Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Distributor108

Distributor108

Distributor108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Distributor108/Archive.

20 February 2013

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

Suspected sockpuppets

Eng.Bandara (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
114.76.220.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

User:Distributor108 was indefinitely blocked on 1 May 2012. User:Eng.Bandara is an account that was created on 18 February 2013. My suspicions were raised that they were the same person when User:Eng.Bandara started a RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka about amending the Sri Lanka article so that the country's only official language is shown as Sinhala (as opposed to Sinhala and Tamil). This was something that User:Distributor108 had tried to do before in September 2011 and April 2012. Both User:Distributor108 and User:Eng.Bandara have tried to use the CIA fact-book to make their point: Distributor108 in April 2012 v Eng.Bandara in February 2013. Both also want Sinhala to be shown as the de-facto language: Distributor108 in September 2011 v Eng.Bandara in February 2013.

Both users has also edited the same articles:

Both editors seem to be "keen" on promoting articles to FA: Distributor108 in April 2012 v Eng.Bandara in February 2013.

And both editors also use the same IP address - 114.76.220.19 (talk · contribs). A previous SPI established relationship between User:Distributor108 and User:114.76.220.19. And now User:Eng.Bandara is editing on the same articles as User:114.76.220.19:

I have no doubt that User:Distributor108 and User:Eng.Bandara are the same person. And I have no doubt that this individual intends use the User:Eng.Bandara account for purely disruptive purposes as they did with the User:Distributor108 account. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. First off, that IP does appear to be mine, however I categorically reject this malicious allegation that that user is me. It is regrettable that User:obi2canibe chose to present evidence from a number of highly spurious and uncorroborated allegation and seek entirely to falsely to implicate members of socket puppetry, User:obi2canibe has chosen to ignore the many positive contribution that I have made, User:obi2canibe behavior would harm the ongoing and comprehensive contributions to develop the sri lanka pages on Wikipedia. It appears User:obi2canibe is very enthusiastic to open a ridiculous amounts of socket puppetry cases [[1]] which Wikipedia alarmingly seems to openly endorse. As the conduct of Wikipedia has fallen well short of the 'standards and fairness' expected of a reputed and responsible organization, I do not wish to be associated with the organization at anytime unless and until a suitable retraction is made to my satisfaction. Eng.Bandara (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further it also appears the accusing party is involved in a broad ranging war with Distributor108 [[2]] across a number of different articles regarding various topics. As the accusing party stated ' My suspicions were raised that they were the same person when User:Eng.Bandara started a RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka about amending the Sri Lanka article so that the country's only official language is shown as Sinhala (as opposed to Sinhala and Tamil) (Which is ONE of the many topics this user appears to be edit warring with the other user) ' Nonetheless I started this RfC to gain comments as I found a source to contend what appears to be UN-cited material on the said article. Which I presented with valid concerns and fact. As you can see from User:obi2canibe own link the user acting based on the Constitution, I have repeatedly said in my RfC the Constitution is a primary source, and we should focus on the secondary source keeping inline with the OR policy. His claim that the other user cites the factbook as source is ridiculous and its evident from the diff he provided. Regarding the de facto language, it appears the other user has raised the same valid points that I have. It is a very valid logical point, linking 2 and 2 together by two different people is not in anyway an indication that they are same person. Eng.Bandara (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: I have sent message to a CheckUser Allison, regarding the checkuser authorized by the clerk. Could any checkusers standby until I receive a response from her. Eng.Bandara (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk endorsed - Eng. was familiar with prod on his first mainspace edit. He was referring to NPOV about an hour later [3]. Requesting CU to confirm whether there is a connection to Distributor, but it is clear that Eng is someone's sock. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]