Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anshuman Tiwari Official/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Anshuman Tiwari Official

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

24 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

See:

Anshumantiwariofficials was locked in August for cross-wiki spam. Bsadowski1 blocked Imanshumantiwari 11 days later for block evasion; it was then locked as well. Anshumantiwariwiki has now popped up making the same DUCKy edits.

The usernames scream autobio, but the history at Draft:Lalu Singh Sodha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see also Lalujsm (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) gives me pause, and makes me wonder if this is actually a UPE-farm trying to cover its tracks by creating different accounts for different clients. Requesting CU to see if we can tie this to any known UPEs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:03, 24 September 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

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention.  Clerk note: Lalujsm is the oldest here, but there's not enough behavioral evidence to block as proven, and it's likely stale CU-wise, so I've filed under the oldest blockable one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed,  Blocked without tags. ST47 (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, ST47. Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested for Anshumantiwariwiki. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

See the username and their only edits to Draft:Anshuman Tiwari (musician).  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Jack Frost (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realised the master is globally locked, and a steward has done the honours for the sock as well. I don't think a CU is necessary, given the obvious single-minded purpose and lack of creativity in username any sleepers will likely become pretty obvious shortly, so I think this can be closed. Apologies for any inconvenience. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:15, 4 November 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

25 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Same writing style, similar objective of promoting non-notable musician. Requesting a CU to see if there're any sleepers. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Anshumantiwariofficials --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is being reviewed by Jack Frost as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

25 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Tkeyahd1 and Coolblack4 are solely focused on Anshuman Tiwari (at various page-names), same as usual for this drawer. Coolblack4 is already blocked on simplewiki as a sock of Tomasina3, who was also focused on the same subject on that site prior to being globally locked (Tomasina3 was also CU-blocked on simplewiki). I've blocked Tkeyahd1 and Coolblack4, but given the lack of username pattern and continual new account creation over several months, I think it would be useful for CUs to look for an underlying IP to block (obviously they can't tell us what that IP is, but they can still act on it themselves). DMacks (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just came across:

which is much older account that was blocked in April 2020 for this same target-subject. That's much older than the currently-identified master here. commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Anshuman Tiwari Official has several others also that are too old to have CU data but not nearly as old as that one. DMacks (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now up popped:

who I blocked. But given this was created during the autoblock of the others and the lack of username pattern, CU might help uncover even more that are lurking. DMacks (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brand new account who's first edit is to request the unprotection of Anshuman, a page which was protected due to being hijacked by this sockpuppeteer. There are similarities between the writing style of these accounts, e.g. using external links to the mobile site instead of wikilinks and signing comments with "Thank You." (Note the incorrect capitalisation, compare to [1]) 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC) - Merged into this case. Regarding Ronny141 --Jack Frost (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • @Jack Frost: Should there be an x-wiki abuse tag here? Given that there was abuse found on commons, I'd think adding that would be a good idea. I was tempted to do it myself, but that's definitely not something I should be handling. InvalidOStalk 12:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a commons admin, I think that would be helpful. Given there were some socks on each that had not been linked to this pool (or even noticed at all?) vs the other and now that we know they are both chronic and abusing multiple sites, this can help remind us to check for x-wiki abuse when someone pops up here, and block/g-lock promptly. Explaining and not simply adding it myself per "ClerkAtWork" request. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is being reviewed by Jack Frost as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

Jack Frost, have a look at ticket:2021112510001847. Cabayi (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi - *sigh*... Thanks. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful explanation of case merges
    • @Blablubbs: Per IRC - when you have a moment that walk through would be grand. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jack Frost: Basically, the issue is that when there have been instances where both cases had open filings at the same time, a histmerge will end up producing a somewhat nonsensical page history. If we merge two cases with histories like 
        Case A: <---------------->                        <------------------>
Case B:                     <---------------->
        (<--> denotes open filings) we get AAAA BBBB AAAA in the merged history, but if we merge something like 
        Case A: <---------------->  
Case B:     <---------------->
        it produces AABABABABABA, i.e. the filings keep appearing and disappearing if you go through it permalink by permalink. What complicates things a little here is that we want the entire case to eventually end up at Anshuman Tiwari Official. There are a couple ways to go about situations like this:
        1. Copy the filing from Anshuman Tiwari Official to this case, G6 it and move. Someone smarter than me tells me that the signatures provide sufficient attribution.
        2. G6 Anshuman Tiwari Official without merging, move Anshumantiwariofficials there and call it a day. It's the least work and produces the most coherent archive in more complex cases, but is not feasible if there is important evidence at the target.
        3. Take the middle road and copy only the evidence in the filing, G6 and move.
        4. Decide you don't actually want to move the case for whatever reason, copy the filing and point the archivenotice to Anshumantiwariofficials.
        5. Decide you don't want to move or merge and only retarget the old case.
      • For what it's worth, I would generally recommend doing merges or moves after CU has been run, since having to move and retag multiple times in case CU finds an even older account can be pretty annoying. I hope this helps. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not smarter; I just act like more of a know-it-all. But yes, my understanding of the text at the footer to the edit window is that signatures are sufficient attribution as long as every comment is signed and all of the signatures link to pages making clear the user's name or pseudonym. Still, if one is copying a page and expects the source page to be deleted, one can always list contributors' usernames in an ES. (See meta:Special:Diff/5725889 for a random example of a time that was necessary.) If the source page isn't being deleted, then the "see X page history for attribution" thing ought to suffice. Occasionally at RfD we'll move a page's history somewhere arbitrary just to keep the diffs, which in an extreme case of muddled archives might be useful at SPI, although probably not here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Same MO, same hijacking of articles, same username format. Mako001 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 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

11 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Created at same time as other accounts listed above, same username format. Mako001 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 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

26 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Same naming scheme as previous socks using the Teamuk name. Any sleepers whose insurance policies need canceled? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more found by trolling Special:Users -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 26 December 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

  • I've blocked the account and requested a global lock as well. Support request for CU, given his history of prolific socking. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough: Teamindia141 added to the list. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK test passed: Bricola12, Gull2022, फ़िज़ा3. Compare with this previous sock and this hijacked article version. He generally creates multiple socks, so a CU check for sleepers would be helpful. bonadea contributions talk 08:44, 5 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

05 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Sock 3 sent a help request in WP:TH, where I responded. Sock 2 sent a talk page message to me regarding the same topic. Sock 3 was confirmed to be blocked for sockpuppeting by Nick Moyes Sock 1 sent another talk page message to me regarding the same topic. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 11:50, 5 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

  • फ़िज़ा3 is a sock of Anshuman Tiwari Official. Moving this case there. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possible. Differing technical information to other socks, but similar geolocation. IMO CU results do not support sockpuppetry nor do they rule it out, so  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocking Support2022. Tagging them as proven. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an Indian mobile IP, so there's not much point to blocking it for a single edit several hours after the fact. (I didn't see any other activity that looked like them on the range). Closing without further action for now. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma filing. Recreation of Draft:Anshuman_Tiwari_(musician), a target of prior socks. firefly ( t · c ) 10:21, 13 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

  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. firefly ( t · c ) 10:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

31 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Rockybhai3 has usual focus on en:Anshuman Tiwari to be a musician (various pagename variants in mainspace and draftspace). Also pagename-title behavior and user-talkpage behavior matches फ़िज़ा3, a CU-blocked sock from earlier this year. Rocky10101996 has overlap with Rockybhai3 on other wikis, but has not been active on enwiki. Typical behaviors of this drawer include multiple accounts with name-patterns, each mostly focused on different wikis. I’ve indef’ed both, but this has been going on for over a year so I’m requesting CU for sleeper-check and to make sure CUs have recent data. DMacks (talk) 21:27, 31 July 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 to the master from notes on CU wiki. No other accounts visible to me at this time. Locks requested, closing. Girth Summit (blether) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Many369 re-activates a dormant account just after Mayamam123 account is locked for lock evasion. Duck blocked, but here for paperwork as I'm not sufficiently familiar with Meta. Star Mississippi 02:14, 16 February 2024 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anshuman_Tiwari_Official/Archive&oldid=1209183921"