| Revision as of 13:53, 12 May 2017 editTerabar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users681 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:17, 12 May 2017 edit undoIvanvector (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators52,139 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| ::::{{yo|Terabar}} it looks to me like they're just restoring preexisting content after you show up to revert them. The edits are the same because they're reversing ''your'' disruptive edits. Like , where you showed up to revert to an old version of an article that had been stable for over 2 months, having not discussed at all or even indicated in the first place what you thought the issue was, other than your cry of sockpuppetry which was previously shown to be incorrect. D4iNa4 was right to revert you, then you edit-warred yourself into a block. That was your fourth block for edit warring, yet you still don't seem to understand that it is ''your'' behaviour that is disruptive, ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | ::::{{yo|Terabar}} it looks to me like they're just restoring preexisting content after you show up to revert them. The edits are the same because they're reversing ''your'' disruptive edits. Like , where you showed up to revert to an old version of an article that had been stable for over 2 months, having not discussed at all or even indicated in the first place what you thought the issue was, other than your cry of sockpuppetry which was previously shown to be incorrect. D4iNa4 was right to revert you, then you edit-warred yourself into a block. That was your fourth block for edit warring, yet you still don't seem to understand that it is ''your'' behaviour that is disruptive, ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: ], what about the report that ] ] I was not the first one to report this user. Rather it was Zanhe. And in other cases too he is found to be using two ids but he has escaped very cleverly. He was also blocked for sockpuppetry earlier and you are forgetting that. ] (]) 13:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | ::::: ], what about the report that ] ] I was not the first one to report this user. Rather it was Zanhe. And in other cases too he is found to be using two ids but he has escaped very cleverly. He was also blocked for sockpuppetry earlier and you are forgetting that. ] (]) 13:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::{{yo|Terabar}} that is the first report I mentioned here which Mike V closed as unlikely. You're not going to get a different result by ] different people to ] over and over again. There is no connection here. The only thing I can see that these editors have in common is that you keep accusing them of being sockpuppets when many people have already told you that they're not. Editors who ] when they've been told that they're wrong frequently find themselves blocked. I advise you to find something else to do here. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ||
Revision as of 14:17, 12 May 2017
Capitals00
Capitals00 (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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive.
12 May 2017
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
Suspected sockpuppets
- D4iNa4 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Rzvas (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Capitals00 is again using his secondary accounts D4iNA4 and Rzvas to remove edits critical of Hinduism. These accounts work together in support of each other. Their languages are same to some extent whenever they revert other users. Capitals00 and D4iNa4, both were blocked for sock-puppetry earlier. Since then he has not improved his behaviour and is again using sock accounts. User: Zanhe reported the same thing few months ago. See previous reports.
Here are some edits where they are found to support each other's edits.
- Criticism of Hinduism : Sourced content removed by Rzvas ; Reverted by D4iNa4 ; ; and then by Capitals00
- List of converts to Islam from Hinduism : D4iNa4 ; Capitals00 .
Earlier too, I reported the same thing where they were found to support each other's edits. I am pasting those edits below as clear evidences that they are sock-puppets.
- List of converts to Islam from Hinduism:D4iNa4 Capitals00
- Template:Criticism of religion sidebar: D4iNa4 ; ;; Capitals00 ; ; ; .
- Dalit Buddhist Movement: D4iNa4 ; ; Capitals00 ; .
- Slavery and religion: Capitals00 ; D4iNa4
- Cho La incident: Capitals00 ; D4iNa4
- Indo-Pakistani War of 1947: Capitals00 ; D4iNa4
- WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Batapur: Capitals00 voted delete with very similar wording to D4iNa4's AfD nomination. Terabar (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC) -->
Now he has admitted that his account must have shared IP address with Rzvas account. See
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
Clerk note: explicitly retaliatory filing from OP being blocked for edit warring at Criticism of Hinduism against these three accounts, the editor's fourth block for edit warring in a little over a year. Just a few days ago the filer also thought these edits were by a sockpuppet of OccultZone (talk · contribs), leading them to edit-war into a one-week block which seems quite lenient to me. They then filed two unsuccessful appeals ( ), each one defending the edit war and wanting to be unblocked to file this report. They filed here when their block expired.
- In previous investigations from which much of this evidence is rehashed, these accounts have been found by two CheckUsers to be
Unlikely (by Mike V on 27 November 2015 and "very unlikely" by Bbb23 on 13 December 2016). They are not the same user. Case closed for the third time with no action. - @Terabar: your repeated filing of sockpuppet investigations against editors who have been demonstrated not to be sockpuppets is harassment. Stop now, or you will be blocked from editing. If you have a dispute with these users that you cannot resolve on the article's talk page, please try dispute resolution. If you find yourself in another edit war with these users I suspect your next block is going to be a lot longer than a week. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- User: Ivanvector instead of attacking me, you should have investigated properly. You should have seen that how these accounts are clearly inter-related. I only tried to prevent disruption on Misplaced Pages and nothing else. You don't need to harass me. Have a good day. Terabar (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Terabar: I have investigated. There is no connection, in my opinion. I'm not the first SPI clerk to tell you this. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- User: Ivanvector, so could you please tell that how these editors are not working together when most of their edits are supporting each other? I don't mean to hurt somebody. But still I would like to know that why these two editors are supporting each other? Or they are meat puppets?Terabar (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Terabar: it looks to me like they're just restoring preexisting content after you show up to revert them. The edits are the same because they're reversing your disruptive edits. Like this one, where you showed up to revert to an old version of an article that had been stable for over 2 months, having not discussed at all or even indicated in the first place what you thought the issue was, other than your cry of sockpuppetry which was previously shown to be incorrect. D4iNa4 was right to revert you, then you edit-warred yourself into a block. That was your fourth block for edit warring, yet you still don't seem to understand that it is your behaviour that is disruptive, not everybody else's. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- User: Ivanvector, what about the report that User: Zanhe reported in this section? I was not the first one to report this user. Rather it was Zanhe. And in other cases too he is found to be using two ids but he has escaped very cleverly. He was also blocked for sockpuppetry earlier and you are forgetting that. Terabar (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Terabar: that is the first report I mentioned here which Mike V closed as unlikely. You're not going to get a different result by repeatedly asking different people to review the same evidence over and over again. There is no connection here. The only thing I can see that these editors have in common is that you keep accusing them of being sockpuppets when many people have already told you that they're not. Editors who refuse to listen when they've been told that they're wrong frequently find themselves blocked. I advise you to find something else to do here. Ivanvector (/Edits) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- User: Ivanvector, what about the report that User: Zanhe reported in this section? I was not the first one to report this user. Rather it was Zanhe. And in other cases too he is found to be using two ids but he has escaped very cleverly. He was also blocked for sockpuppetry earlier and you are forgetting that. Terabar (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Terabar: it looks to me like they're just restoring preexisting content after you show up to revert them. The edits are the same because they're reversing your disruptive edits. Like this one, where you showed up to revert to an old version of an article that had been stable for over 2 months, having not discussed at all or even indicated in the first place what you thought the issue was, other than your cry of sockpuppetry which was previously shown to be incorrect. D4iNa4 was right to revert you, then you edit-warred yourself into a block. That was your fourth block for edit warring, yet you still don't seem to understand that it is your behaviour that is disruptive, not everybody else's. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- User: Ivanvector, so could you please tell that how these editors are not working together when most of their edits are supporting each other? I don't mean to hurt somebody. But still I would like to know that why these two editors are supporting each other? Or they are meat puppets?Terabar (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Terabar: I have investigated. There is no connection, in my opinion. I'm not the first SPI clerk to tell you this. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Categories: