Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavdiaravish/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Kavdiaravish

Kavdiaravish (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
09 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kavdiaravish/User:Stonex201 for the story. Requesting CU for sleepers.  Ryan Vesey 01:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Edits by Wikipriest78 (talk · contribs) and Alison458 (talk · contribs) follow the same pattern. Ewulp (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's well past time I had this wrapped up. On further review, there may be more to this, but there are hundreds of editors on these ranges, and sifting through them edit-by-edit isn't going to be a productive use of anyone's time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


11 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar page creation topics and content to Kavdiaravish and Stonex201: pages about pieces of art that appear to be useful on the surface, but are actually WP:LINKSPAM for the art-reproduction site wahooart.com. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 03:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added another account, Wikighost241, to the list. Ryan Vesey 03:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note the similarity between the name of Wikighost and wikipriest. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Is there any way to "bump" this? It's showing up on WP:SPI as "in progress," which makes me suspect the admins might not know it's been re-opened. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 04:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the case listing can only display one of the statuses if there is more than one. In Progress has actually the highest priority. Amalthea 20:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • @Drmies, he created one for tracking purposes, but I don't think it works, or I don't know how to use it. The link he gave me is here. I left some questions for him on his talk page. Ryan Vesey 04:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Both blocked, all new articles deleted. Wasn't Writ Keeper working on a filter? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell there's nothing left to do, closing. Amalthea 20:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


Kavdiaravish is banned as a result of spam and running a paid editing sockfarm. The new accounts turned up in relation to articles connected to Kavdiaravish, with some odd behaviour. All three are creating paid articles, (although Mikekohan was a throwaway account that only ever made the one edit), and the Kavdiamanju and Ireneshih are marking each other's new articles as reviewed within seconds of being created. Other than the name of the Kavdiamanju account, crossover in articles include:

  • Guardtime: previously created by Kavdiaravish sock, recreated by Ireneshih. Article uses almost exactly the same text as the one that was deleted several months ago. Reviewed within a minute of creation by Kavdiamanju.
  • Micro Tokenization: Created by Mikekohan, a new account with no prior edits and nothing subsequent. Immediately marked as reviewed by Kavdiamanju. Connected to MicroEncryption, which was previously created by a Kavdiaravish sock.
  • Micro Encryption: Another term created by the company who created MicroTokenization. Both articles use exactly the same refs, including one in each which doesn't mention the article subject. Created by Ireneshih, reviewed immediately by Kavdiamanju. Previous article, MicroEncryption, was created by Kavdiaravish, and oddly enough was immediately marked as reviewed by Kavdiamanju.

Imonomy, Vish Iyer both follow the same pattern - promotional articles created by Kavdiamanju, and immediately reviewed by Ireneshih.

This behaviour of using a second account to mark new articles created by socks was something that I have seen with Kavdiaravish in the past. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • I am surprised to see a socketpuppet investigation against me, I have been patrolling pages from really a long time. The question of sock puppetry really surprises me at this point, even if you compare with any two Wikipedia administrators, you might find similar patterns.Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suspected for some time that Kavdiamanju might be a sockpuppet of SMGeorge34, see earlier SPIs. The editing pattern is very similar, as is that of Ireneshih: many constructive edits mixed with spamming of an insidious kind. (What made me suspect Kavdiamanju was edits like these: [1], [2], and [3], where spam links are added as references, in an identical manner to earlier SMGeorge34 socks - a couple of the links are also identical to those added by earlier socks.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a pretty strong bit of evidence linking Ireneshih to Kavdiaravish. Based on their edits, both Kavdiamanju and Ireneshih appear to involved in what looks very like paid editing - the spamming you list is convincing, even without looking further. - Bilby (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention Vanjagenije (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kavdiaravish and past socks are  Stale. Looking at the CU logs, Ireneshih (talk · contribs) is  Possible to the master. I'd suggest relying on behavioral evidence.
Mikekohan (talk · contribs) and Kavdiamanju (talk · contribs) are  Unlikely to the master account,  Unlikely to each other, and are Red X Unrelated to Ireneshih. If the behavior evidence seems strong enough, it possible there's a case of meatpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 18:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: A weak case at best, and given that no one has been willing to do anything with it for a month, I'm going to close without taking any further action. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kavdiaravish/Archive&oldid=1076208602"