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

24 September 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

• Hrishiraj talk ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) - adjusted, per ReaperEternal's correct assumption below

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ruderow created a rather poor fork of Kayastha in October 2011, calling the new article Kulin Kayastha. In June 2012 they made a series of bad edits to the article, and it is possible that they were also editing while logged out using a narrow-ish range of 117.* IPs. Cutting a long story short, Salvio giuliano imposed a topic ban, which was logged here. There was also a brief block, which Salvio relaxed in order to allow Ruderow to pursue dispute resolution. No such DR process was followed: Ruderow sat out their ban and returned on 23 September, going straight back to the KK article with more poor edits. They have erroneously claimed not to have had that opportunity.

During the June kerfuffle, Calcuttan appeared to support Ruderow. Calcuttan has only ever edited stuff relating to Ruderow and his/her edits. Like Ruderow, Calcuttan fell silent from June til September, when they returned with this revert. Heck of coincidence.

Although they have not shown their face so far this month, Hrishiraj Hrishiraj talk displayed similar naive contributions and support for Ruderow's idea in June/July - eg: here - and may possibly be another sock. Sitush ( talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I've altered the named party: ReaperEternal's assumption below is correct. My apologies. - Sitush ( talk) 14:38, 24 September 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 note: I am assuming you are referring to Hrishiraj talk ( talk · contribs), since Hrishiraj ( talk · contribs) has never edited. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
•  Clerk note: Both sockpuppets blocked indefinitely, and master blocked one week for puppeting. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
•  Additional information needed - drive-by admin comment: I believe a checkuser should be performed. Calcuttan has posted an unblock request. If Calcuttan is a sock of Ruderow, it makes no sense to me that Ruderow would request ublocking of a sockpuppet account when Ruderow's own account isn't even indef blocked. I know Checkuser isn't intended to prove innocence, but the illogic of a temp-blocked sockmaster requesting an unblock of a sock account suggests that a checkuser verification is warranted in this instance. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • This is already closed, but I will say there are plenty of reasons that a blocked master would ask for an unblock of their own indef blocked puppet, "Block account creation" being a default option in all bocks is but one reason. This doesn't mean I support the blocks, I haven't looked into it deeply enough to have an opinion, I'm just addressing that one point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC) reply