The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Pvsamrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ankur0412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Pvsamrat has been creating several articles which have been deleted as spam, not notable etc., and also recreating previously deleted articles.

Ankur0412 has recreated an article previously created by Pvsamrat, and posted a message of support on Pvsamrat's user page.

This is my first sockpuppet report, so please forgive me if I don't get it right!

Comments

Sorry! But the Articles that were being Deleted by Wiki were not by a genuine reason. Those articles regarding the New TV Series are a Must in Such an Encyclopedia which Covers every Aspect.. Ankur0412 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that these accounts are the same person. They both struggle with English grammar and use unconventional capitalization, and they sometimes fail to put a space after a comma. It's also worth noting that Ankur0412, in his comment above, did not deny the allegation made against him.

The evidence that convinces me of these accounts' identity is the revision history of

Dharam Veer (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 4 February 2008 at 9:30 PM, there is an edit by Ankur0412, followed immediately by an edit from Pvsamrat, then another edit by Ankur0412. This is not an isolated incident. There is another place in the article history where a group of edits by one user is followed within minutes by a group of edits from the other user, without any mixing between the two. The chances of this happening by coincidence, with two unrelated people editing an article that is of interest to almost nobody, is very remote.

I suggest that an administrator explain to this user that he must be limited to one account. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Pvsamrat is by far the older of the two accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I am going to warn the users that if they happen to be controlled by the same person, that only one account should be used, and that they should follow relevant policies. I do not think the level of disruption is so severe as to risk blocking, nor is it severe enough to request checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]