Rajarshi Mondal 17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Aarul Chandekar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Figoitjodfj (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Darkarmy241998 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• M Kariyappa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PratyushDas1999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is a meatpuppet report. Please inform me if there's any issue with the report as this is first. The whole thing is regarding 2 Indian clubs- ATK and Mohun Bagan (MB). Their football divisions merged in January 2020, which has led to multiple discussions in wiki (if necessary, I will list the discussions). A new article ATK Mohun Bagan was created but was later redirected to Mohun Bagan article. Now, MB is a big Indian club, and the fans didn't like the merge thing thus they opposed against it, and whatever the discussion is, they voted for Mohun Bagan. They just want to prove that they weren't merged. I'm also a football fan (another club) from Kolkata and I know what's the mentality of the local fans. Either to vandalise wikipedia articles of rival clubs or to vote in a discussion, some fans take a screenshot and share in FB groups to provoke others to do the same. These accounts rig and canvass the discussions and create unnecessary stress and is taxing for other genuine editors. They keep repeating the same thing like a bot. This is the summary. I said all these as I will report some more meatpuppets related to the same thing.

1. Rajarshi Mondal 17 created the account on 14 July, and has only one edit in a page merge discussion, on the same day, just to support the club. Special:Contributions/Rajarshi Mondal 17. No other edits, before and after that.
2. Aarul Chandekar created account on 16 July to vote in the discussion [1] and mainly contributed to the club article and the voted in related discussions. Many disrupting and unsourced edits like this (trying to prove a point just like other MB fans in social media). Special:Contributions/Aarul_Chandekar. Also closed the discussion abruptly [2] and redirected the page article in discussion on his own [3]. The user also did WP:Shouting to emphasis on his point.
3. Figoitjodfj created account on 17 July and has made edits only to the same discussion and nothing else. Also, the name is some random letters. Special:Contributions/Figoitjodfj.
4. Darkarmy241998 created account on 6 September (when another discussion started on that topic). Left some comments in the discussion [4] and did some edits to ATK article (mostly disruptive) and the league's season article, and left Special:Contributions/Darkarmy241998.
5. M Kariyappa This user created account on 8 July, when the matter started to heat up in wiki. The user commented on discussion normally started related to the topic. Later contributed to other MB related articles. Now, when the official page merge discussion started, the user started voting and commenting [5], [6] with huge paragraphs. After a week, the user went silent. This month page rename discussion started and the guy, after 2 months pops out and abruptly, whereas no consensus was achieved. After this the user left. [7]. This user also seems related to Aarul Chandekar as they both closed discussions suddenly in the middle, despite being new accounts.
6. PratyushDas1999 this is the most recent meat account. although account created 3 years back, made the first edit, which was disruptive in the ATK article [8] to show that MB and ATK didn't merge, ATK got dissolved into MB. ATK is inferior, MB is superior type things. Another disruptive editing, where he removed the merged club name (ATKMB) from its home stadium to show, its not merged, its only MB. Then the mage rename discussion started and he started repeating the same thing again and agai, which was mentally taxing. [9], [10], [11]. After this, the discussion was closed, as the accounts canvassed it again. Since the discussion ended, the user has been doing disruptive edits to the MB article. The article now is in such a bad condition.

All these accounts pop up during discussions and left wiki after it ended. Some of them again came back, when another discussion started. They do WP:Cherrypicking and irritate by arguing the same ting again and again and create false consensus. We are planning to start another discussion on this later, thus reporting, so that these accounts don't canvass and rig again. ❯❯❯   S A H A 11:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I found the account creation time and edit history of most of the editors who supported the merger to be similar in nature; thus, my suppositions that these accounts are SPAs working as meatpuppets/sockpuppets of an experienced editor. There are lots of tweets and FB posts that can be seen as canvassing attempts: 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8. -- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some more time looking at the discussion and the contribution histories of the editors who participated in the RFC, and I'm still where I was before, which is that socking seems likely. I will add Debarghya89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as the sock master and Avi1962 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as another suspect.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RoySmith, Not socking, but meats. If action isn't taken, they will again canvass the future discussions and make it a false consensus. ❯❯❯   S A H A 07:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ArnabSaha, Canvassing is a fact of life on wikipedia. It's not something SPI can fix. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  RoySmith, so, meats can never be reported? ❯❯❯   S A H A 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ArnabSaha, We don't block new users just because they were WP:CANVASSED. Their opinions are typically ignored or down-weighted in discussions, per WP:MEAT, but it's not something they get blocked for. We do block meatpuppets if it appears they are editing in return for payment, i.e. WP:UPE, but not just because somebody tweeted, "Hey, all you fans of my favorite footy team, we need you on wikipedia". -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  RoySmith, ok. ❯❯❯   S A H A 15:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: ArnabSaha you need to report more than one account - who is this a meatpuppet of? Please provide diffs showing how this account is working with others to be disruptive. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GeneralNotability, there are around 10 users who made accounts to vote, argue and canvass in the discussion and left. How do I report them? ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ArnabSaha, they all go in one report. You list all of them together and show how you think they are working together, supported by specific diffs. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GeneralNotability, Then, on whose name the report will be? And I need to add other accounts as sock1, sock 2? ❯❯❯   S A H A 19:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GeneralNotability Also, merge this report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Figoitjodfj here then... ❯❯❯   S A H A 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Closing with no action taken. Somebody tweet-canvased people to pile onto a footy article. Happens every day. It's not what we ideally like to see, but it's not socking. If it's really disruptive, the couple of articles that are being targeted could be semi-protected, that that can be handled outside of SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]