Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Joshi punekar

Joshi punekar (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

22 April 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same obsession with the eating/not eating of fish by certain castes; see their addition to Saraswat Brahmin, which mimics the same [1][2][3]. More than a coincidence that this account was created 22 April 2019 at 13:01, when the assumed master was indefinitely bocked the previous evening...? ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please compare these two. Thanks, GABgab 14:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck-block. Obsession over the dietary habits of Saraswats continue..... ∯WBGconverse 15:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

27 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Addition of scientific racism in caste articles [4], discussion with blocked user here. Similar thing on race raised here Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

29 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User created today POV pushes and edit wars in the same topic area as the last socks (recent sock blocked on 27th October). Similar POV on food habits [5] as well as obscure racialism in articles [6], like previous socks. Editor interaction [7] Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

13 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Created three days after the last sock was indeffed. Similar edit area, obsession with Saraswat Brahmin like the older accounts. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, Actually, about 8 hours later. They just didn't make their first edit for a few more days. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Oh... I should have checked their info using XTools . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - The timing of when this account was created vs the previous sock being blocked and the general writing style certainly look socky. But, I see a few stylistic things which make me wonder, so confirmation from CU against the last batch of non-stale socks in the archive would be appreciated. Caste-related topics are popular, so just the common interest in two Brahmin articles doesn't strike me as being that significant on its own. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar POV push on Saraswat Brahmin article like older socks. Removal of content/blanking [8], [9], [10]. [11], [12] that doesn't suit this user's personal preferences. Also note the comment in the t/p [13]. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: There are no exact diffs but behavioral. For example here the confirmed sock adds a term "chaitim" used by the Portuguese to refer to a regional people whom they perceived to be "genius and astute in every mode of trade", however the accompanying source doesn't mention anything about the "Saraswat Brahmins" (article's subject), making it WP:OR. At the same time he removes the mention of "Vaishya" which is properly sourced for the word "chaitin" in the article, arguing that the word for Vaishya (a non-Brahmin and thus lower tier to the Brahmins) should not be mentioned in the article. Discussed here. What this new user Vishnuvrida does? He removes the same "chaitin" thing from the article [14] alongwith anything that makes the Saraswat Brahmnins look less Brahmin-like. So it looked socky to me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Additional information needed - @Fylindfotberserk: 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar name "Joshi" and similar topic area -> Marathi Brahmins, Chitpavan, etc. Known for disruptive and POV edits. Interaction [15]. Major changes/removal of content citing bias [16] [17] [18] Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to request CU as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CU gives me nothing particularly useful, and all the old socks are stale. I'm blocking Krishna Teja Joshi as suspected - apart from the username and the editing interests, there's some other BEANS stuff, which is enough to persuade me. I'm not confident about Shreemantsaurabhpant - I see too many differences between them and the 'Joshi' accounts. Virat 777 has only three edits from two years ago - that's not enough to go on, and it's likely been abandoned anyway. Girth Summit (blether) 13:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same editing area (Saraswat Brahmins, Gaud Saraswat Brahmins, Maharashtra Brahmins).

  • Keeps removing well sourced content per their POV and adds unreliably sourced content [19] [20] [21] [22].
  • Obsession/removal of eating of fish and meat by these castes which are well sourced as well as removal of anything which mention these castes to practise non-Brahmin duties (trading for example) or not being considered at par with other castes [23] [24] [25] [26]
  • Curiously, this new ID 'Pondakar' opens a discussion with User:LukeEmily [27] just like the blocked sockpuppet [28] [29] [30] [31], to 'discuss' his displeasure on using 'Shenvis'. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial interaction [32]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged again @LukeEmily:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More sourced content removal related to position in the society as well as food habits (mutton, fish, etc) [33]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

20 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New user making similar requests in the talk page [34] [35] [36] [37]. Looks like a WP:DUCK Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @RegentsPark:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

23 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Addition / Discussion of scientific racism in caste articles/talk pages by confirmed socks - [38], here [39] [40]. And similar request made by the suspected sock [41], as well as in another article [42] [43], and edit wars after getting reverted [44]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another new one in the same edit area and talking about Shenvis again in the talk page [45] [46]. Also note similar edits here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More looks and caste based content and likely possible POV against a certain caste [47]. A very new user knows sophisticated methods of referencing (sfn template, etc) is suspect. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More talk by 'User:Madhwahari' on 'Shenvis' and 'fish/pescatarian' diet like those confirmed socks [48]. Pinging @RegentsPark:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

07 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edit request on Talk:Saraswat Brahmin identical to multiple ones previously made by confirmed sock User:Pondakar — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


14 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Picked up exactly where User:JosephDcunha,User:Karanth1234 and User:Udupa0000 left off on Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin

Account created within 15 hrs of User:JosephDcunha's block ([49] [50]) Even continuing to respond to messages on an edit request edited by 2 blocked socks Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2024 — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FenrisAureusI don’t know about sock that much and I hope I can write something regarding this here.I don’t know about the user Joseph but I can reply only to the respond part that I have done.Jonathansammy and Lukeemily were discussing regarding some topic I have just kept my point there hope I didn’t crossed any rule.I have given a very good high quality content you can see it once.As per my knowledge I didn’t abused anyone nor didn’t went against rule. Goyambab (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FenrisAureusOh I didn’t knew that udupa is sock(How to know that!).I just saw Jonathansammy(13 years) and Lukeemuly (3 years).I thought genuine discussion was going on and gave my points based on the research.I have kept that research from Oxford university in the talk yesterday.Please go through it once. Goyambab (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Hope this section is about defending myself.This account is my first and unique Wikipedia account.Behaviour wise please refer my research content and discussions with experienced editors.I really didn’t knew about the section being initiated by sock,I just saw the discussion of two users Jonathansammy and LukeEmuly .Since konkan linguistic and culture was my research area I just gave my research points there.I don’t have history of personal attacks or caste pushing as I don’t belong to any community there.Just I am keeping few points from my end .I have written this at the top as I didn’t knew about where to write.Decision is yours before taking decision do refer my research content once. Goyambab (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Besides the evidence presented by the filer, there is other evidence as well. Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Continuing the same behavior/activities; engaged in the same discussion, see User talk:Jonathansammy#Regarding recent source provided by one user in GSB talk page, even referring to the socks earlier active on the GSB talk page (Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin)! Ekdalian (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Disruption in the same area (same caste article) and same agenda:

1. Sock Pondakar removing sourced content related to Balochistan, adding own POV, please check edit summary diff1 and almost similar edit summary here diff2.

2. Regarding slave trade, please check edit summary by sock Pondakar diffI and similar talk page comment by the suspected sock, check diffII.

3. Same points raised by the new suspected sock using 'Clarify' tags here as evident from the confirmed sock Pondakar's last edits on the same article! Ekdalian (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

06 February 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

IP addresses posting walls of text at Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin, similar to past socks Goyambab and Udupa0000. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

I am quite sure that since all their socks were blocked, the same editor is trying to push the same POV through these edit requests! I believe that the talk page needs to be protected once sockpuppetry is confirmed! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I don't see any edits within the last 3 weeks. Closing, with apologies for this falling through the cracks. Please re-report if problems resume. Courcelles (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar edits starting with "The Saraswat Brahmins believe themselves to be named after the mythical Saraswati river" by a confirmed sock (Pondakar), almost similar statement by Brittlee1990, please check diff1 and diff2, same section and same article (Saraswat Brahmin).

Editing the same articles as the confirmed socks, picking up from where they left; kindly check EditorInteraction. Ekdalian (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

See also blocked socks User:Editor3131 and User:Acchuta Sharma which I think are not stale. I have no time tonight for this, sorry. Doug Weller 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to all of them having editing from the same IP address on one network, and the same IP ranges of others.
Taking the behavioral evidence into account (such as the interaction analyzer evidence, and the similarities pointed out above) with the technical evidence that I retrieved, I'm comfortable with asserting that Brittlee1990 is  Likely to Joshi punekar (the master account). Blocking account and closing SPI... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Documenting for the record. These IP editors posted lengthy edit requests on Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin with identical writing styles, all in agreement with one another. — Newslinger talk 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

31 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • That block is a partial block of an extremely wide IP range used by thousands of different editors. This user's creation of sub-par Bollywood drafts does not appear to have anything to do with Joshi punekar's editing interests, which mainly center around caste warring. Spicy (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please file a separate report if you believe this account is a sock of another user. Spicy (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02 April 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

1. Same objective as the sock master as well as the recent socks, User:Goyambab, User:Karanth1234, User:Samlobo44, User:Calculator007 and the IPs recently active on Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin; obvious objective is caste promotion.

2. Voluminous discussions on the talk page mentioned above, exactly in line with the previous socks.

3. Behavioral evidence: Using the user talk page to ping editors and try to discuss e.g. 1 and 2. Ekdalian (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New suspect Rajeshfadnavis has taken up from where the blocked sock had left! Ekdalian (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Further behavioral evidence: The suspect Rajeshfadnavis has mentioned below that "Let me give additional information,I have edited Wikipedia multiple times occasionally from 2012 but this is my first and unique account"! Please look at this edit by a confirmed sock of this sockfarm, Karanth1234 where the sock had shared similar information. But strangely these socks haven't mentioned their previous usernames! They may forget their password, but no one forgets their username!

On the other hand, if they were just casual IP editors, they wouldn't have been aware of SPI and CU (having detailed information). Such behavioral evidence clearly indicates that Rajeshfadnavis must be involved in meatpuppetry, if not sockpuppetry. Ekdalian (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost conclusive behavioral evidence: Use of the rare phrase "void of" as well as similar language and style (e.g. no space before opening bracket) by Rajeshfadnavis as well as the confirmed socks/blocked IPs including Ramarao1234! Please check these diffs: using "void of WP:SYN" by a blocked IP 2409:40F2:1B:50D6:F10D:13DB:3B9F:B235 1, using the same by another blocked IP 2409:40F2:42:6BED:C055:5973:6FD1:4B50 (both blocked by Newslinger) 2, using the terms "void of Neutrality" and "void of Synthesis" by blocked user Ramarao1234 3 (please note there's no space before opening brackets in the edits by confirmed socks/IPs), using the same phrase by Ramarao1234 again 4, using the same language "void of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV" (and even no space before opening bracket) by the suspected sock Rajeshfadnavis on the same article talk page 5, same phrase by the suspect on Doug Weller's talk page 6, using the same again along with no space before/after brakets by the suspect 7, use of "void of wiki rule" by Rajeshfadnavis on RegentsPark's talk page 8.

Similar (like all previous socks) voluminous discussions by Rajeshfadnavis on Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin, even requesting RegentsPark to decrease the protection level of the article here so that they can start editing/POV pushing like the sock master/confirmed socks! Even discussing on their agenda (POV on GSB) out of context in another article's talk page, see this.

Hope I have provided enough behavioral evidence; pinging admins RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Newslinger, Bbb23. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian They've posted to my talk page asking if we can CU to show they aren't socking. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller, a new user knows about SPI and especially CU; just imagine! Obvious sock/meat; at least, I have no doubt! Ekdalian (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Dear admin/CU, Continued to the above allegations let me add some points here.Kindly investigate completely and perfect ly as wiki has a set of top level detection tools .My concern is sockpuppetry should not become tool for wested interests.Let me give additional information,I have edited Wikipedia multiple times occasionally from 2012 but this is my first and unique account (If found to be untrue -Block me).Rest information you will get in CU.Hope complete investigation will be done. Regards, Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Newslinger, Bbb23,
I don't think the "Behavioral evidence" is even relevent as per my knowledge.The mentioned evidence like usage of void,Wp:synth,NPOV,no space before opening bracket,voluminous discussions etc cannot be a evidence.
Already My block was rejected by admin RegentsPark on lack of behavior evidence.Ref: Requesting "Obvious sock" in personal talk User talk:RegentsPark is void of wiki policy ,where admin RegentsPark didn't accept and denied to block due to lack of evidence.
With good faith I request all the admins to guide the editors here to mutually respect each other.Giving respect to one of the Admin's(Doug's) suggestion I am changing the message and with good faith expecting the same from all editors.
Regards, Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajeshfadnavis This is a personal attack. If you continue in this vein you are likely to be blocked. The editor you are complaining about acted in good faith - there have been a number of socks recently with edits not very dissimilar to yours. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Doug WellerI believe in democracy,mutual respect is my first priority .Even now I assume good faith and respect the editor who accused me,I don't take allegations too personally.I accept that many sock attacks have been there in the past but forcefully calling me sock is hurting me.Hope I receive the same respect back from him.Editors together can build wikipedia under the guidance of experienced administrators, it's not mutual competition.Expecting resolution from experienced administrators like you! Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

02 May 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Joshi_punekar/Archive&oldid=1228120201"