05:43, 25 August 2016 I edited Ingrid Thulin.


AmritasyaPutra on 28th August 2016

@Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, and Joshua Jonathan: 28th August 2016, AmritasyaPutra edits Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanamonde93 ‎ at 15:55, 28 August 2016, 16:07, 28 August 2016, 16:29, 28 August 2016, 16:37, 28 August 2016

I edited Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papaursa at 16:22, 28 August 2016, 16:25, 28 August 2016, 16:35, 28 August 2016, 16:48, 28 August 2016. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why I have been pinged here. Can an admin close this please? As far as I can see, the investigation has been completed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Marvellous Spider-Man and Ekvastra are Red X Unrelated to each other. Ekvastra is  Confirmed to AmritasyaPutra (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I've blocked the two confirmed accounts without tags. I have no comment as to any relationship between any of these accounts and OccultZone other than noting AmritasyaPutra's history. I'll leave it to others who are more familiar with OccultZone to address that issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AmritasyaPutra was already blocked as CUconfirmed to OZ in the original OZ SPI/ArbCom case (June 2015). He was unblocked by ArbCom (BASC) in September 2015 for reasons never publicly explained. Now he is blocked as CUconfirmed again. It's reasonable to assume that the first CUresult was determined to be a false positive by ArbCom (hence the BASC unblock), so out of prudence and to avoid a second false positive, I will send an e-mail to ArbCom for them to review the first CUconfirmation, the BASC unblock and this second CUconfirmation to make sure they are comfortable with the new result and won't unblock as a false positive again. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doug Weller unblocked the account on behalf of the subcommittee, so perhaps he can provide some insight. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed this for quite a while before deciding to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Bladesmulti had implicitly addmitted to being Oz but argued (not just denied) that he was AmritasyaPutra. We felt that the technical evidence wasn't entirely convincing and we had someone stating that they'd met AmritasyaPutra. But we haven't discussed this yet on the list. It looks as though we might have been wrong. I agree that Marvellous Spider-Man is possibly a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, I agree that Marvellous Spider-Man is technically unrelated to OZ and socks. However, their editing does raise suspicions.
  • Last year, I found that AmritasyaPutra was a sock of OZ, however, their subsequent BASC appeal was accepted. Currently, though, the CU results connecting them to Ekvastra are unambiguous. The edits here (admin only) add to the result and go a long way toward convincing me that my original analysis was correct after all. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DoRD: You aren't the only one who thinks that Marvellous Spider-Man's edits are suspicious. Assuming he is a sock, the question I've had trouble answering is who's the master?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments over the last couple of days have not done anything toward resolution of this case, so I'm closing it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, unless you specifically object, this was left on hold pending investigation by ArbCom (this could be FPP'ed in the meantime if disrupted I guess); they determined the first CU confirmation to be a false-pos and overturned it, and it would be IMO irreponsible (unfair to the user and disrespectful to ArbCom) to reblock on another CU confirmation without confirming with ArbCom that they won't overturn it again. Technically, the user was CUBlocked, ArbCom-unblocked, so reblocking could meet some definition of WP:WHEELWAR, hence why I'm anxious to get this cleared by ArbCom. ArbCom actions (including unblocks) generally aren't to be overturned/undone without their approval. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DoRD. I had planned to close it myself. Please don't reopen it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This is a brand new account, created only to comment on a thread at ANI involving this SPI. The language used by this account is strikingly similar to that of Ekvastra after they were blocked (and they come close to admitting it, too, in the ANI thread: [80]. The language used by Ekvastra after the block:

The block is made saying I am OccultZone, there is no evidence presented. It was in direct violation of the earlier BASC ruling. CU does not link me to Bladesmulti or OccultZone. Why would you count edits on noticeboard and user talk page discussion as overlap? Is it naive or mischievous? AmritasyaPutra is my former account and Ekvastra is new account. There was no abuse, none were presented, you could not point to even one instance of multiple participation in one discussion or reusing older account on same article after starting new account? The case only uncovers that Ekvastra is the new account of AmritasyaPutra within policy.

The language used at ANI:

The report was made on OccultZone page and no evidence was presented to connect them. There was not even one instance of policy violation mentioned. AmritasyaPutra had declared transitioning to new user, Ekvastra admitted to being AmritasyaPutra. Ekvastra never voted or edited any content of former account and used reliable references for each edit. There was no concern with any edit. Unless there was a demonstration of any abusive edit or policy violation the decision to overturn previous ruling of BASC without any discussion whatsoever is malicious.

There are additional linguistic similarities, such as a misuse/not-quite-idiomatic use of words such as "purged" and "malicious." I can provide further diffs if necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The user here has already been blocked, but I did want to clarify one thing: @Capitals00:, OZ's main account never tangled with me, but Bladesmulti, an OZ sock, has entered numerous disputes with me, including a number in which they were supporting AmritasyaPutra. Vanamonde (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

BASC had unblocked AmritasyaPutra because he was not found guilty, so that makes these two different persons. But AmritasyaPutra was blocked this year for socking with Ekvastra. What strikes me most that these 2 accounts and DonateToWikipedia, hold grudges against Vanamonde93,[81][82][83] something that OccultZone and his socks seems to be lacking. @Bbb23 and DoRD: I believe that AmritasyaPutra should be treated as a sockmaster and this report should be transferred to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmritasyaPutra(yet to be created) and because CU links newly found socks can be blocked as socks of AmritasyaPutra. Capitals00 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00, it seems that you have misinterpreted the BASC unblock. If you read Doug Weller's comments, you won't find any declaration of innocence, and he goes on to say "It looks as though we might have been wrong" about unblocking the account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not gonna argue those comments, I didn't read them before. Doug Weller said AmritasyaPutra was given "benefit of doubt" by arbcom[84] and it is just not believable that OccultZone would be trying to get AmritasyaPutra unblocked by evading his ban and deny socking abuse with Ekvastra, all after one and a half year of his block on his major account, OccultZone. Capitals00 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Including Boing! said Zebedee, Marvellous Spider-Man, Capitals00 and Kautilya3. AmritasyaPutra is not Occultzone. There was no CU or behavioral connect ever. In fact, there is a huge behavioral disconnect, they opposed each other here and the interest areas are different. The behavioral connect you gave was pure mistake DoRD, can you please check this? The identification with OccultZone is a mistake. There has been no incivility, disruption or vandalism from this user ever, none has been presented ever. There was no block on AmritasyaPutra to evade by its new account at the time of linking them to OccultZone. This account was made to provide the inputs, never was any opportunity given to defend, AmritasyaPutra responded as DonateToWikipedia like BSZ and MSM guessed/asked. --DonateToWikipedia (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The account is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to Ekvastra (talk · contribs · count). I'm leaving the CU request intact because another CheckUser may want to do more based on more knowledge of OccultZone than I have.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DonateToWikipedia (and WikipediaStore (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) shared an interesting technical detail with Ekvastra, so I agree with Bbb23's finding. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked referring this SPI. THis is an obvious sock, a third edit referring to an obscure SPI and commenting on it clearly indicates that this is a sock. An absence of a clean declaration of earlier accounts is evidence that this account's creation isn't all kosher. Finally, the comment above is a behavioral link to Ekvastra. I'm leaving the tagging to a clerk although I think the behavioral evidence matches this SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 08:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive

Leave a Reply