Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


KnightWarrior25

KnightWarrior25 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
08 July 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Two days ago, Zadon19 was blocked for an time of 36 Hour Because he was Pushing WP:POV and was involve in an WP:WAR, also along with him I was also blocked for 36 hour because i reverted his POV edits more than 3 times, this can be seen here

The next Day he came up with his sock and continued to doing the same on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 he's been Reverted by many Users including twice by an Administrator and even getting so many warnings he continued to make WP:POV edits. 1st One 2nd One 3rd One 4th One 5th One 6th One In just less than 1hour he made about 7Reverts well more of we count on other pages. And this User has come directly next day when User:Zadon19 was block, His edits were absolutely same. see Edit History of Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Zadon19 Continued to Remove Sourced Content, Gross WP:POV, involve in WP:WAR in various articles related to Indo-Pak and the next day from his Block. Although his sock 101.50.118.182 has been blocked by administrators for one week can be seen here

But today Zadon19 Came out as his blocked has expired and continued to make unconstructive edits and WP:POV With Two accounts, one being his another sock. Both been reverted several times including one By Cluebot NG See - this, and this one, this by his sock, this, despite been warned show many times, he continued to make unconstructive edits

Now I request administrators to completely banned him with all his accounts, and IP's because day again day he came up with his sock and start making unconstructive and WP:POV edits on various articles. MCIWS (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Someone please request check user also, I forget to request MCIWS (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is so ridiculous the above user is a sock of Knightwarrior25 and a case is already going to be filled against him he has also violated the 3 revert rule he is a pure edit warrior. VijayBJ (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the user happily crossed 3 reverts yet again his several sock accounts popped up when he was blocked himself for 36 hours. VijayBJ (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

14 July 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Boris Lewis, a new user that made their first edit on the 9th of July, has been editing all the same contentious articles/topic areas that Knightwarrior's socks were editing, including engaging in slow edit wars and restoring the disruptive POV inserted by KW socks on various India-Pakistan articles. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. This one's too good to miss WP:DUCK. Pinging @Bbb23: for reference, as you were involved with the previous SPI. Mar4d (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the admins to take note ASAP as the concerned user is making strong POV-pushing edits [6], the type which are covered under WP:ARBIPA sanctions and can be subjected to a block. The account is being used to restore some of the same POV that was previously inserted by KW's socks. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment: Obviously a sock. An account seeking help on 9 July 2015 (UTC) but professionally contributing from 13 July 2015 (UTC) indicates it. May be a sock of Bladesmulti aka AmritasyaPutra? NationSantra (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Comment: Its a sock of Knightwarrior25 same old edits 100% sure its him. 90.209.158.17 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 July 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Like the previous socks, he first creates a blank userpage. Then edits two or three articles and creates a help-section on his talk page or asks for help from an administrator. Then the same pattern of editing at India-Pakistan articles of the type which are covered under WP:ARBIPA sanctions and can be subjected to a block starts. This account is also being used to restore the same POV that was previously inserted by BorisLewis. Faizan (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought pinging Bbb23 would be a good idea as he has dealt with the last two SPIs of the same user. Faizan (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The reported user has already been blocked by an administrator. Faizan (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2015 (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]

  • An administrator blocked the new account as an "apparent" puppet of the master, no tag. Technically, GreyHatBilla (talk · contribs · count) is  Possible.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. I'm not closing the SPI in case a clerk wants to take further action. The account is making quite a fuss on his Talk page. I haven't gone back and looked, but I vaguely recall other socks saying similar things after being blocked. It's not necessary, but a clerk might want to confirm or reject my vague memory.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is really similar to some of the previous socks (see for example: User talk:Tejas MRCA, very similar unblock requests). I don't see what else is to be done here, so I'm closing the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it is a sock, and have yanked the talk page access. Courcelles (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock is obvious. This newbie account made the same POV-ish edits on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 that KW's previous sock MCIWS made (compare [7] and [8]). Mar4d (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Also note his ip [9] comes and goes whenever his sock account comes into scrutiny. This ip has hovered around the Ind-Pakistan war 1947 article since a few months now with adding exactly the same edit as his previous sock accounts WCIWS etc. 90.201.7.178 (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[10] He used his ip back in July to reinstate his edit whenever his account gets blocked I suggest a prolonged protection template be placed on all the article KW attacks as he keeps coming back every other week. 90.201.7.178 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More socks [11]. 90.201.7.178 (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

04 April 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Like all his socks, MBlaze Lightning has an extreme interest in military related articles, also he likes to push POV supporting Indian point of view same as all other socks. KnightWarrior25's log shows that he was initially blocked for POV pushing. KW socks F-INSAS and Tejas were named after military aircrafts and MBL has edited all those articles. His socks were obsessed with POV pushing (diff) about war outcomes as is MBL (diff). KW was also obsessed with Kargil War, see his last edit and MBL is as well, see (diff), this is the edit which led me to check issues related to Kargil War article which led me to KW. KW also had POV problems with the word "retained", see him changing the text in this (diff) to "India 'captured' 65% of Kashmir". You can see MBL making the case for the word "retained" in this (diff). Later MBL would come and change the text from "third of Kashmir" to ("two-third" which is essentially close to 65% and he would change that without consensus.

Other strong behavioral evidence
  • Pinging @Vanjagenije: to prioritize the request in order to minimize any further disruption to encyclopedia because it seems like this user has a WP:SOUP history during the time when the SPI's are open. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously WP:DUCK. Having seen KW25 socks at work and having his SPI on my watchlist, I can safely second that this is definitely him. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanjagenije: Please do not archive yet, please check for sleepers as this user might have have more socks. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QEDK and Vanjagenije: The master has a notorious record of sockpuppetry and CU might help find other accounts to prevent disruption. Also, i have seen at many occasions that active accounts other than the one reported showed up when a CU was run. Its not just the matter of sleepers or stale accounts. I am more concerned about currently active accounts which might be causing disruption elsewhere but might become a big issue down the road. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:27, 6 April 2016 (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]

  •  Looks like a duck to me
     Clerk note: The behavioural evidence is enough, I would like to commend SheriffIsInTown on his quite intricate behaviour investigation. Administrative action required. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked and tagged per QEDK. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball The master has almost no history of sleepers. We aren't going to do a pre-emptive sleeper check. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said what I thought about it. I'm a trainee so whatever @Vanjagenije: decides is final. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: QEDK is right. We don't run CheckUser every time we find an obvious sockpuppet. There must be specific evidence that there are or may be more accounts, and in this case there is no such evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting for the record that the user has confirmed ownership of the previous account. Mike V • Talk 17:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The latest detected sock of KnightWarrior25 was blocked on 4 April 2016. ArghyaIndian (now moved to Spartacus!) is editing the same military and weapons related pages which KnightWarrior25 himself and all of his other socks used to edit. After MBlaze Lightning was blocked, ArghyaIndian stopped editing and resisted the temptation to edit but he lost this resistance after he saw an RfC filed by me at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped, he came back just to vote on that RfC on 19 April 2016. Not to mention that during that time between blockage of MBlaze Lightning and the RfC, he kept editing using proxied IPs from different regions. If you see the pattern after his starting to edit again from 19 April 2016, almost all of his edits were to attack me out of revenge because of me getting his previous sock blocked.

MBlaze Lightning was blocked behaviorally and no CheckUser was run thus Spartacus! avoided detection that way. He was also editing from only a mobile device initially. It gave me an impressions that he is purposefully avoiding the user of a computer as he might have used the computer to sock using his other sock accounts, see addition of 10,157 bytes using a mobile device

Behavioral evidence

There is only one day left before this SPI goes stale. 3 July 2016 will be the 90th day. There is much more evidence out there but due to being busy with life I could not collect more than this before this 90 day deadline. User should be blocked behaviorally. I am requesting that CheckUser be run on an urgent basis if user cannot be blocked behaviorally. Also, there is a strong possibility that user was using multiple devices for socking so you might want to consider the behavioral evidence with overall location of the user (Spartacus! mostly used mobile and I believe the device he used might not have been used by his other socks) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:@Bbb23: and other CheckUsers: What about behavioral evidence presented here? I did express my fear that CU might not be able to match him as he seems to be trying to keep this account segregated to one type of device. Can someone check the behavioral evidence and decide based on that? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal to the comment by Spartacus!: The SPI is not frivolous as claimed by Spartacus! but rather meets all the requirements of filing an SPI. It has enough behavioral evidence in it. Someone getting away by segregating their devices does not mean that there is something wrong with the SPI.

Spartacus! claims that he was copying the editing style of Volunteer Marek and using asterisks. What about MBlaze Lightning, who was he copying? Or are they both happen to be fond of VMR's editing style? If we accept that he was copying VMR's editing style then what was his criteria on choosing a string to wrap? Copying a style is one thing but deciding which random text to wrap is another thing. Then, what was need to copy someone else's editing style. Was he trying to hide behind another editor's editing style by imitating them so its hard for others to figure who they really are? This argument totally does not make sense to me. It seems to me that Spartacus! is finally accepting that my initial charge of meat-puppetry was correct. Did he get the whole comments from VMR which contained those asterisk wrapped strings? More importantly, did he also get this edit from VMR?, which contained instructions such as Edit-- Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide And from "During the nine-month to "END"remove and copy/paste this. Ok? He voted on that RFC after 17 days of break which was raised after a conflict between me and VMR. Was he brought there by someone and instructed by someone and then provided with comments with asterisk wrapped strings and edits because this is a clear cut case of meat-puppetry right there and should be taken care in this SPI so I do not have to open a separate case.

Here is the case why the suspicions were raised about usage of mobile device to avoid getting detected: He is accepting in this edit that he only edits from mobile and he messed up his notepad and messenger stuff which is clear indication that he uses notepad to assemble his edit using a computer then uses Facebook Messenger and sends that edit to himself on messenger then goes to his mobile device and copy/paste it from messenger to Wikipedia. Why would someone go to such as hassle if he is not hiding something? Here are his exact words from this edit: I accidently messed up my notepad and messenger stuffs. If you see the link "en.m." Yes that's mobile web link and that link I copy/pasted in my notepad (I make my edits from mobile only) and copy/pasted old version lead in notepad and pasted there but some that sort of stuffs also got pasted. Or did he receive the text from someone else in the messenger and accidentally copied the instructions when copying to Wikipedia? About his claim about WP:OUTING, can he point out when he told me what his real name was? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 07:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further rebuttal: Its not a big deal that you reverted yourself. A smart socker will do that especially when he knows a CU cannot catch him. Example: Check User:Adilswati and User:Power22, how they nominated their own files for deletion on Commons. I will provide the diffs if anyone in doubt. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The case is still open. There are two facets of an SPI case, a CU and behavioral match. CU is decided, behavioral match is still pending. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Bbb23: and other CheckUsers & Clerks: I have added more behavioral evidence. Someone needs to just look at it and evaluate it. There is a very clear interest and behavior match based on that evidence. It could that he is using a proxy or using different devices than used by the previous sock why CU was unable to match. Please look at the evidence just once and decide. Pinging @QEDK: and @Vanjagenije: who evaluated behavioral evidence previously. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal to latest claims of Spartacus!: MBL dropped Welcome template on pages of 100s of users but he never dropped a Welcome template to a user who already had one Welcome template on his user page by some other user. Here you can see the Weclome template by Fnlayson being dropped on Spartacus! TP. Then MBL drops it again seeing that he already had one, see here. This in itself is an evidence to try to fool people into thinking that they are different users. Spartacus regularly cleaned his talk page but he did not remove MBLs Welcome template, he was keeping it to deter others from thinking that they are same users. Up until that RFC, he did not receive a Thanks from any other user except MBL. These reverts and all this drama is very fishy. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The SPI is completely ridiculous and has no merit as well as attempt of harassing two users at the same time by filing frivolous cases and digging past history of users and connecting it with the user (me) who the filer wants to get rid of. This user has persistently harassed me during my initial days at Wikipedia and now has opted a different way to do so ( WP:HOUNDING ) as want to get rid of editors who don't share his pakistani POV. This sort of hounding needs to stop now, for that a BOOMERANG block should be in order as well as admonishment to the filer that they need not to focus on others, and rather on their own contributions to Wikipedia. This is not the first time the filer has called me a sock puppet, as admins can see in this AE request which was declined as frivolous. The evidences being provided *for me* here are copy/paste with some modifications of the AE request [12]. Admins can go through my statement and consider it as my same reply to this frivolous request. My account and IP were recently caught in an autoblock as acc to Ponyo my IP is dynamic IP. It seems like Ponyo did made a CU check on me [13], if the patrolling CU feels that the above request is even worth the time to waste upon, then they should run a check and after the result comes negative, I request a boomerang block to be issued to the filer for blatant [[WP:HOUNDING] and WP:NPA. SheriffIsInTown, TripWire, FreeatlastChitchat, Towns_Hill all are tagteam buddies with over the top pro-pakistan bias and all four hunt in pairs, with two Freeatlast, towns_hill recently got indefinite topic-banned and it seems to me that SheriffIsInTown is having troubles with digesting this that his two buddies have indefinitely t-banned for their battleground approach and POV editing ofcourse and now he want to level the score (this also speaks to the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of the filer) and that is why he filed this frivolous request. Anyway, my reply to some of the points of filer which I think need to reply (as they seem new to me/not copy/pasted from previous cases) are-

  1. reason behind me using star shaped marks b/w some of the words (although I have stopped using it now and am using < u > formats instead) is actually I copied this sort of editing style from Volunteer Marek who often uses star shaped * marks. VM was the editor who was the main participant at 1971 RFC and he stopped the filer along with his TAG teaming buddies attempt to convert a NPOV article into POV coatrack that matched with their POV. To the filer shouldn't this make me a sockpupet of VM as well? ROFL.
  2. The filer is using very bad words, for ex: "MBlaze Lightning was blocked behaviorally and no CheckUser was run thus Spartacus! avoided detection that way. He was also editing from only a mobile device initially. It gave me an impressions that he is purposefully avoiding the user of a computer as he might have used the computer to sock using his other sock accounts" & "Not to mention that during that time between blockage of MBlaze Lightning and the RfC, he kept editing using proxied IPs from different regions. If you see the pattern after his starting to edit again from 19 April 2016, almost all of his edits were to attack me out of revenge because of me getting his previous sock blocked." & "The latest detected sock of KnightWarrior25 was blocked on 4 April 2016. ArghyaIndian (now moved to Spartacus!) is editing the same military and weapons related pages which KnightWarrior25 himself and all of his other socks used to edit. After MBlaze Lightning was blocked, ArghyaIndian stopped editing and resisted the temptation to edit but he lost this resistance after he saw an RfC filed by me at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped, he came back just to vote on that RfC on 19 April 2016."

My reply to these are- Who is he to tell me which article I should edit or not? This is getting really ridiculous! A block is needed here for this sort of hounding. I am here to improve the articles whom I have interest on, and I will continue to do so! To the filer, thousands of Wikipedian edit aviation related articles, does that make me a sock of them as well? ROFL. As for the patrolling admin or CU, feel free to check my contributions thoroughly and If you think that this report is even worth your time to look at/­run a CU check then please do so and speedy close it with WP:NPA and WP:BOOMERANG block (to the filer). I also edit West Bengal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan related pages and have even created one article on List of Afghan active aircrafts which seems like KnightWarrior25 or any of his socks including the latest one MBlaze never even touch these topic areas. As for me using proxy IP(s) to edit 1971 Bangladesh page or related page, to CU, please ask Check User Ponyo, he can confirm you that I am committed to this identity. My IP is dynamic IP and I cannot edit with my IP bcs of autoblocks. As for me using mobile device, I did use my computer as well (when necessary), and who is he (filer) to say what device I should use to edit Wikipedia? He himself using mobile device for all his edits, does this mean that he is a sock as well (perhaps it looks like, anyway). As for my edits on 19 April, LOL to admin please see the AE statement of myn in the link I gave above, needles to say anything more now! As for the filer saying he has more (frivolous) evidences to present but being busy in life, LOL this user only comes active to Wikipedia to file frivolous cases against users whom he think don't share his bias POV. He's digging my editing history from February and saying he don't have time to collect more evidences! ROFL. That's it, I request patrolling CU to (if the want) run a check & after the result comes negative, issue blocks for WP:NPA, WP:HOUNDING. Note that the user is calling me again and again by my real name *Arghya* which itself enough for a WP:OUTING block. Spartacus! (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of (ridiculous) evidences u talking about? ROFL. Picking out onesingle word from edit summary and presenting it here as "◾Poor grammar: Spartacus! (Founded that page)" LOL!
Who r u to say which device I should use to edit Wikipedia? In your desperate attempts, now you are crossing your limits, and the consequences will not be pleasant if you will continue to WP:HARASS me.
How about a CU check on you and TripWire as I can say that, you both geolocates from same location and you using a mobile to avoid CU. You will be exposed quite soon anyway. Spartacus! (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely ridiculous! I was not bought by VM or anyone else to the RFC. This is clear cut case of WP:NPA. The filer has made same accusations in past and has reported me to WP:AE and WP:ANI regarding my edits to the RFC! Both AE and ANI cases were declined as frivolous with no actions. Here are the links of AE and ANI of sheriff's bullshit accusations and my reply to them. AE and ANI. After sheriff noticed possibility of BOOMERANG block he stopped filing AE/ANI cases about me. To the filer, I only activated my email few days back to change my username then your bullshit accusations of meatpuppetry has no merit. Infact, you are yourself in cahoots with banned users. Here is the link to the RFC and anyone can see VM was using star shaped marks to highlight certain main words/points, As far as I know, I only used star shaped marks once (noticing VM) to highlight certain words, as I didn't know about the other formats like ( < u >, etc ) as being a new user that time. About my first comment on the RFC- as I explained in my AE statement, my first comment on the RFC "REJECT; The above users belongs to a club of Pakistani POV pushers, who wants to show that..." was actually I copied it from the IP who made that comment on WikiProject Bangladesh. One more thing (for clarity), I started editing from February and the user:MBlaze_Lightning whom the filer is calling me a sock of (Lol) was blocked on April and he actually reverted me on a lot of articles like Excalibur rifle, Advanced Light Torpedo Shyena, etc. and second warn/welcome twinkle message I received was also from him! Regarding WP:OUTING, every pakistani or Indian knows that "Arghya" is a real name and sheriff himself knows it very well. Spartacus! (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Its not a big deal that you reverted yourself"- enough is enough, to closing CU/administrator, I request to issue WP:NPA or WP:BOOMERANG block to the filer for persistently calling me a sock after CU results. Bbb23 you made a check on my account / IP, Ponyo made it as well (seems like when I was autoblock yesterday), I request you to keep the details (which only a CU can see) confidential and please do not disclose where I geolocate from as the above battleground mentality user might ask you on your talk page. Spartacus! (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced Spartacus! is the same person as KW based on these:

  • Comparison of these edits [14] by the confirmed KW sock, MBL, with the same signature editing started by Spartacus! [15] on indian military equipment.
  • Use of double past tense as Sheriff pointed out [16]. This is a Key KW give away made by all of his socks [17] [18] [19] and quoted in the last SPI as well which got MBL a duck block.
  • The extensive personal attacks, replies to replies and waste of everyone's time [20] that followed on MBL's talkpage after the block are similar to what is seen in attempts to WP:SOUP this SPI.

These giveaways convinced me and made me comment in support at the last SPI as well which turned out to be spot on. This is WP:DUCK behaviour which was endorsed by QEDK last time for the exact same. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus! edits Bengali Wikipedia with Bengali edit summary. Stop wasting your energy. And many users use the same ISP...... Example- Kichappan, Digitalravan. M Blaze Lighting can't read or write Bengali. LOL. Cactus Killer (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You want to say that If I edit indian military equipment, and any article related to military then I will automatically become sockpuppet of KnightWarrior and his socks? I seriously didn't get your second and third point but I get it why you commented here. You both are in cahoots off-wiki to get me blocked but your all wet dreams will be badly crushed when the case will be thrown to the archives. If the CU results proves that I'm unrelated to KnightWarrior25 and his socks then you have no right to call anyone a sock based on your whims. When a CU runs a check, they check everything from geolocation to the devices /gadgets we use to edit Wikipedia. All these pro-pakistani editors are commenting one by one to get me blocked because they want to get rid of editors who don't share their bias POV. It is completely ridiculous, these all bias pakistani editors are commenting here so that they prove that this fake case is true. Pinging CU @Ponyo: as when I was autoblock they helped me! I will request Ponyo to tell anyone that which ever IP I use always remain caught in autoblocks and that I have not edited any article other then my this account. Spartacus! (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment alone merits a WP:NPA block for accusing other, unrelated, established, editors even if we were not considering the sockpuppetry, even if we were not considering the repeated inflamatory commenting from Spartacus! above. I'm not going to reply to your accusations and I suggest Sheriff should avoid it too. Admins here are experienced enough to see through it if you stop making it this much WP:TL;DR. Such WP:BATTLE mentality will get you blocked on its own. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have striken them and will remain WP:COOL as the above editors are trying to WP:BAIT me. TripWire please stop hounding me.Spartacus! (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown is doing all this so that I cannot comment at Talk:Balochistan conflict for which he even awarded a barnstar to TripWire. The filer ain't going to stop his desperate attempts till this fake case being thrown into the archives. Dear CU Bbb23 you know where I geolocate from and what device I am using to edit Wikipedia. I'm still being harassed by above battleground mentality users even after CU results made it clear that I'm not a sockpuppet! and have never made logged out edits or using proxy IP as the filer claimed. Some strong proofs which will prove that I'm no one's sockpuppet nor I have created/abused any other account (I had to prove this myself despite been CU results which have already made it clear but still it'll shut 'em up (above users).

  1. I have made contributions to two other Wikipedia's: Bengali Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia in Bengali and Hindi languages [21].
  • Below are the evidences I collected from editor interaction tool:
  1. On article Excalibur Rifle I made my first edit on 06:27, 23 March 2016 and next edit on article was of MBlaze Lightning where they reverted me 09:07, 26 March 2016. I made three edits on same article from 08:28, 2 April 2016 to 08:35, 2 April 2016, MBlaze Lightning reverted all three of my edits on 10:40, 2 April 2016 then they themself made edits which IMO improved the article.
  2. On article Advanced Light Torpedo Shyena I made one edit on 08:19, 2 April 2016, User:MBlaze Lightning reverted me on 12:40, 2 April 2016
  3. After I undone User:TalhaZubairButt edit on Indian Army [22] I received a "Thanks" notification from User:MBlaze Lightning (I can show the screenshot of that/of my notification If there is any option to upload it on Wikipedia).
  4. On Sukhoi Su-30MKI I made one edit on 03:44, 28 February 2016, User:MBlaze Lightning reverted me on 11:33, 28 February 2016.
  5. On 12:42, 2 April 2016 User:MBlaze Lightning left a warn/welcome on my talk page for not adding sources while editing.
  6. One more thing, I made a comment at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide on 12:59, 19 April 2016 which was a direct copy& paste of IP 121.100.143.211 who actually made this comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh.

Dear Bbb23 please note the pattern here, before filling this SPI SheriffIsInTown made comments on several CU and administrator talk page to come to this SPI. It clearly indicates that the filer has some other intentions for MBlaze Lightning I.e.WP:BATTLE. This is the only reason IMO. That's it! Spartacus! (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • More Proof: [23] though I don't know who's account is that but proofs should be enough. Spartacus! (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Spartacus! and MBlaze Lightning are Red X Unrelated.
  • MBlaze Lightning is  Confirmed to KnightWarrior25.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SheriffIsInTown and Spartacus!, your comments are becoming very difficult to follow. Both of you, but Spartacus! more, are straying way off topic into personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. It's not helpful. As an aside, SheriffIsInTown, what makes you think that this "SPI" is going to become stale imminently? You said the same thing on another editor's Talk page, and I'm not sure what you're referring to. Also, the issue of devices is irrelevant. Whatever devices are being used by editors is clear to me when I run a check. I don't need to have editors express their opinions as to their usage.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've spent considerable time weighing this case's evidence over the past two days. On one hand, the behavioural evidence is non-negligible and, on the face of it, appears to demonstrate clear similarities between MBlaze Lightning and Spartacus! (ArghyaIndian). On the other hand, the clear CU result would tend to show they are unrelated.
This is difficult to reconcile: 1) are the two accounts a single sockpuppeting user with technical knowledge who intentionally evaded detection by CheckUser, or 2) are the two accounts separate users with similar behaviour, personalities and interests? On the balance of things, I cannot comfortably reach the conclusion that the two accounts are controlled by a single sockpuppeteer; other socks were always definitevely connected by CheckUser (including the latest recently active one, MBlaze Lightning), and a more in-depth analysis of the behavioural evidence doesn't lead me to an obvious conclusion that these are beyond any doubt not simply two users with similar interests and behaviour. Because I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that Spartacus! is a sockpuppet, I am closing this report with no action. Please remember that administrative action can still be taken against the account if they violate other policies, regardless of this SPI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KnightWarrior25/Archive&oldid=1138674018"