Sachin.cba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Editorkamran (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Abhishek0831996 (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.

The two have made quite identical comments at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War to influence an RfC. Sachin.cba (140 edits) made a comment that Pakistani editors would oppose a particular proposal made in the discussion. Subsequently, Editorkamran (98 edits), without any edits in the India-Pakistan conflicts topic area, appears claiming to be a Pakistani and echoes Sachin.cba's argument. The two also voted for the same in the RfC. The topic area is highly prone to sockpuppetry, a sleeper check would be useful to know the actual puppet master. Nomian (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996, Actually, both Sachin.cba and Editorkamran opposed the solution proposed in the discussion based on similar reasons. The fact that Editorkamran showing high familiarity with the long and rambling discussions despite just arriving at the talk page also adds to the suspicion, like the IP comment you showed which had been redacted days before his arrival. The three diffs you showed are from Hindkowans, Kunan Poshpora incident and Ajmal Kasab, these are not part of the India-Pakistan conflict area, I was referring to the articles related to the wars and conflicts between the two countries. It is also a bit startling that you logged in after a four-day break only to passionately defend these two users in this SPI. Nomian (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the two are not socking you should be relaxed and let the investigation reveal the truth. The way Abhishek0831996 is trying to obstruct the investigation has made me even more suspicious and it seems he has some conflict of interest here. I have added his account to the suspected sockpuppets. Nomian (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996, It wouldn't be fishing because there is sufficient evidence to suspect abusive sock-puppetry as the diffs show. You would of course disagree. Now let the clerks, check-users and admins decide. Nomian (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• They are supporting mainstream academic views. How come you failed to name 5 other editors who have shared same view? This SPI is nothing more than deception or you appear to have very poor comprehension skills because this comment nowhere "echoes" comment by Sachin.cba but the comment made by a Bangladeshi IP. To say "without any edits in the India-Pakistan conflicts topic area" is either a case of WP:CIR or just deliberate deception because Editorkamran has edited several Indo-Pakistan conflict related articles.[1][2][3] It doesn't make two editors who are apparently hailing from two different countries the same person only because they are opposed to your Bangladeshi nationalistic POV. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing surprising given many editors (including me) rejected an offbeat proposal. You said "India-Pakistan conflicts topic area" and those articles are related to that. Why you are changing your own words now? It is also ironic that you are making such a WP:POINT when you never edited any "articles related to the wars and conflicts between the two countries" yourself,[4] before you commented on the RfC on 18th August. That makes you look even more suspicious because when you haven't contributed to any "India-Pakistan conflicts" then why you are expecting others to contribute to them before commenting on the RfC? You need to learn about Help:Page history, since IPs comments are available for everyone to view in history, nothing was suppressed and in fact, it is likely that everyone who went through IP's comment will search from the history. You are editing SPI for the first time ever, and unlike you, I have contributed to multiple SPIs before. I was not on a "four-day break" but only didn't edit on 25 and 26, that's only 2 days, not 4. You should be careful of WP:GASLIGHTING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bystanders are free to comment, onus is on you to provide evidence than just engage in this suspicious fishing. You also know that they are not socking, noting the fact that you couldn't answer a single concern I raised above, but you are filing the SPI because you think checkuser is for fishing and will help you in clearing up your opponents. But you are wrong and only misleading yourself. See  WP:NOTFISHING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

•  Clerk note: declined - I do not see sufficient overlap here to prove sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. This topic area is fairly charged, and these discussions often have people show up based on some kind of external stimulus (a news article or forum post about it, for example). A shared POV is not, in itself, enough to prove sockpuppetry. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]