Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurmaa/Archive
Kurmaa
Kurmaa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
29 August 2012
[edit]- Suspected sockpuppets
- Pranjitb (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Kurmaa is an old account and has recently become active especially with regards to issues relating to Kamrupi. He has recently violated the 2RR rule for which he was warned [1]. It appears Kurmaa created the sock puppet subsequent to the warning, probably to avoid the 3RR rule.
- Pranjitb shows sensitivity to the name "Lower Assam" and talks about women and Mughals [2]. Kurmaa too mentions Mughal and women [3]. The language, grammatical quirks etc are almost identical.
- Kurmaa reverts changes to Lower Assam claiming "Lower Assam -> derogatory term for Kamrupi, it exhibits A" [4] Subsequently Pranjitb reverts the changes claiming "Term "lower Assam" is derogatory for Kamrupi; it exhibits Ahom-ethnocentrism and Ahom-supremacy over Kamrup/Kamrupi ; user Chaipau is Ahom" [5] It looks like the pranjitb account is being used to avoid 3RR.
- The phrase "Ahom-ethnocentrism and Ahom-supremacy over Kamrup/Kamrupi" used by pranjitb above is something that Kurmaa uses very often [6]
Both Kurmaa and pranjitb claim "Lower Assam" is derogatory, but provide no evidence. On the other hand, "Lower Assam" is widely used in the media [7] and it has no negative connotation. "Western Assam" is used synonymously. The creator of the Lower Assam page, User:Bhaskarbhagawati, was unaware this was derogatory till Kurmaa mentioned it. The POV that "Lower Assam" is derogatory is unique to Kurmaa. Chaipau (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
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]- Compliments for the clear report. The account is a
Confirmed sock. WilliamH (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) - Blocked and tagged -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
12 September 2012
[edit]- Suspected sockpuppets
- Mussal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- NSchriber (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
All blocked already as obvious socks. user does not appeal blocks, just creates new socks and dives back in as if nothing happened. their target page has been protected but that also failed to stop them. Hoping a CU might be able to formulate a rangeblock. (Note there is also another very recent SPI) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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]
Clerk endorsed - to look into the possibility for rangeblocking. Sock edits follow the master's edits.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)- I have just imposed a small rangeblock; I hope it's enough. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)