Cosmos416 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Report date October 22 2009, 04:14 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Diamond912 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Athenean

• User:Cosmos416 was an aggressive Indian nationalist who was blocked indef on October 13 [1] by User:Tanthalas39 for disruptive editing. The User:Diamond912 account was created within a few hours of the block [2].
• Diamond912 shows an interest in Indian topics, as did Cosmos, and in this instance is pushing a nationalist POV [3].
• The user names are remarkably similar.
• User:Diamond912 hails from Canada [4], as did Cosmos416 [5].
• User:Cosmos416 had a vendetta against me [6] [7] [8] [9]. In this edit [10] Diamond 912 reverts me saying "Agree with Shreevatsa", when in fact the edit he undid was a revert of User:KnowledgeAndVision [11] [12], not User:Shreevatsa. It thus appears that he performed the edit mechanically, without bothering to look at the content before reverting. This would be consistent with an attempt to spite me personally, rather than a genuine interest in the subject.

The odds of a brand new user with a very similar username, from the same country and with an interest in Indian topics appearing on the same day cosmos was banned is pretty small indeed. This has WP:DUCK written all over it. -- Athenean ( talk) 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Athenean ( talk) 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk declined – when WP:DUCK applies, CU is not necessary. MuZemike 15:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Note: Diamond912 already blocked by Tanthalas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions

 Clerk note: Tagged. MuZemike 15:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

16 February 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• HonestopL ( 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.

I have come to suspect that HonestopL may be a sockpuppet of the banned user Cosmos416. This is because:

• HonestopL was created the day after [ [13]] Cosmos416's last identified sock, Censorship234, was blocked [ [14]].
• HonestopL began by editing the page [ [15]] that Censorship234 had been editing prior to blocking [ [16]]; (the talk page; Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) (which seems quite an unusual/obscure, or very coincidental, page for first edits))
• HonestopL has edited heavily [ [17]] Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), Scythians, Anglo-Indian and Kalash people which were the articles that Cosmos416 primarily edited [ [18]].
• HonestopL has, from the start and until the present, replicated exactly Cosmos416's controversial editorial positions on those articles; e.g. [ [19]] & [ [20]] and [ [21]] and [ [22]
• HonestopL has often been disruptive and has received two blocks [ [23]].
• From his edits[ [24]] HonestopL appears, like Cosmos416, to be from Canada.

Perhaps you could investigate. Romper ( talk) 02:36, 16 February 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

•  Clerk declined - Cosmos is incredibly stale, so this will have to be decided by evidence. I can't help but think this case is retaliation for disagreement between the reporter and the sock on Talk:Anglo-Indian, so I'm mildly inclined to close, but.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Little evidence. Seems quite punitive. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply