Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adipatil0909

Adipatil0909

Adipatil0909 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

24 August 2025

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

Shraman revival (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DeccanArchivist (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 · SPI Tools

Pro forma. Izno (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2025 (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

The dispute (and now WP:NOTTHEM accusations in their appeal) with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pied Hornbill did cause me to check here. These three are confirmed to each other. I will block shortly for their own deception. Izno (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

27 August 2025

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

Pawapuri Winds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kharavela567 (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 · SPI Tools

Pawapuri reinstates [1] the same edit they made earlier [2], continuing the same edit war they were blocked for the first time. For the other, tipped off here [3], and EIU is indeed very suspicious and edit summaries look similar. You can see them edit-warring with the same editor here: [4]. Not sure why this one wouldn't have come up in a previous check though. asilvering (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hello Ivanvector, I am not sure if I am allowed to write and interrupt in this section of page. I dont want to remain silent and appear evasive. I understand why timing of my account creation may look suspicious, but I want to clarify that I'm editing independently & not coordinating with any other editor. However, I do share my views with this suspended account on this particular issue on the history of Rashtrakuta dynasty, which was being suppressed by Pied Hornbill. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, I do not know this person in real life as well. There is no possibility of any backdoor co-ordination. It is simply collaboration and this, I believe, should not be considered as "meatpuppetry". I am myself a student of South Asian History and Eastern Philosophy at a University and I fully endorse the content of edits put up by Shraman Revival. Ofcourse I don't endorse vandalism and edit warring but that is for admins to determine. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Pawapuri Winds (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - asilvering (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Pawapuri Winds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is quite strongly Unrelated.
- Kharavela567 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Unlikely. They're located in the same general area as the confirmed socks but the network is very large and very busy, and they're using a different device from the others.
Behavioural evidence needs evaluation for both. Checkuser cannot test for meatpuppetry, and the timing of both accounts' creation is suspicious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawapuri Winds: you're welcome to comment here, but this part of Wikipedia uses a structured discussion format (rather than the top-down chronological order of most other project discussions and talk pages) and users are required to add comments in their own section. I have moved your comments to the section for "comments by other users". Please have a look at the "defending yourself against claims" link at the top of that section, and feel free to add any information you think might be useful. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm reasonably convinced about Kharavela, but I'm not willing to block without a firmer CU result than that, especially in light of the Pawapuri result. I think we can call a "case closed" on Pawapuri, but I'll leave this open in case anyone else feels better about Kharavela. asilvering (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]