Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sridhar100/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Sridhar100

Sridhar100 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
25 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK, both name and edits of Mughal Army. Muhandes (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2011 (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
28 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK: similar name and similar edits to Mughal Army. Muhandes (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2011 (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

Sridharbabu58 is a  Confirmed match to Sridhar100. TNXMan 14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Blocked & Tagged. —SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Duck activity: Same name. Same articles like Mughal weapons and continuation of copyright violations. I have indefinitely blocked this account as a suspected sock per the obvious evidence. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2011 (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, but no other unblocked accounts that I saw. There appear to be quite a few accounts by now, so please keep filing as they appear. TNXMan 18:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The same bits of plagiarism as Sridhar100 from Risingstar12 that I duckblocked (there are potential copyvios too and I'll be opening a CCI shortly). Risingstar12 is now a self-confirmed sock. We've had similar problems with Mughal Lohar (there was an ANI discussion on this -- [1]) who has been indef blocked but not for sockpuppetry. Mughal Lohar has also been editing from the same range (see SPI:Mughal Lohar). He has confirmed the following as his socks also - sridhar100, sridhar1000, sridhar00,sridhar10, sridhar10000, sridhar100000, fatbuu58, fatbuu1000, sridharbabu58, sridharbabu1000, sridharbabu1983. Given that he cops to a few socks and then creates more to indulge in the same problematic behavior I believe a sleeper check and sweep is required. The range is busy so I'm not sure if the collateral damage is minimal, but if something can be done, that'd be helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Also see User talk:MuZemike#Range block?. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And note that we have serious copyivo problems with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note similarity between Mughal Lohar's unblock requests and Sridhar100's unblock requests. Both users have made repeated requests which fall far outside the guide to appealing blocks. Dialectric (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following are all  Confirmed with each other, listing here for posterity:

WilliamH (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

We have a serious problem here and a possible serial copyright violator.

  • In Wikimedia Commons Sridhar1000 uploads images relating to the Mughals [2] and Littleboy58 is used to add these images to Wikipedia articles.[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
  • I think the sockmaster is this person in the photo (File:Sridhar.jpg), and he's also involved in sockpuppetry at Wikimedia Commons. [10]
  • Can we check to see if Sreejithk2000 (talk · contribs) is the actual sockmaster because of this, including the fact that they have very similar names, from the same country, deals with images of the same things or places, etc.[11]
  • This diff is in regards to the listed IP which is in India.Kiftaan (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • I've blocked many Sridhar socks, but just want to say that Sreejithk2000 is a long standing editor who works on India images and there's nothing to connect him to Sridhar100, so that should be considered when running a CU. —SpacemanSpiff 05:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've given good reasons to connect him, and he really began in 2010. The problem is that the sockmaster is using too many socks without showing to stop, and is even blanking many pages.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't see any evidence presented to link Sreejithk2000 (who is active on quite a few wikis, is an admin and bureaucrat on one, OTRS member etc) to Sridhar100. Performing a requested move on a file by a filemover isn't linkage. —SpacemanSpiff 16:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SpacemanSpiff, just because someone is admin or has been active for a few years it doesn't give them a license to abuse Wikipedia or Wikimedia by blanking pages and doing other disruptive acts. Admins are suppose to set a good example and Wikipedia should be free of corruption.--Kiftaan (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've got to have some evidence before making such absurd accusations. This is an incredible waste of time. —SpacemanSpiff 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So funny. So I guess I should not edit any page which some other editor might possibly edit before or after me. On a side note, you can see me in this image. I am the one in the brown t-shirt. Now dont say that the rest of the people in that photo are my sock puppets because they stood next to me. Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Your name Sreeithk2000 (Srijithk2000) and Sridhar1000 are very close.
    2. At 05:58, on 16 Dec. 2011, Sridhar1000 makes this and this to a file.
    3. Hours later, you come to the same file and do this and this to it, and then little over an hour later he returns and does this to that same file.
    4. Yours and his edit summaries also appears similar, starts with a capital letter and are short. [12] [13]
    5. In addition, the one all the way on the right in this photo (with striped shirt) looks alot like the sockmaster, File:Sridhar.jpg, doesn't he?--Kiftaan (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice findings. So now I should
    1. Choose a username that does not resemble any used up name in Wikipedia. Mind you, Sree and Sri are very common names in India and even when Sreejith is my real name, I should not choose it.
    2. Should never edit any file which someone else has edited and which he can come back and edit some time later after I edit it.
    3. Even when I have file mover rights, should refrain from renaming files in the Category Commons:Category:Media requiring renaming. Even if I do, I should check the file history and see whether any of the editors have a name resembling mine.
    4. Choose random edit summaries. Mix up capital letters, mix up long and short summaries and sometimes use random text which no one could possibly think of.
    5. Last one, ah, forget it. If they both are the same persons, I pray to god to make me blind. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Sreejith (Please don't tell that I'm his Sockpuppet! :P ) Sree and Sri are very common names in India. I know Sreejith personally and he is the one in the picture which he has given. Anyway great findings! :) --Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - It's certainly possible. There were sleepers last time, so endorsing for confirmation. There won't be a comment on the IP. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly  Likely with regards to the named account, and no comment with regards to the IP. As for Sreejithk2000 (talk · contribs), I'm  declining to run a check. Tiptoety talk 07:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. —SpacemanSpiff 07:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Accounts need to be blocked.User:Sridhar1000 mentioned in his own talk page. Dipankan In the woods? 12:51, 16 January 2012 (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 is true, but as they noted here, they have not used the second account since they realized it was not permitted. Perhaps someone could communicate with them in Telugu? TNXMan 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts are blocked, filer did not respond, so I'm marking for close. TNXMan 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
01 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks pretty obvious from the similar name and the pattern of editing which includes editing the user and talk pages of the previous sock accounts to add the "retired" template, which I a pretty certain that his previous socks have also done. DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2012 (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 match to Fatbuu (talk · contribs) and Sridhar1000 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Napoleon 100 has been blocked on Commons by Tiptoety as a confirmed sock (I'm not entirely sure of what our cross-wiki SPI policy is), but the disruption continues here as he's making the same image changes etc as his old socks, an example is at Maricha. I'll block this one per WP:DUCK, but we do normally have a few socks operating and I can't seem to find the others yet, so a check would be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 13:19, 9 July 2012 (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
  • Already blocked, retagged as confrimed per crosswiki CU. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]



09 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Confirmed by Commons CU [14] Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2012 (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
18 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


See below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 18 March 2013 (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

Logging for future reference: While reviewing unblock requests, I found that this account was making the same sort of edits as previous socks. The CU logs show that this account is a  Likely match to Sridhar100. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Blocked as sock at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJameslwoodward&diff=116830655&oldid=116826190 Denniss (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (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
  • information Administrator note Clear-cut case. Blocked, locked, tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sridhar100/Archive&oldid=1079420111"