Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


TekkenJinKazama

TekkenJinKazama ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
30 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


For the past month, TekkenJinKazama has been insisting that Shaolin Soccer is in English when it was produced completely in Cantonese. He had also been using anonymous IP addresses on doing the exact same edits.

TekkenJinKazama

IP socks

In addition, there is a third IP user committing the same edit, but the ISP does not match the other two.

TekkenJinKazama has a history of arguing with other editors that aside from Shaolin Soccer, several Indian films are also in English. Areaseven ( talk) 13:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I agree - this is the same editor using IP addresses to make the same edits. It's possible that they just didn't log in as they were not blocked at the time of the edits. I don't think the user has a clue about what they might have done - they certainly don't listen to other editors when they are in an edit war and they don't actually discuss with other editors. I have no idea how to encourage the TekkenJinKazama to work with others. Earlier blocks for edit-warring don't seem to have done much and suggestions, even very pointed ones don't have any impact. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
07 April 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Both editor have a similar style in talk page comments. See RSS edit and TJK edit. Another similarity is both editors tend to ignore the article talk page and use the user talk page to discuss edits. For an example, TJK created the {{ Infobox Indian TV actor}} template which is now at TFD, after TJK was blocked. TJK is the only person who has used the template, so it's not widely known. RSS has not responded at the TFD (easily linked from the template) but replied directly to the editor who nominated the template. Finally, both TJK and RSS share interests in Indian film actors and in Tekken characters. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, TekkenJimKazamawas indefinitely blocked on April 1. RSS was created on April 2. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Added a new account, Malqrrishh ( talk · contribs) that has been making similar edits as TekkenJimKazama. This account dates to 2010 but only recently became active again. Coincidentally, they started editing again a day or two after TekkenJimKazama was blocked for a week for edit-warring. Prior to that, Malgrrishh was blocked for violating copyright policy, the same reason for which Tekken was recently indeffed. Also added several IP's that have been hitting the same articles as TekkenJimKazama. Other similar IP's started making these edits after TJK was blocked so I'm suspicious. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Per this post, the IP's are almost certainly the same as RSS. The post from the IP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ravensfire&diff=603391796&oldid=603332511 here) somewhat confirms that RSS and TJK are the same editor. Ravensfire ( talk) 02:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Added two new IP's who continue RSS's disruption of the TFD discussion here and here. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:41, 14 April 2014 (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

information Administrator note To add to the above, I'd like to point out that TekkenJinKazama, RajanSinghSidhu, and Malqrrishh have significant overlaps within their contributions. By that I mean that there are a total of 18 pages that at least 2 of the 3 have contributed to at some point. When TekkenJinKazama was blocked indefinitely, the first thing that RajanSinghSidhu did after the account was created (and after they created a user page as well) was to continue the edit war at Jinpachi Mishima, the article where TekkenJinKazama's last edit as an unblocked editor was to make a revert. This is all extremely blatant and most SPI cases aren't as obvious as this one. The IPs above are also quite clearly the same editor (one of them even admitted to it, as noted above) but blocking them would serve no purpose because each IP has only been used once (well, one of them made two quick edits) so there's no point. The disruption from them has been minimal in any event. If another IP in the range above (42.104.x.x) makes another edit to the same areas it can be reverted as block evasion. As for RajanSinghSidhu and Malqrrishh, I am blocking both indefinitely per WP:DUCK as obvious attempts to evade the indefinite block. With those accounts blocked and tagged I'm marking this case for closure. -- Atama 頭 22:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

21 April 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Disruptively edits the same articles, adding content against consensus. Kailash29792 ( talk) 09:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Concur. Same name format, same topics (indian films) and back to the same, stupid edit war on Ra.One [1]. Toss in a "brand new user" managing to find and use SPI so quickly, this is TekkenJinKazama back a couple of days after their previous sock was blocked. Ravensfire ( talk) 12:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note It's not necessary to check this, it's pretty blatant. The Ra.One edit is the exact same one made by TJK and the older sockpuppets. The article "The Film" was also edited by an IP in the dynamic range used by TJK. The SPI was obviously retribution for the last SPI against TJK. I've indefinitely blocked this latest sock, tagged the user page, and deleted both the malformed SPI page and the film article per the G5 criterion. I'm marking this case for closure. -- Atama 頭 16:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply


22 April 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

So obvious, per WP:DUCK. He is trying to put me and User:Ravensfire into trouble. Kailash29792 ( talk) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

The quack is strong with this one. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
And he has been shot by Elmer Fudd! (Don't get it? This should explain). Kailash29792 ( talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 April 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

User:Dougweller pointed out that two new editors (21 and 44 edits) had taken User:TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPOD) to ANI over trivial matters, which looked odd, so I started digging. The best set of diffs is the deleted history of Viraj Dobriyal [2] (admin only), showing two socks of TekkenJinKazama: RajanSinghSidhu and Malqrrishh. Note that TekkenLeiWulong recreated the article just a few days after it was deleted, and that TRPOD was the one that tagged it for CSD.

Next we move to the currently blocked LW1982, where he crosses paths with TRPOD on Suzannah Lipscomb ( history) and gets blocked for edit warring.

Both of these editors are new yet found out enough to file complaints at ANI [3] and [4] I would note that the new Tekken's interests (per his user page) line up geographically with the IPs in the archive for the puppet master. And finally, the similarity in names.

Assuming I am correct in linkage, the one editor uses only mobile phone edits, while the other does not, assumably in an attempt to prevent geolocation, demonstrating familiarity with sockpuppetry. I request another set of eyes take a look and due to the persistence of this puppetmaster, that a CU take a peek as well. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 14:00, 26 April 2014 (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

information Administrator note I've already blocked TekkenLeiWulong per WP:DUCK. Between the name, recreating the page recreated by previous socks, and similar language in discussion posts it was fairly blatant. TJK is definitely not subtle. Lw1982 does not fit the pattern in any way and seems to be behaviorally unrelated. However I'd still like to see if CU can find sleepers so I'm not marking the case for closure. -- Atama 頭 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

AiNaCholbe also blocked. If nothing else, I appreciate TJK for making their socks obvious. -- Atama 頭 19:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm actually not going to bother requesting CheckUser. TJK is obvious enough that it's not necessary. As for "sleepers", this latest was created yesterday, and CU isn't going to catch socks not created yet. So I don't think this is going to be necessary. Also, I don't need CU to clear Lw1982, given that all of TJK's socks have the same format (a camelcase name with 3 capital letters, editing to try to keep an article about Viraj Dobriyal) this editor clearly isn't included. I'm almost ready to just close this case (but keep this page on watchlist for the next inevitable sock to show up) but I'm curious about this other set of socks.
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: What do you suspect the other sockpuppets to be? I looked at the history of the Suzannah Lipscomb article, and I do see MdeBohun making similar edits (fighting with you to remove info about the marriage) and a couple of IPs. Are there any others you suspect? I may open another SPI if we can identify a likely sockmaster. -- Atama 頭 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm just going to close this. It's pretty obvious that Lw1982 is unconnected to TJK and shouldn't have been included. However, in examining behavioral similarities I'm beginning to suspect that Lw1982 and MdeBohun are the same editor, or at the very least know each other in real life (perhaps there is WP:MEAT happening). I don't know that there's anything to take action on; MdeBohun has a clean record and stopped editing a while before Lw1982 was created. So if the editor has simply switched accounts then there's nothing that has to be done. I wonder at the effectiveness of CU, since all of Lw1982's edits were mobile and so if they are the same editor but one only edits from a smartphone or similar device they're unlikely to be technically connected. If MdeBohun returns to editing, perhaps an SPI can be filed (under MdeBohun's name) but otherwise I'll mark this for closure. -- Atama 頭 17:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
01 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

The latest TekkenSock was blocked yesterday and so we get a new one. Same name format, same edits. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Please note that this account's name is intentionally deceptive. Chanderforyou ( talk · contribs) is a respected and highly experienced editor. The new sock has slightly different capitalization and adds an extra 'u' at the end. The sock initially created their talk page to look like Chanderforyou's page. They then changed it to be a redirect to an archive of Chanderforyou's talk page. Just to emphasise, I do not suspect Chanderforyou to be involved in this in any manner. TJK just targetted them for some reason. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:44, 1 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note What a pain. It's a common "game" for sockpuppets to impersonate legitimate editors. I'm not sure why Chanderforyou was targeted but it doesn't really matter. In any case, this is another obvious case, so I've blocked and tagged again. -- Atama 頭 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

04 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same disruptive edits on the same articles. Kailash29792 ( talk) 12:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Callanecc, this editor uses a pretty wide range of IP's belonging to a mobile network ( [5]) in India. I put together an API search query [6], but that's not totally complete as they also have edits in the 42.104.2 and 42.104.3 range. Their edits are very easy to detect, fortunately. Some of the other editors TJK has conflicted with know how to spot their edits and WP:RBI. I think that's the only viable approach here. If a particular account gets enough edits or seems extremely persistent, I'll file an SPI. My feeling is they are fairly young and may (hopefully!) run out of energy if they see their efforts reverted time and again. I'm planning on periodically running the SPI queries and reverting the edits I find in an attempt to speed that process up.

The sad part is that they had the potential to be a solid editor in an area (Bollywood) that really could use it. They just only want to edit their way, anything else be damned. Appreciate the help from you and Atama on this. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

And adding new sock created May 1st that just started editing. Editing Tekken characters and Bollywood films. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
TheBlackSnow has also been posting personal attacks like this. Also added 42.104.2.46, who has been vandalizing TheBlackSnow's user page. - Areaseven ( talk) 00:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged this latest sock. Same username pattern (FirstMiddleLast), same kinds of edits (including to the Ra.one article), and so on. This sockmaster makes things pretty obvious. I haven't closed this yet, though, because I wonder if there's any way to do some kind of "sleeper throttle" edit filter magic I've seen CheckUsers do. Just look at the archive for this sockmaster, they are both relentless and consistent. -- Atama 頭 18:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I'm going to close this without running a check. Considering that all of the IP addresses that have been associated with this case belong to a mobile provider, there is a very slim chance that CheckUser would be of any help. Because they are dynamic mobile addresses, blocking them for more than a few hours is likely to be ineffective. And, since their editing pattern is somewhat obvious, a check doesn't seem to be otherwise warranted. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 13:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
07 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same pattern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 7 May 2014 (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
08 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


SinghIsKinng follows TJK's usual name format (camel case, three words). They also share the same unusual combination of interests - Bollywood and Tekken characters. See this edit which introduces the same text added here by a TJK sock. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note I blocked this latest sock, and deleted the article they recreated (which was previously created by an older TJK sock) per G5 (that article was deleted by G5 last time too). I also salted the article, only autoconfirmed editors can recreate it (making it unlikely that a future TJK sock will be able to). -- Atama 頭 15:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply


15 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Restored a redirected article without establishing any notability ( [7]) after multiple sockpuppets of his was reverted ( [8] [9]). The person also always seem to have IPs that start with 42.104. Kokoro20 ( talk) 11:04, 15 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note The edits to Feng Wei were what convinced me that this was the same editor again, along with the edits that coincided with the 42.104.x.x IP edits. The name doesn't exactly conform to previous usernames, but still maintains the CamelCase the previous names did. I've blocked this latest sock, blocked the most recent and prolific IPs for a week, reverted a number of edits by this sock and its IPs, deleted the articles that this sock created, and semi-protected one article that was being extensively edited by TJK's IPs. I'm marking this for closure, because a recent CU request was already denied and I don't see anything that has changed between now and then (plus I've already blocked this sock per WP:DUCK. -- Atama 頭 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply


16 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Habitual characterestics, and all the IP addresses he uses begin with the same numbers. This is just one of them. Kailash29792 ( talk) 05:02, 16 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note I'm not a clerk so I'll let a clerk or CU decide how to handle the request. But apparently these IPs are from a mobile provider, so they change pretty quickly, and I don't know what a CheckUser result on IPs is going to tell us (if a CU will even do it on an IP). I did a couple of blocks of IPs yesterday but that was probably useless. I don't think we can do a rangeblock due to collateral damage (that was my impression from what DoRD had said earlier but I may be mistaken). The only long-term solution I can think of for handling these IPs is to revert them when you notice them, and if they're particularly persistent at a page you can request semi-protection, though that should be a last resort because a lot of the pages that TJK frequents are visited by other IPs who make constructive edits. -- Atama 頭 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Generally, a CU will not do a checkuser on an IP, and I would expect a clerk to decline this request. It is obvious this is the same person, but at this point is stale. Atama's advice is good. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

21 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


PrateekTamilian is a new account who's first edit was to create an article for an Indian film actor. A later edit restored an article that was created by a previous sock, deleted by Atama on May 15th then recreated by TheKaranvirBohra. Prateek has TJK's same habit of using user talk pages to discuss article edits, not the article talk page. Prateek is also leaving very pleading talk page messages to other editors to get them involved and demanding action on admin noticeboards. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:00, 21 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note Yes, these are two more socks. Blocked and tagged them both. They both have either recreated articles that TJK's other socks created, or asked for such articles to be restored. Quite obvious. -- Atama 頭 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC) reply

27 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

少林足球 has similar activities to all of TekkenJinKazama's known socks: creating redirects and requesting page protection. I wouldn't have been suspicious if 42.104.2.171 ( talk · contribs) hadn't suddenly shown up when I nominated one of 少林足球's articles for deletion. What's more, the IP address is within the range of many of TekkenJinKazama's known IP socks. G S Palmer ( talk) 14:48, 27 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note Aside from the above, two more clues that this is TJK. First of all, based on their past history, they are knowledgeable in Chinese, so a name consisting of Chinese characters is not a surprise. Secondly, the name translates to "Shaolin Soccer", one of TJK's previously-targeted articles (edited by TJK directly and the sockpuppet TheBlackSnow). I'm blocking per WP:DUCK and deleting contributions per G5. -- Atama 頭 15:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply


27 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

I didn't notice this at first, but there were actually three very similar IP's. G S Palmer ( talk) 15:22, 27 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note I blocked these IPs, and the one above, for 2 weeks. -- Atama 頭 15:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

27 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
  • The last two being similar to some of his suspected socks.
  • I noticed this user on a number of the pages that TekkenJinKazama has shown interest in, but this edit makes it seem all the more likely.

Another batch of suspiciously similar IP's I discovered by looking through the histories of the articles they edit. G S Palmer ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

@ Atama: Unfortunately, I would agree with Atama on this. I've got some API queries setup to watch this IP range, looking for TJK edits. Over the past month, most of the edits are from TJK socks but definitely not all of them. It's probably 80/20 TJK. While annoying, TJK isn't a disruptive vandal or deliberately causing harm to Wikipedia. They just don't care about anyone else's views and will do things their way. The socks are generally easy to spot. Unfortunately, I think whack-a-mole is the only real option here. With the IP's, I honestly don't think there is much benefit to blocking them unless it's for a fairly long time as it can take weeks or more before one is reused by TJK. I've said this before, this situation is unpleasant. This is an active editor in a fairly under-served area but who just doesn't get it. I've been hoping that WP:RBI would trigger some changes in their behavior. Ideally, they be willing to return to a single account and realize that any future edits would be under restrictions and a mentor to help them through rough spots. I just don't know if that will be possible because it appears that they frankly don't care. What really sucks is the amount of time this pulls from others. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note TJK uses Vodafone India to edit, which is the second-biggest mobile network in India. The range of these addresses is 42.104.0.0/22, which is over 1,000 addresses. That's a pretty big range and I worry about collateral damage. I'm also not sure that playing whack-a-mole is going to be helpful. TJK discards these addresses like peanut shells, I don't know how useful blocking them one at a time will be. I'm not closing this because I'll allow for someone else's opinion about the danger of doing a rangeblock. -- Atama 頭 16:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Atama: I have another batch of possible IP socks that I've found, but due to your comment, should I bother to report them, or just let it drop? G S Palmer ( talk) 16:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
@ G S Palmer: Add them to the above list if you'd like. It won't hurt and may help illustrate the scope of the problem. -- Atama 頭 16:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
27 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Creating the Assassination of Theo van Gogh article again. That article has repeatedly been denied consensus to be created. 123chess456 ( talk) 20:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Time for Assassination of Theo van Gogh to be fully protected as a redirect and Murder of Theo Van Gogh to be salted. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm just too slow today - creation protection already requested and granted for the murder article. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked this one too. It was created about 5 minutes before I blocked the most recent sock (I wonder if TJK has a sixth sense?). In any case, this one is dealt with. And yeah, I salted the one article when I'd deleted it earlier, and I also semi'd the assassination redirect page for 3 months to discourage TJK from fiddling with it again. -- Atama 頭 20:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply


28 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new user recreated Jin's preferred version of Assassination of Theo van Gogh. That page has been protected so created it as Assassination of Theo Van Gogh, plus usual edits to linked articles. Ravensfire ( talk) 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Added new user who created the same article with a different name. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:04, 28 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note I blocked Rowdy Chander as well. The fact that TJK posted to my talk page to appeal to me (as an IP sock) is an indication to me that their endurance isn't infinite. As frustrating and time-consuming as all of this is, eventually they'll give up. -- Atama 頭 15:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply


29 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Indian Karl Marx is a new account created a few hours after TJK's unblock request was declined. They have made substantial edits to a TV show article, including moving details of the main character into a sub article, as TJK socks have done previously. Like TJK, they do not discuss on the talk page when reverted, just continue with their edits. The articles edited by Indian Karl Marx have also been edited by IP addresses in the range TJK uses. See here where a known TJK IP address edited the Crayon Shin-chan article to add a template specific to Indian TV to the article. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (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

information Administrator note Sigh... I asked TJK to try an unblock request, and told them to listen to the community to have a chance. Instead they were defiant as always, insisting they were right. I'd like to give them a chance but I can't see how. In any case this latest sock is blocked and tagged, I'm also taking care of articles created too. -- Atama 頭 15:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Yup. I tried to point out the problems that multiple people have seen and the response was less than promising. A reviewing admin declined the unblock pointing to their response to my comment as not showing any signs of changing their ways. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC) reply
10 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreated Grazing Goat Productions, previously created and recreated by other TJK socks. Other edits have been to similar topic areas. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:36, 10 June 2014 (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

information Administrator note Blocked this one too. I'm a bit sad about this, I'd hoped that TJK might be on the verge of giving up after the discussion he had with the two of us on our user talk pages. And his last sockpuppet was almost 2 weeks ago, so he's been relatively quiet. But I guess he's not going to change. -- Atama 頭 16:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply


11 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

ChristianColson created Shinchan (character) page, a copy of the Shin-chan (character) page which was previously created by a TJK sock. Also shows usual pattern. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:08, 11 June 2014 (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

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged as usual, deleted the newly-created page. -- Atama 頭 16:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

22 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreated Jin's Grazing Goat article, perfectly, significant edits to another of Jin's favorite articles, edit to create the talk page with the template is another tendency of Jin and the account was created shortly after Jin's last sock was blocked. I've been suspicious of this account for a while but needed the confirmation before filing the SPI. CU check is for possible sleepers. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

And total confirmation - Freshia recreated one of Jin's pet articles today. Jin has created this article several times with his many previous socks under various names and various capitalizations. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Freshia also left this comment on a user talk page with a pleading tone that matches Jin's style ( from an early Jin sock) Ravensfire ( talk) 14:40, 25 June 2014 (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

information Administrator note Pretty clear WP:DUCK situation, this one blocked and tagged. I'll look at contributions and revert/delete where appropriate if not already done. I'll leave this open for CU to check for other socks that haven't been caught yet. -- Atama 頭 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

27 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Jin has used parody names of editors who revert him in the past, and has used TheRedPenofDooom. This new sock has reverted one of their favorite articles back to their preferred version Ravensfire ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (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

information Administrator note This one is also blocked and tagged. I also removed the link on the editor's user talk page that supposedly would allow people to leave a message on their user talk page, but inappropriately redirects messages to Ravensfire's talk page. -- Atama 頭 19:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply


28 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Created and also interested in Indian film, as in Jin. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Jin does have somewhat of a sense of humor - he put this SPI page in the category when he created it. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:36, 28 June 2014 (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


30 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

First edit was to recreate Jin's usual article Ravensfire ( talk) 23:19, 30 June 2014 (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


01 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

On Assassination Of Theo Van Gogh removed speedy deletion template, reverted redirect 2Flows ( talk) 00:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

IP confirmed that he is Jin on his talk page User_talk:70.39.185.68, [10] 2Flows ( talk) 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Concur on both. The 42.104. is square in Jin's mobile range. The other one is a new range that I believe Jin has started using based on other edits from that range. The range is 70.39.185.0/24 and there are edits not from Jin in that range. The van Gogh article is one of Jin's favorites so semi protection on the main van Gogh article and full protection as a redirect on the Assassination (and other variations as Jin comes up with them) may be the only option here. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
15 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Usual combination of edits to Indian film/TV and recreating Jin's favorite Assassination of Theo van Gogh article. Ravensfire ( talk) 12:53, 15 July 2014 (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
15 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same area of interest, and all his IP socks begin with the same numbers. Kailash29792 ( talk) 13:50, 15 July 2014 (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

I blocked IP and boldly closed without CU review, as experience tells me that a CU won't run checkuser on an IP most of the time, and never in a case that is this obvious. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 18:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply

22 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Usual edits to various Bollywood articles followed by (re)creating the Assassination of Theo van Gogh article. CU is for possible sleepers / missed accounts. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:49, 22 July 2014 (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
07 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Kenny Boyle first edits were to split the assassination of Phoolan Devi into a separate article, similar to Jin's repeated efforts to do the same on Theo van Gogh. They've done the same on several other articles as well. Boyle has also shown interest in Bollywood articles, another of Jin's favorites. Over at Commons, Boyle has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted works (some I suspect with false information) which is what got Jin indeffed here. On commons, Boyle edits the TekkenJinKazama user page, marking it as a sock. Based on that, I tagged Kenny Boyle as a Jin sock, planning on filing the SPI later. A few hours later, an IP that Jin is known to use removed the sock tag. I've got no doubt this is the latest Jin sock. CU is for any sleeper accounts. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I was just about to report SABRINA ELEXA ( talk · contribs) when I noticed the comments from DoRD. Not surprised in the least. Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk) 14:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
25 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Blocked on commons (see Commons user talk page) as a TJK sock after enough he (through his socks) uploaded enough copyright violations. Their contributions here are related to pages that TJK has edited before. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:09, 25 August 2014 (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
02 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

User's first two edits were to one to Jin's favorite topics of late. Subsequent edits were related to another of Jin's favorite Indian ators. The editor then created a new character article here, something that Ji socks have done ( example of Jin sock recreating character article, others have been deleted so I can't provide linkds. Finally, the sock added to a filmography article and the entry was v edited shortly afterwards] by an IP in Jin's most most active IP range. Request CU for sleeper check. Ravensfire ( talk) 02:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

On Commons, this user has uploaded a file that other TJK socks have attempted to upload. See commons upload log for Kenny Boyle, SABRINA ELEXA and TheRedPenOfDooom for examples
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
04 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Account was created after last TJK sock was blocked. Initial edits were to incorrectly move Esther Victoria Abraham and update. After a few edits from this account, there are several edits later that day from Jin's usual IP address. Faf du Plessis has also recreated Dare 2 Dance which created by previous TJK sock. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:07, 4 September 2014 (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


08 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This is a new user, created shortly before the latest TJK sock was blocked but after the SPI report was filed and the account in that report tagged as TJK. The new account made no edits until today. They filed and AFD on an extremely notable Indian actor, then voted twice in two AFD's that earlier TJK socks had created. They changed an infobox picture to one that another TJK sock uploaded to commons. Finally, uploaded an movie poster image that other TJK have repeatedly attempted to upload to commons, lying repeatedly about the copyright status or falsely claiming OTRS permission. The image was later added to the movie's article by an IP in a range the TJK has previously used. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:40, 8 September 2014 (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

16 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. WP:DUCK evidence, requesting block of both sock accounts on behavioral analysis:
  2. Interest in Karanvir Bohra - compare blocked sock DIFF, then blocked by Berean Hunter, with nomination of same page to GA by Derevation ( talk · contribs) DIFF, followed by one-line-GA-Review by Digvijay411 ( talk · contribs) at DIFF.
  3. Derevation nominates Karanvir Bohra to GA DIFF, and one-line-GA-Review by Digvijay411 DIFF -- as noted above, but compare that with the reverse:
  4. This time Digvijay411 nominates page Qubool Hai to GA DIFF, followed by one-line-GA-review by Derevation DIFF.
  5. Now, as to the sockmaster, we have evidence presented by Ravensfire at user talk page discussion of Drmies, at LINK.
  6. That points to this SMOKING GUN DIFF by Derevation, acknowledging they are a sock and that they have been blocked before, as the sockmaster, TekkenJinKazama ( talk · contribs) = please see this: "Please. Dont block me again. As per concern im sorry for that copy paste. I know you didn't block me as you have a big heart my friend. Just a chance bro. And please do not keep in SPI. I m reformin my activities and wannabe a good editor.".
  7. With two (2) sock accounts, user has been disrupting the Quality improvement process of Wikipedia, nominating multiple articles to our Good Article Nominations process that qualify for quick-fail-criteria at WP:WIAGA (at DIFF), despite comments to stop, they keep doing it, and they are disruptively socking with multiple accounts -- and engaging in block evasion.

Thank you for your attention and action on this matter. — Cirt ( talk) 12:18, 16 October 2015 (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

19 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. WP:DUCK as same exact behavior pattern on same type of articles (disruptive GA/FA nominations) as recently blocked socks Derevation ( talk · contribs) Block Log and Digvijay411 ( talk · contribs) Block Log.
  2. Nominating articles to Quality review processes where user was not a prior quality contributor -- compare to same exact pattern on similar Media and drama articles, in evidence laid out in my prior report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive#16_October_2015.
  3. Prior warnings for said behavior by IndianBio DIFF, GagaNutella DIFF, and Graham Beards DIFF.
  4. Nominates page on another article in Media and drama topic, first to FAC DIFF and then to GAN. DIFF
  5. Multiple prior GA and FA reviews shows how this is quite disruptive to our quality review processes, most recently at FAC, speedy-deleted by RHaworth, see LINK.
  6. Lack of edit summaries, especially when nominating articles to GA. Compare Derevation DIFF and Digvijay411 DIFF with Iggy488 DIFF.
  7. Compare edits (hours apart) to article Jackie Chan DIFF, with disruptive nomination of that same exact page to GAN by another blocked sock, Derevation, at DIFF.

WP:DUCK analysis of behavior, as given by evidence, above. Blatant disruption of WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:FLC processes. Request block as yet another sock of sockmaster for same behavior patterns. Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 00:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Comment - If they aren't a TJK sock, I think the disruption their actions have caused needs to be reviewed. There are some counter-indicators though. There isn't a lot of overlap in what Iggy and Derevation edit which isn't normal for a TJK sock. They frankly aren't very sophisticated and using different accounts for different purposes would be something new for them. The general editing times are consistent, but that really just suggests they are probably in the same timezone. There aren't a lot of overlaps in editing time which is odd. There are some (see 06:00 - 06-10 timeframe on October 16th, and 03:57 on October 9th), but not as many as I would have thought. Edit summaries by both are generally lower-case, but that's something that can be cultural. Derevation's summaries are generally hostile, rude and seeking to blame someone for something while Iggy is far more polite. Some of what Cirt noted above is concerning though. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I was about to add MahnOfSteel to the list, but then spotted that Bbb23 already blocked them as a CU block. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

26 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets
  1. Same prior behavior pattern, nominating article to which IP-user was not prior active contributor to Good Article candidacy at DIFF.
  2. Not asking for CU, but just block on WP:DUCK based on prior patterns of blocked accounts eg Derevation ( talk · contribs) and MahnOfSteel ( talk · contribs), etc. LINK.
  3. Nominated article fits pattern of both (A) Film, (B) Pop culture, (C) India-related.
  4. Ravensfire may have more expertise to add to analysis here.

Thank you. — Cirt ( talk) 06:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Agree with Cirt, this is TJK. This edit to a redirect to an article Derevation edited earlier this month. Most of the IP's edits are to an article that Derevation did not edit, but it's an Indian film article which is TJK's passion. Some of the edit comments from the IP are similar to recent edit comments by Derevation.

  • Derevation "fixups.... wahhh" and IP "fixups. ahhhhh".
  • Derevation "some rv craps of pov" and IP "full pov statement" (use of pov in edit comment, several other examples in Derevation's history
  • The edits after the GA nomination match what TJK has done before.
  • Singh Is Bliing nominated by Derevation at 03:26 Oct 5, some edits before but many significant edits afterwards
  • Jackie Chan filmography nominated by Derevation at 03:00 Oct 13, 5 major edits by Derevation after that time (see article history)
  • John Abraham (actor) nominated by Derevation at 06:26 Oct 16, 4 edits by Derevation after (fair number of edits before the nom though, they might have learned a bit from previous nominations)
  • I would love to see a rangeblock, even for a month, to slow TJK down. As evidenced by his profane outburst as 122.170.64.105, he's in his angry phase right now and will do anything he can to get his way and when blocked will curse and insult those blocking him. As far as I can tell, TJK is not active on the ranges he used to use (42.104.0.0/22, 107.167.96.0/21, 70.39.185.0/24). He's mostly been logged in, so I can only see the 4 IP's reported which tcpiputils.com says are separate ranges (3 /21 and a /20), all for Bharti Airtel. I checked one range for activity since September 1 and it was nearly all TJK's edits. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Both IPs [122.170.85.173 and 122.170.67.141] nominated poor quality articles for GA 173 did a Bollywood film Rowdy Rathore and 141 did Instagram. Both were reviewed and instantly passed as GA by O'Morphine. GA reviews have been deleted in CSD (GA transclusion entry here, Talk:Rowdy Rathore/GA1) and (GA transclusion entry here, Talk:Instagram/GA1 ). This is clear case of WP:DUCK. User Derevation ( talk · contribs · count), known puppet used to nominate mediocre articles for GAs. I also request admins to see if other IPs are active too in same affair because I just noticed that various IPs are also involved in with this master. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I've duck blocked the account. The same disruptive behavior at GA, 122.170.67.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) nominated Instagram for GA and the account immediately popped up to review and list Talk:Instagram/GA1. Same at Talk:Rowdy Rathore/GA1 where 122.170.85.173 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) was the nominator. I'm not very familiar with the socks, I recognize this as belonging to the draw, but don't know if there could be multiples. Bringing here to see if anyone thinks a sleeper check would be necessary, if not please feel free to close. — Spaceman Spiff 04:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

A very likely sock, there's this obsession with Karan Singh Grover which was a favorite of Rishika.dhanawade and Digvijay411. I would have duck blocked but recent CUs haven't caught this, so I'm bringing here for a check instead. — Spaceman Spiff 04:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Comment - Rishika.dhanawade and Digvijay411 are both tagged as TJK socks. Bbb23's CU findings on October 19th identified these two as unlikely to be TJK socks, but were being used by the same person. I'm not sure who the master is, but it's not TJK. I think the account identified here probably is a sock of those two accounts though. It's not TJK - very different phrasing and style. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new user

Thanks for running the CU, the results are interesting. Someone finding a file that TJK uploaded over a month ago I would have though somewhat unlikely, and combined with the other edits thought this was certainly Jin returned. Given the results, perhaps best to hold off on anything for a bit to see if further edits better demonstrate one way or the other? Ravensfire ( talk) 00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Couple of oddities about this editor have cropped up. In an odd series of edits on November 16 (around 2:30 UTC), D'SuperHero redirected the user page for a non-existent user to their user page then moved their user page and talk page to that of the non-existent user. I queried them about this on their talk page yesterday but no response, despite the large number of edits today. Then today, they submitted an article for FA status with minimal previous involvement, skipping GA status entirely. This is similar to the pattern Derevation, O'Morphine, MahnOfSteel and various TJK IP's displayed. I think they've tried the user/user talk deception before on an older sock (see ChanderForYoou ( talk · contribs), while doppleganger shows deceptive tactics). Based on their subsequent behavior, this smells strongly of TJK. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:28, 17 November 2015 (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

  • The account is technically  Unlikely or Red X Unrelated to any previous account.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Closing for lack of activity over the past five weeks. Although the behavioural evidence could point to something, I'm not willing to block without something really strong. If someone wants to refile this SPI with new, more compelling evidence, please feel free. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

27 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Observed patterns of multiple edits of his favorite topics, mostly Ram Pothineni, Self promotion, Image rollbacking. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 16:27, 27 October 2021 (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

  •  Check declined by a checkuser: it seems that all previous socks in this case are  Stale. @ D'SuperHero:  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Mz7 ( talk) 04:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

22 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Edit warring and reverting images. See his contributions. Likely he is a sockpuppet of TekkenJinKazama who had an old habit of edit warring. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 20:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

His behavior to revert images is consistent of File:Khadgam Poster.jpg despite warned him and he is partially blocked. I will get the evidences and keep a check on that please. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

For the admins reading this, D'SuperHero has made reports in the past without diffs: [12] [13] [14] Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spicy: Would you consider warning the creator of this report for bad SPI reports? Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @ D'SuperHero:  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 12:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Quick note, but I have warned D'SuperHero about forumshopping, as they are approaching other users for "help reporting this user". I have given both users a 3RR warning in relation to image reverting at File:Khadgam Poster.jpg, which appears to be what prompted this report. I do not know this master, but D'SuperHero's only evidence stated to me so far is "he edits Indian topics". -- ferret ( talk) 16:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It's been a week and no convincing behavioural evidence has been provided. Closing. Spicy ( talk) 07:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive&oldid=1086090280"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE