Code letters: A and C
I have a strong feeling that the above persons have colluded together to force their views on other users, revert the edits without reason, threaten other users with blocking etc., It is also possible that two or more of these persons (user names) are the same individual. For instance, I made an edit with proper citations in
Chalukya Dynasty on June 29th, 2007 at 18.46. It was reverted by
User:Dineshkannambadi at 18.51 ignoring my citations. I made a revert to my original edit. Immediately,
User:KNM reverted my edit at 19.15. I again reverted the article to my original edit. Within a few minutes
User:Gnanapiti reverted it at 19.30. In the process, my references were branded 'fake', 'unreliable', 'not worthy of quoting', 'only few in number' whereas Dineshkannambadi had 8 citations, 'FA cannot be edited', etc., I requested not to revert my edits and discuss on talk page. I was ignored. Please see
Talk:Chalukya dynasty as well as "History" of the edits to
Chalukya dynasty. This also applies to
User:Sarvagnya who ignored the compromise I reached because of the mediation of
User:Sumanthk in the articles
Telugu script and
Telugu language. He edited the sentences ignoring my requests. Now,
User:Nrupatunga and
User:Gnanapiti also joined in reverting my edits. I thought
User:Gnanapiti would respect the previous compomise but now it seems these users want to push their view down my throat.
Administrators must give a hard look at these Users, their contributions, edits, revert edits, the language they use against other Users and investigate into their antecedents, IP addresses etc. Or else, wikipedia will lose its credibility.
Kumarrao
13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
There is a serious problem with a section of Wikipedia with several users ganging up to forcibly drive home their point. I kindly request a check of a strongly possible case of
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry against the users. Some have strongly shown a preference for trolling and baiting other users with whom, they are engaged in possible "edit wars." The style of English language used also appears to be very similar. I've already reported a case of "code C"
sock puppetry
here.
The evidence/link for violation code:D is
this.
Evidence for violation Code: C
This sock-puppetry case (part of it, that Sarvagnya is Gnanapiti) was also confirmed earlier by an administrator investigating it.
Thanking You,
Altruism
To talk
11:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
I respectfully request a check on the two user accounts above in regards to a possible sock puppet and/or meat puppet fraud. These two accounts were reported for a usercheck back in October of 2006 and both accounts have been confirmed to be the same person on 1 November 2006
here by
Dmcdevit. On Nov. 12, 2006
Gnanapiti was unblocked
here by
Dmcdevit. Info on
Sarvagnya's block can be found
here. On 9 February 2007, both
Sarvagnya and
Gnanapiti were involved in a possible vote fraud
here.
Both
user:Sarvagnya and
Gnanapiti have been involved with a tag acounts for POV pushing and attacks against myself and and ethnic group overall on the
Template talk:Dravidian topics
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here. On the
Talk:Yakshagana page both users have posted in support of the same POV, false accusations, and attacks against me and my ethnicity
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here. On the same page, both users have removed my WikiProject Dravidian civilizations template
here and
here.
Wiki Raja
07:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I and Gnanapiti were accused or sockpuppetry and the results initially held it to be true. However, upon further investigation by many admins including Blnguyen and Dmcdevit, we were cleared of the charges. I have ever since requested more than once to update this page appropriately. See the [
talk page]. However, it was never done.
- As for the template in question, admin blnguyen has today [
put it up for deletion and several users have voted for delete]. That should speak for itself.
Sarvagnya
07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- At the time of the second check, it showed that Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya were no longer in the same location, however, Sarvagnya did disclose that he had told Gnanapiti about WP and explained how to get started. This was in the midst of the Indian language disputes in October/November. Gnanapiti was subsequently unblocked and free to edit - under the condition that they did not double vote or use 6RR on linguistic topics, since the
Kannada-
Marathi debates on
Belgaum, etc, were the circumstances in which Sarvagnya introduced Gnanapiti to WP.
Blnguyen (
bananabucket)
08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- (edit conflict)
Clerk note: Regarding the unblock by Dmcdevit and the request that his comment be annotated in the below archived request, I have added a note linking to
the comment under the {{
confirmed}} result. Cheers,
Daniel.Bryant
08:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Inconclusive Geographic similarity -- unsurprising, given the circumstances. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Hmm.. I didnt understand. By geographic similarity, do you just mean that we are in the same country? Well , we're 1500 miles away from each other. Does the CU reveal that?
Sarvagnya
15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That's right. CU often doesn't reveal much better information than same country or same continent. So "inconclusive" is pretty useless information.
--
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- With all due respects, but I am just curious... if CU doesnt reveal any more info other than telling you that two users are in the same country or same continent, how then did dmcdevit conclude that I and Gnanapiti were in the same city last time round and further still that we were socks? Just curious. Do you go by anything else other than just ip check?
Sarvagnya
22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oh! Already a check user requested and results are also out! I never noticed this page until now. :)
Gnanapiti
21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
I respectfully request a check user on the above username and IP Adresses. Reason is for constant vandalism, inappropriate behavior, personal attacks, and acting as multipe users in order to get a POV across. Furthermore, these IP Addresses and user have been recently active in the following pages:
Wiki Raja
06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Additional information needed Please provide pointers to said vandalism and personal attacks. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆ 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Notified by
Daniel.Bryant at
08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
reply
It shows that
Sarvagnya is using a couple of IP Addresses without signing in to make it look like there are multiple people backing up his POVs. Here is what I have found.
Sock Puppeting caught in the act
I have caught this user in the act of using multiple accounts posing as multiple people (Note: I have included links to the following sites). He first stated that:
- can you demonstrate with references that they are indeed 'Dravidian'.
here
Sarvagnya going under another
59.92.46.189 then stated about him requesting valid citations and sources from me. However, [[user:
59.92.46.189 has never requested me to provide any citation of sources what so ever.
- I just asked you to provide references that show that Carnatic Music was exclusively or mainly Dravidian.
here
Furthermore, I have had
59.92.47.201 rebuke me
here and then tries to apologize
here using the
59.92.46.189 IP Address. This would be the second time I have caught this user sock puppeting.
Vandalism through numerous deletions
Removal of items on
Dravidian topics by
Sarvagnya and
59.92.46.189:
Vandalism on Dravidian people by
Sarvagnya:
Vandalism on Carnatic talk page by
Sarvagnya:
Note: knowing that he would be reported for violating the 3RR,
59.92.46.189 jumps in to add to the accusations made against me by
59.92.47.201 for “pushing to have a Dravidian template”. This I find odd. Here are the following dates.
Personal attacks
Sarvagnya has also been involved with personal attacks and rebukes against me in the following links (Note: I have provided random statements made by this user. To see the full excerpts I have included links to the specified pages:
- You dont get it. Do you? Stop saying that these legends are 'referenced' etc.,. Nobody is asking you for references to prove your point. to say, but your arguments about this issue so far have simply been nonsense.
6 February 2007
- After providing some examples with Malayo-Polynesians,
59.92.47.201 tells me that ‘’Malay and Polynesian connections are all total crap here.’’
20:38, 5 February 2007
- After I reply to him with patience,
59.92.46.189 comes in and makes a derrogative racial statement
here about Sri Lankan Tamils.
-
Sarvagnya starts calling the Sri Lankan Tamils ‘’terrorists’’
here and
here
-
Unnecessary. Seems to me you've demonstrated clearly that there is sockpuppetry going on; you don't need checkuser at all. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- What nonsense!! Neither is there any sockpuppetry going on nor has there been any vandalism. It is a simple case of 'content dispute' and calling it vandalism is a
personal attack. I dare Jpgordon if he is an admin to go ahead and conduct a checkuser instead of jumping to stupid conclusions.
Sarvagnya
16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You have a good point, even if you said it quite rudely. Dare accepted.
- Yes. I was rude. Because I've been humoring this troll far too long. This was the last straw and you jumping to ... well an 'erroneous' conclusion simply rubbed it in and way too early in the morning. Thanks for the CU anyway. And apologies for being rude.
Sarvagnya
17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Unrelated on reconsideration. All of Sarvagnya's edits are from North America. The two IPs are from India. And Josh shouldn't do checkusers before coffee. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
On article
Saare Jahan Se Achcha, Sarvagnya has been
trolling and going against consensus to keep the Hindi language script on the page. He has vandalized and made 6 reverts to the article, abusing popups many times
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6].
-
User:Gnanapiti has well under 100 edits, and has made reverts using popups for his
edits(I didnt get popups until I wsa well past 3500 edits and I'm supposed to believe this newbie mastered it in 3 edits and got it after 40 or so) and vandalized a source
[7] and removed Hindi again as well
[8]. Over a string of 5 days Sarvagnya and his sock have vandalized/reverted to vandalism 12 times s shown by
the page history.
Bakaman
Bakatalk
03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Please note: One editor not using
popups till he made 3500 edits, has absolutely got nothing do with another user, under 100 edits or n number of edits, using it. Learning how to use Popups is a matter of few minutes. If a new user uses
popups, it is absolutely understandable/acceptable and it can never be a reason for sockpuppetry allegations.
-
Saare Jahan Se Achcha article has gone over an edit war, and is still protected and the discussion in it's talk page going on. Even you were involved in that edit war, and as well few other editors. If one editor has same view as another editor, then it absolutely doesn't mean they are sockpuppets of each other. Reverting has been done by parties on both the views. Does that mean, one party with one view is a set of sockpuppets? and another party with different view is set of another sockpuppets? Certainly not.
- Please refer to this statement: "Over a string of 5 days Sarvagnya and his sock have ...". The result of this complaint has yet to be announced by authorities(if at all the check is made; given that there are no valid reasons) or you must have already the proof that Sarvagnya has used his sock. Without either of them, your statement is both
incivil and a
personal attack. -
KNM
Talk
01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
- User Naveenbm seems to master wiki policies in lesser time..I think he should be checked too.
Mahawiki
05:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Wow, this is great. Mastering the policies and simplest of the editing techniques is a yardscale for sockpuppetry! If someone didn't know how to use popups till he reached 3500 edit, does that compell me not to do it within 100 edits? Anyways, I'm not going to comment much here. Let this issue be taken care of by concerned admins and the result will speak on behalf of me.
Gnanapiti
05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Added KNM. He/She has been coming to the rescue of Sarvagnya in content disputes like anything and vice-versa. -;
Arya
Rajya
महाराष्ट्र
15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Please have a look at the so called source
Bakaman accuses of removed by me. That is a personal blog in terrible English. That too, the reference given to this article is taken from one of the comments to that blog! In no way that can that be considered as valid citation. This is the exact reason I removed that source and I have indicated this in the edit summary.
Gnanapiti
17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Confirmed Gnanapiti is Sarvagnya. Naveenbm and KNM are
Unrelated.
Dmcdevit·
t
18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Wow, excuse me. Any particular reason for claiming so? What's going on?
Gnanapiti
18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
What nonsense! I am sure there's been a mistake. Can you please check again?
Sarvagnya
18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I request the concerned admins to recheck and rectify the issue as mahawiki is taking advantage of this.
Gnanapiti
18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the result. What furthur steps are to be followed. I request concerned authorities to take a strict action against Sarvagnya. He is reponsible for harrassing editors and pushing POV by using these tricks. Latest eg.
Talk:Belgaum_border_dispute and
Talk:Belgaum.
Mahawiki
19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Post-result
Clerk note:: this result has been re-examined by Dmcdevit; please see
here.
Daniel.Bryant
08:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
User:Mahawiki has been
blocked for violating
WP:3RR rule on
Belgaum article. The article's history -
History. Mahawiki reverted four times. But the real perpetrators are going scott free.
User:Naveenbm reverted 3 times and
User:Sarvagnya reverted 2 times. I have strong reasons to believe that
User:Naveenbm is
User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet. It seems to be a sleeper account. See the contribs of NaveenBM -
NaveenBM contribs. And see the contribs of Sarvagnya -
Sarvagnya contribs.
User:Naveenbm's account was created on 5th May and after that he contributed just 7 times till October 3, 2006. After which a few edits were made to some other articles to caumoflage sockpuppetry and then out of nowhere this user comes into
Belgaum page. See the similarity in English lang/grammar of both. Apart from that, their (or rather his) only intention was to block
User:Mahawiki with whom his linguistic fued has been going on for quite some time. Yes,
User:Mahawiki is a
Marathi and
User:Sarvagnya a
Kannada-speaker and a lang-war has been going on, of which I have also been a part. Just check the systematic and caumoflaged sockpuppetry of
User:Sarvagnya. In fact, I believe even
User:KNM, who reported the 3RR violation
here, is a sockpuppet of
User:Sarvagnya. But, the sockpuppetry has been meticulously well-disguised, so that the culprit doesn't get caught. Just see how KNM comes to the rescue of Sarvagnya many times when Sarvagnya is caught in a heated fued or vice-versa. And not to forget, it is
User:KNM who reports about Mahawiki's 3RR violation. Their sockpuppetry has been well-disguised.
Belgaum page history -
here
But I am 100% sure about
User:Naveenbm being
User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet and he was used to block
User:Mahawiki. Just see how
User:Sarvagnya comes out of nowhere after
User:Naveenbm reverts 3 times. Certainly, a severe violation of subverting justice for one's own need. Both
User:Naveenbm and
User:Sarvagnya must be blocked for this.
Arya
Rajya
महाराष्ट्र
16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Regarding, Mahawiki's 3RR violation, yes, he was repeatedly reverting the article with the non-English citations without providing English translation along with the original-language quote, which is against
Wikipedia:Citing sources policy. This was questioned by multiple editors. He has repeated the revertings, even after questioning from other editors. Just because the same question was asked by multiple editors, all those editors cannot become Sockpuppets.
- Having said that, I'm glad my name has been accused as sockpuppet of
User:Sarvagnya. Let the result comeout, and everyone will know what is the truth. Atleast after that, we can be hopeful of no more accusations of Sockpuppetry. -
KNM
Talk -
Contribs
17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
Unrelated. I suggest you pursue dispute resolution in this conflict.
Dmcdevit·
t
18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.