CosmicEmperor

CosmicEmperor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)
11 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


All of them seem to have similar editing specimens on the Talk:Bengali people. If someone has realized, CosmicEmperor is still not able to sign properly. Sometime he forgets to sign using hyphens as well as living a space, like Universal tiger does. Other strong evidences would be that Brown American wrote something in bengali in my talk page, then a personal attack here and a complain here, but all of these signatures were CosmicEmperor's one. However, CosmicEmperor removed Brown American's edits, by warning him as well, which may be good hand and band hand. CosmicEmperor could be blocked per WP:DUCKTEST, but a WP:CHK is necessary, even though they might change Ip addresses. 115ash→(☏) 10:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at these similar edits, made by Universal tiger, made by CosmicEmperor. --115ash→(☏) 12:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

User:Aditya Kabir, User:Nafsadh, User:kmzayeem, User:Tanweer Morshed, User:Samudrakula, User:Aftabuzzaman, User:Happiest persoN and others, could anyone tell me what does this mean?. Google translates it as "Behold blocked. Tor FIG tears." 115ash→(☏) 10:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanjagenije, have you read carefully what I've written? --115ash→(☏) 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanjagenije, those are newly created accounts. --115ash→(☏) 14:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I have made a bunch of checks against Undertrialryryr's socks over the past several months, and I don't recall ever seeing 115ash. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

CosmicEmperor was indeffed after possessing vandalism only accounts, trolling, creating attack pages and POV pushing. [8].

The Avengers first edits are not that of a newbie [9] and similar to that of CE. Avengers declared he was editing from other accounts and even IP [10] without disclosing the IP. There might be even more hidden overlap in the IP edits and possibly undeclared socks and sleepers. This is the main reason I have requested CU, otherwise I am mainly relying on behavioural connection as the master is stale. I'm not aware of recently blocked socks of CE.

I think the evidence in my report compiles enough for a behavioural WP:DUCK block against The Avengers, his alt accounts and ofcourse the admitted alt account of the master which was not blocked before.

Compelling evidence
Corroborative evidence

(This evidence is insignificant if each point is taken alone, but does significantly tell the similar traits of the two users in combination with the rest).

Context for other accounts
Replies
Latest evidence

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. --The Avengers 02:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Reply from The Avengers
not many add such categories to their userpages. Category:Male Wikipedians is one of the most popular user page category in Wikipedia.
Avengers moved Baby (film) [19], CE requested protection for it [20].If i edit movie articles, it's obvious that a Bollywood movie released in 2015 will overlap with editors active in Indian entertainment topics. TopGun creating it as a separate evidence from CosmicEmperor heavily edited Hollywood and Indian film articles [5]. The Avengers also heavily edits film and actor articles of the film industries starting right away from his first 500 edits is really bad. Baby (2015 Hindi film) was banned in Pakistan [1] as the main antagonists in the movie are Pakistani terrorists and ISI agents. Explains why TopGun is stating it separately. For one week he is stuck with this SPI acting as a single purpose account to take revenge for Mar4d's block. TopGun might be trying to increase the number of evidence

References

  1. ^ "Pakistan bans Akshay Kumar's 'Baby'".
Other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


31 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Last sock of CosmicEmperor was blocked in December 2015, Greek Legend was created in February 2016 two months after the block, this newest sock is trying his best to distinguish himself from the previous ones, just an attempt not to get blocked ever again as you can see him instructing another user in this diff. He did not leave much evidence. Also, only one month of age from February to March, he knows awful lot about Wikipedia policies and editing, he knows about delsorting, ANIs, SPIs, AFDs.

Behavioral evidence

Comments by other users

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

@Mike V: That's the best I could manage at this point. I am pretty sure it's same user. He is very careful this time, avoiding editing same pages but technically he should be under a block and should not be editing. How about running a CU on the master to see if he created any other user accounts. I have listed six or seven traits that he matches with the master and two other puppets. If we let him go, he will be more careful in the future and we will never nab him. Also look at my record here, I have over 87% success rate in identifying them and that percentage is at stake if CU does not come out positive. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Greek Legend so he can defend himself here. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@SheriffIsInTown: I need to see more of a behavioral overlap before I can consider a check. Also, please note that the intersection tool is only a starting point for finding evidence; it's not evidence in itself. It's meant to help identify similar areas of focus. From there you can find specific diffs that show similarities. It's possible that your right, I just need to see a stronger connection before I can proceed. Mike VTalk 21:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown:To help speed things along, I went ahead and compiled similar edits that I found through the Editor Interaction Analyser. Here's some of the similar behaviors that I noted:
Both Greek Legend and The Avengers have listed user pages for deletion using twinkle. The rationales provided in all the cases have been abrupt sentences with only a few words. (Greek Legend: Fake article. fake article. This userpage is like a non-English article. The Avengers: Promotional talk page. The userpage is promotional.) Both requests for the rollback permission demonstrate similar consistencies of a non-native speaker. The Avengers: I have reverted many vandalism and BLP violations, along with filing SPI and RFPP requests. Greek Legend: Though I have made a few vandalism revert, I know what is vandalism. I have checked contributions of some administrators who block users indefinitely for vandalism. I have checked the contributions of those users who are either given level 4 warning or blocked indefinitely for vandalism. I can easily distinguish between positive edit and vandalism. I want to to use Huggle and Stiki. I am not going to misuse these tools. And I won't make any mistake with the warnings. Both users have asked for assistance in a similar manner at the Help Desk. (Greek Legend, The Avengers: 1 2, 3) (Also note the similarity in the syntax.) Both accounts have requested assistance from Cyphoidbomb in the form of a sentence. (Greek Legend: The user User talk:Vnujadhav blocked by you gave a barnstar to User:Vinjadhav The Avengers: There is a spammer adding "Komail Shayan"in upcoming movies., Give your views)
Using this information, I am more comfortable running a check against the accounts. Having done so, I found that Jackie Chan strikes (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) and Greek Legend (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed to The Avengers (talk · contribs). Mike VTalk 17:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


CosmicEmperor habitually propagates nationalistic and divisive agenda on wikipedia and he can see editors only as those who want to edit in favour of Pakistan and those who want to edit in favour of India and this in itself is a POV problem in addition to socking, trolling and baseless accusations.

As per SPI archives, CE said he would sock again to get even with editors who filed his SPI and it appears this is his method of trolling (infact same modus operandi as before). A quick request on some admin who had dealt with him before would have achieved a block too but I want his IPs noted in the SPI archive for future reference as per his open remarks and intentions of socking again and again. lTopGunl (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

diffs of similar WP:DUCK behavior as shown by CE and his socks

The way he changes the IPs, a range block for 223* would be more appropriate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


25 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Master has been filing frivolous SPIs against me and other regulars who have been keeping his socking in check. See this SPI filed by a behaviourally confirmed IP range of the master for instance. X Swordmaster's only purpose on wikipedia, a similar frivolous SPI concludes it as a sock of CE for me. Method of presenting so called evidence bullet wise is same as the master. Given that his last SPI was around 3 months ago, the comeback also coincides with the Master's announcement / demonstration in his unblock request, before his talkpage access was revoked, that he knew he could just come back after waiting for 3 months to evade CU - a tactic he has been proven to have tried before and caught behaviorally and in the OTRS per previous SPIs. lTopGunl (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I have added User:X Swordsman in the socks list. Though ip data may be stale but this socks edits are worth comparing. Created on 1st July 2015 a few days after master account was blocked indef(24 June 2015). Like CE's previous socks X Swordsman is keen to ask questions at Teahouse (1, 2, 3, 4). Another edit that gives away this sock's interest in Indo-Pak topic area like the previous socks is: First an IP sock posted at AN about edit war in India-Pakistan topic area. This sock notified Sitush about this discussion. Its difficult to imagine a three days old user at Wiki following AN threads related to a particular topic area. --SMS Talk 11:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

X Swordmaster says they edited under X Swordsman. Whether it's true is a different issue, but there's no "may be" about the staleness of X Swordsman.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo has blocked the two accounts as sock puppets of Undertrialryryr (talk · contribs · count). Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


I have added more evidence now, please do not remove the request without evaluating the evidence. Requesting the CU as CosmicEmperor normally have multiple socks active at the same time.

Behavioral evidence
In last SPI against Greek Legend, User:Mike V added some evidence, I am adding the evidence along those lines below, see how Marvellous Spider-Man compares

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 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Same IP range and single purpose behaviour / trolling and reporting of established editors. This IP belongs to the master which has been demonstrated here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor/Archive#08_December 2015. The Sock master had a habit of accusing all established editors in a topic area to be socks of the same person which was trashed at SPI as well as reported in his own SPI. lTopGunl (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2016 (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


10 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


There is a slow edit war continuing on Separatist movements of Pakistan for about a month that has seen participation from a number of anon and SPA editors. This SPA's single edit is in a topic area that has seen edits from a number of CE's socks lately. Fatima Begum from downtown came out of the blue to do a revert at this article similar to what 117.248.136.44, 117.248.136.18 and 137.59.159.179 have also done. Now all of these IPs geolocate to the same location as CE's suggested location pointed in earlier cases. Requesting CU for a sleeper check. -- SMS Talk 03:03, 10 October 2016 (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

Fatima Begum from downtown is technically  Possible to CosmicEmperor. To connect the account to CE purely because they may use the same IP ranges is insufficient. There needs to be behavioral diffs comparing Fatima to previously blocked named accounts, and in this instance that would be very hard given that Fatima has made only one edit. The amount of activity on these ranges is significant and the number of blocked socks on these ranges is proportionally substantial. Yet, most of those socks are CU-blocked without tags, including several by me, because of the inability to connect them persuasively to a specific master. I have done the same thing with Fatima, i.e., blocked without a tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


20 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Did the same edit as Fatima Begum from downtown. Now Fatima Begum from downtown was not confirmed as CE, but since that case was also logged here so for the sake of keeping all the possible/similar cases together filing it here. Not sure CU would be useful here or not. -- SMS Talk 14:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Noting that the account is also reported under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Digitalravan which seems more correct, if proven User:Fatima Begum from downtown can go there as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Or, could it be that several sock masters belong to the same person, could it be that Digitalravan group is same as CE group? For example if there are clear and direct IP matches then I do not think technical data can be wrong. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: this account's behaviour doesn't match Digitalravan at all, despite username similarity. The account removed the sock tags from socks of Itsmukeshhere, but also doesn't seem to be related to that case. However, it is almost certainly the same user as Fatima Begum from downtown. Please block without tags. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, not tagged. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, case closed. Responding to Smsarmad's comment above: as I understand it there are several sockmasters operating within a similar IP range, along with several unrelated users, so in these cases technical data is not of much use without better behavioural evidence. Since we can already show by behaviour that this account is the same as another blocked account, we can block it, so there's no real benefit to running CU here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


A new user who straight away comes to another SPI, knows sock history of LanguageXpert. Previously also CE's sock has filed /commented on SPI cases against LX (1 , 2). Besides CE's sock used to quote the text same way Sultan's Assassin do. Requesting CU on two counts, first for sleeper check, secondly there were a number of suspected CE socks blocked without tags recently because they edited from high traffic IP range with a number of banned editors. Since this user has a stronger behavior match than the previous ones, CU may be helpful in determining which set of the recently blocked socks were CE's. -- SMS Talk 06:41, 4 November 2016 (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


18 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

As below. GABgab 15:24, 10 November 2016 (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

(Moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sidhartha Vijaya) GABgab 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has nothing to do with LanguageXpert. Removed the hold.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: I'm a bit confused. On that SPI, you confirmed Touristerman returns to Sidhartha Vijaya "and other blocked socks." Who would they be socks of? I understand the tagging situation for group 1, but I'm not quite there on group 2. Thanks, GABgab 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GeneralizationsAreBad: The only reason you're confused is because it's confusing. You have two choices. You can simply not tag them, which in this instance is perfectly acceptable, or you can collect all the accounts that have been confirmed to each other, figure out who is the oldest, start a new case with that account, tag them, and close it. If you're a glutton for punishment and have nothing better to do, I'd do the latter. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I may be a glutton, but certainly not for punishment. I've tagged group 1 and will leave group 2 be for now, since there's clearly an older master I'm unaware of. Is that alright? GABgab 00:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed

I want to use TW(Twinkle) Rainbow Archer (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=727193646

I want to upload a movie poster. Galaxy Kid (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=688973824

Tayi Arajakate collected the evidence. --Набудани таваҷҷӯҳ (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Набудани таваҷҷӯҳ (talk) 10:11, 11 August 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


27 September 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

After seeing this ANI report, I came to this conclusion.

"Marvel Lords" is related to Comics.[84] This sockmaster was always interested in comics.[85][86]

Asks questions on Desk,[87][88] and Tea House[89][90] to look like a newbie.

Asks questions on Reference_Desk/Humanities,[91][92] as his first edit. I compared Marvel Lords with Rocketracoon456789 here who was sock of this sockmaster per CU comments here.

Ping Girth Summit and Extorc for their knowledge.

Since this sockmaster is an LTA, I am sure there are CU logs for this user. Yoonadue (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2022 (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