Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eswaran Naveen/Archive: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 466: Line 466:
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
*{{confirmed}} via {{noping|Kokkaachi MF varghese}}, reblocked, tagged, closing. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 10:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
*{{confirmed}} via {{noping|Kokkaachi MF varghese}}, reblocked, tagged, closing. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 10:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

=== 30 December 2022 ===

====Suspected sockpuppets====

{{sock list|1=കരിപ്പോട്ടി|tools_link=no}}<!-- Add more accounts or IPs to this template as needed -->

Similar kind of editing patterns and username is similar to ക്രൂര നമ്പ്യാർ. [[User:Theoder2055|Theoder2055]] ([[User talk:Theoder2055|talk]]) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 16:53, 30 December 2022


Eswaran Naveen

Eswaran Naveen (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

04 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Eswnav (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Eswaran Naveen in February. Tuttesnaveen has a similar (to Eswnav) focus on the actor Vani Bhojan, as well as a similar talk page posting style: compare User_talk:Veshboyyy#Image by Eswnav, with User_talk:Lionnen#Image by Tuttesnaveen. Another overlap: Eswnav was asking about Draft:Rekha Krishnappa in about ten places including here, here, here and here ; Tuttesnaveen has created Draft:Rekha krishnappa. bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

06 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

His obsession with Vani Bhojan, and telling me to create articles for him. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

User:Uma Narmada was just blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mridul varma tharakan who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Eswaran Naveen so I don't think all accounts are stale. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Only one account that is not  Stale -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the new accounts suggested by Liz, I ran a check of Uma Narmada and Mridul varma tharakan vs. Wessodes. Uma and Mridul are  Confirmed to each other, but Wessodes is Red X Unrelated to the other two on the technical data.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocking/tagging Wessodes per Elcobbola's notes above. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Very similar edits to prior sock Uma Narmada. Compare [6] to [7], [8] to [9] Ravensfire (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added 103.149.159.224 after the restored the edit to List of awards and nominations received by Jyothika here [10]. Requested page be semi-protected, from the .224 IP's post on my talk page [11], they don't see anything wrong with block evasion, this may go on for a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


Both accounts edit in the same topic area, Indian entertainment articles. Both intersect with each other on many pages. Both edit from a mobile platform. Both also intersect with Josh janakiraman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom Ponyo CU-blocked (see below for connection to other case). Both new socks create new pages, and both are new accounts (Alone created on December 30 and OE1995 created on December 8). All of this behavior is similar to socks in the archive, but not similar enough for me to block without some technical corroboration.

I am requesting a CU to confirm and to look for others. Regardless of the outcome, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mridul varma tharakan should be merged into this case (the connection between the two has already been established).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • CU data gives nothing useful I'm afraid - they operate out of reasonably stable ranges from each other (and from the previous socks I checked), and have stable and different sets of user agents. From a purely technical perspective, I have to say Red X Unrelated. I obviously can't rule out spoofing or meatpuppetry, so this will require behavioural evaluation. Girth Summit (blether) 17:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: - I didn't do a deep dive into the behavior, but from what I see, there's not enough to say these are socks given the CU result. I will note that OE1995 and Alone are more similar to each other than they are to Eswaran, but Bollywood is a hugely popular topic, so that may not mean much. I'll leave this on the clerk queue to look at the merge that was suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I didn't run any checks here. My comment about OE1995 and Alone is based on my evaluation of their edit histories. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Case merged, setting status back to checked. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the behavioural evidence is not sufficient to block these accounts in light of the CU results. Closing without action. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

The edits by IP is of the same theme - removing awards stating unsourced or poor sourcing. Libra cursa was blocked CU for multiple accounts. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

04 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

New account created a couple of days after prior sock was blocked. They've continued adding awards to Indian film/television related article. [12] from Libra Cursa, then continued by new sock [13]. Very odd to see that on a production company from a new editor. Ravensfire (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

A newly created account that adds content like a pro with references despite editing on mobile. Interest primarily in Vani Bhojan like previous socks, particularly:

  1. Wessodes
  2. Tuttesnaveen
  3. Eswnav Ab207 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Also note the multiple attempts at cast reordering (1, 2), similar to previous socks (Special:Diff/1070254657, User_talk:Libra_cursa#Cast_order) Hemantha (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esdfgh added an image, with only 52 pageviews in the last 3 months which was uploaded by a previous sock Pacheswnav and included in various wikis (te, ja, mr, ms) over the past couple of months by an IP range (2409:4072:6000::/36 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) that's currently pblocked from Vani Bhojan. The pblock on the range might have forced them to other ranges/devices for en-wiki, causing differences from old CU data or to create a new account. Esdfgh's other image addition was also originally from a sock Cattleya90, but the master was suspected to be AhamBrahmasmi (SPI). Hemantha (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith, is it possible that we are dealing with two different set of socks? (Eswaran Naveen, Tuttesnaveen, Wessodes) and (Mridul varma tharakan, Uma Narmada, Libra cursa, Meena Sagarmatha) as noted at Wessodes's investigation.
As far as I can tell, Naveen has an obsession with actress Vani Bhojan. All of Tuttesnaveen's (2 July–5 August) and Wessodes (15 November–27 December) contribitions are related to Bhojan's article and her works. Esdfgh now started working on the article but is not adding any new content, only restoring the previously removed ones.
Eg. See Esdfgh's wording here": In 2013, she was cast in the Sun TV series Deivamagal in the leading role." which was previously added by Eswnav, and many times as an IP
I'm not sure what's the connection with Naveen and Mridula's socks (because Mridula's interested area is somewhat broader) but I'm fairly certain that Esdfgh is a sock of Bhojan-obsessed Naveen. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207, Mridul's case was merged here recently after the two were found to be connected. Hemantha (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemantha, I see but I'm unable to figure out that connection. On the contrary, Mridul was actually removing excess images added to Bhojan's article [14], [15]. Where as Naveen's socks and (presumably) their IP who operates at 2409:4072: is known to stuff more content and images in the article (as you rightly identified here). -- Ab207 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't active when Naveen/socks were, my familiarity has been with Mridul/socks only. I do remember feeling at some point that Mridul and Naveen were different, based on talk post differences. Hemantha (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like this, it's always possible that sock farms get mixed up. As far as I can tell, there's approximately 2 billion people who live in south asia, 50% of whom make a living editing articles about south asian cinema and TV :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe both these set of socks should be dealt seperately. Because mixing them up could be misleading at times. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, since the case is closed, does this imply the above behavioural evidence is insufficient to connect Esdfgh with Eswaran Naveen, Tuttesnaveen, and Wessodes? I'm sorry if its inappropriate to make a comment after the case is closed but a conclusion would really be helpful to guide any future filings. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207 As long as the case hasn't been archived yet, it's not a big deal to comment on a closed case. As far as Esdfgh goes, I think we're in that grey area where we're not sure they're a sock, but also not sure they're not. That's a very common situation, and the general rule is, "When in doubt, don't block". If they really are a sock, the odds are they will continue to sock, the evidence will become more clear, and we can always come back and take another look. We'll never catch every sock, so it's not worth getting too upset over missing one or two. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, RoySmith. I'll look to find more conclusive evidence in future. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - the behavioural evidence is suggestive, but not quite enough for a block on its own IMO. Please compare to previous accounts. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uma Narmada, Meena Sagarmatha, and Libra cursa were the only accounts in the archives I could get data for; those three are clearly the same, but Red X Unrelated to Esdfgh. There's also some pre-existing notes in cuwiki from December 2021; against those, the best I can do is eke out a strangled  Possible, based on the same very heavily used IP range.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added another account, SaNaNtha Hegde, and am requesting a CU. I've compared the account to Libra cursa, and although I've found enough behavioral evidence to warrant a check, not quite enough to satisfy me to block behaviorally. First, they both edit from the same mobile platform. Second, they intersect on many articles, and even more so on the usual Indian entertainment topics. Third, they both filed reports at WP:AIV that were similar stylistically (Libra cursa and SaNaNtha Hegde). Fourth, they both edited mostly cast listings and filmographies, often with "simplifying" and removing entries that supposedly were not true (Libra cursa edit summary ("Not officially came out") and SaNaNtha Hegde edit summary ("Not her official entry")). Finally, they both added similar tables (Libra cursa and SaNaNtha Hegde).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SaNaNtha Hegde is  Confirmed to Uma Narmada, Meena Sagarmatha, and Libra cursa. Unfortunately, we've lost the data chain to confirm them all the way back to Eswaran Naveen, so I'll just call them suspected. If somebody wants to do some fancier dual-tagging, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

The contributions are similar to, say Libra cursa: removing awards from actresses pages. This also overlaps with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/112qw34er, which could be a connected one like the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mridul varma tharakan — DaxServer (t · c) 09:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrinalini Thampi is  Confirmed to the same SaNaNtha Hegde group from my 19 February 2022 report. As before, blocking as suspected for now because I can't confirm them back to the master. If somebody wants to do a better tagging, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Removes awards from actresses articles similar to earlier socks [16] with a focus on Jyothika-related, good overlap with other socks [17] — DaxServer (t · c) 09:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in our last episode,  Confirmed to SaNaNtha Hegde et al, but since I can't get all the way back to Eswaran, I'll just tag as suspected. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Removing actors from list [18], similar to prior sock Mrinalini Thampi [19] Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The diffs are certainly suspicious, but considering that Indian TV articles are a hotbed of disruptive editing from socks and non-socks alike, I'm hesitant to request a block based on that alone. CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - please compare to previous accounts. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either  Possible (same country, possibly same city), or  Inconclusive (proxy use). Either way,  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came back to take another look at this. Sure looks like a throw-away account, blocking. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

All edits by Trewqwer are related to Vani Bhojan, who the previous socks were fixated upon. Trewqwer restored content added by a previous sock.

In addition to the similarities listed at 19 Feb 2022 report, Esdfgh reordered credits to list Vani Bhojan higher, similar to Eswnav's earlier attempts.

Edits by the two accounts have same tags. Hemantha (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I looked at Esdfgh back in 19 February 2022, with no firm conclusion. This time, I can say that Esdfgh is  Confirmed to Trewqwer, but still only  Possible to Eswaran. I'm blocking them both, with dual tags, assuming I can remember how dual tagging actually works. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


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

  • Blocked based on behavioural evidence including significant overlap with previous socks, little tells and technical overlap that I gleaned from the logs. @RoySmith: as an FYI as you've done extensive work on this SPI in the past. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested TheSandDoctor Talk 03:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01 September 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


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

28 September 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Pushing Honey Rose up in the cast [20][21] - [22][23]. 2409:4073:4E1D:C2C5:3DAA:E860:79A9:1BF0 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Confirmed -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the block to indefinite as I assume was the intention. Possibly a spihelper bug. DatGuyTalkContribs 10:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a feature, not a bug! If an account is already blocked, by default SPIhelper sets the duration to whatever the existing block is, rather than to indefinite. You have to manually reset it by typing (!) 'indefinite'. An easy one to overlook, thanks for picking that up. Girth Summit (blether) 11:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding for the record that I just found and blocked Kokkaachi MF varghese as  Confirmed to the above. Girth Summit (blether) 11:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested TheSandDoctor Talk 19:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Cast tampering. Inexplicably reverts Asuran until the same version by previous sock User:ക്രൂര നമ്പ്യാർ is achieved. Please note that ക്രൂര നമ്പ്യാർ was under block at that time. IP arrived in 5 hours after his edits were reverted. 2409:4073:2083:829D:9D16:CAA4:F7E4:41E3 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Returned few hours after the block of Brootisian. Restoring his version in the same articles.

-- 2409:4073:487:5518:1823:8D4B:46B7:F6AA (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

09 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Cast tampering. Pushing Honey Rose over other actors, same as previous socks - [28][29] v. [30][31]. Recently created after last blocks. 2409:4073:4E8C:A841:7555:FB01:E4EF:AA92 (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Quick return for restoring same content in Asuran:

  • [34][35]
  • Adding the "Jyothika claim" with the same fictitious reference [36][37]

-- 2409:4073:84:EFFE:EC76:1205:CCE6:F1AA (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar edit here [38] as prior socks [39] and [40] Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Thrishtika warrier, same image preference on Simran [41] as a prior sock [42]. Ravensfire (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Cast tampering, pushing Honey Rose over others in Monster: [43][44] – [45][46][47]. Also cast vandalism at '96: [48][49].

-- 2409:4073:210F:6AA3:98AC:3C81:48A6:3557 (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Mostly pro forma as editor has been blocked as an impersonation account, but wouldn't mind it being noted as they edited a couple of new articles. Similar edits to Meena (actress) as some prior socks ([50] vs [51] and [52], especially the lead). Also very similar profane rants [53] as prior socks when they were blocked [54] and the last few sections [55]. Such a lovely person to interact with. Ravensfire (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth semi-protecting '96 (film) as Naveen has been editing this with named and ip socks recently. It's a decent honeypot though, maybe pending changes on it? Ravensfire (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Likely, no others seen. Already blocked and locked, I added a tag. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

A bit tenuous, but: after User:Trewqwer got blocked as sock, Pavi4321 was registered and took over editing Miral (2022 film), which was just moved to mainspace past AfC; these accounts also share other editing interests, eg. Vani Bhojan. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • From a technical perspective, the account is a weak(ish)  Likely to the Trewqwer group from June; I will note that I see no links to any other socks that I have data for. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked without tags I find the behavioral connection along with the CU more than persuasive. Blocked without tags, as I see a complex tag was used for some of the others: I would appreciate clerk assistance with tagging, I hope that parameter use is appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Tagged as suspected to Esdfgh (confirmed master of Trewqwer) and Eswaran Naveen. Closing. MarioGom (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar edits [56] as prior socks [57] and IP socks [58]. [59]. Heavy interest at Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Tamil, including pushing Jyothika as a nominee in the 2002 award section [60] as prior socks have done [61]. Also pushes same image [62] as prior socks [63], [64]. Ravensfire (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Blocked without tags Behavioral to previous socks is quite clear, also appears to be editing logged out as 103.155.223.192. The tagging here is messy, leaving it to the clerks. I don't see an obvious need for a CU, given that a check was run not that long ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as suspected, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Created today after prior sock was blocked a few days ago, immediately edited Simran (actress) which is a common EN target. Same preferred image [65] as prior socks [66]. Also left a mildly insulting message on my talk page [67] and prior socks have done similar things, usually after being blocked though. I think there's some frustration building in them. Ravensfire (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

02 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Replace images on Simran (actress) with preferred version [68], see [69] and [70] which uses same edit summary. May need to consider ECP on that article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

04 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Created shortly after prior sock was blocked. Similar user name to prior sock Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya. Similar articles edited as prior socks. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

The concern has been raised by Nehansaxan, who the reported user has been harrassing. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 10:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar kind of editing patterns and username is similar to ക്രൂര നമ്പ്യാർ. Theoder2055 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eswaran_Naveen/Archive&oldid=1130531041"