Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Qaumrambista

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

28 April 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

At the request of Qaumrambista ([1], [2]), I wanted to bring attention to their edits and those of Jude Didimus as potential examples of Vishaal Elias Manesh (VEM) sockpuppets. My evidence is as follows:

  • Jude Didimus was brought to my attention after their edits and disputation with other editors on Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church and Talk:Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. This editor had engaged in undiscussed page moving, something frequently done by sockpuppets of VEM, mostly around articles related to Syriac Christianity in India. The number of moves and redirect diffs is simply too high to include, so refer to Jude Didimus's contributions.
  • Jude Didimus engaged in a somewhat adversarial debating style, distinguished by the usage of "//" and green text to denote quotations of other editors. Again, instances of this are too many and the editor seems to have begun using it with great frequency on the Talk:Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church page (I recommend using your Command+F function to see this).
  • Following their edits being reverted on these pages and elsewhere, Jude Didimus left in a fuss ([3])
  • Almost immediately thereafter, edits from IPs now associated with Qaumrambista appeared with an almost identical area of focus. This editor proved confrontational on pages I frequently do maintenance on, and ultimately led to me seeking a resolution on ANI. I discussed the IP usage and Qaumrambista's circumvention of blocks at extreme length here: [4]
  • I only just realized where I had recognized the editing style of Qaumrambista previously. Qaumrambista, like Jude Didimus, uses "//" to quote other users (see here and here). The unique quotation format was noticed by another editor (here).
  • In any case, after realizing this, I ran through lists of pages edited by both Qaumrambista and Jude Didimus to cross reference (some more innocuous-seeming, given that editing topics related to Indian Syriac Christianity is absolutely not a crime). However, the overlap was astonishing–. Further, I looked into Jude Didimus's talk page and discovered that another editor, Outlander07, recognized them as a potential sockpuppet. That led me to cross-reference additional talk pages and sure enough, edits from known sockpuppeter Br Ibrahim john aligned with that of the two most recent accounts, particularly on the page Suriyani Malayalam (see here) and the various page moves.
  • One last thing to note: Qaumrambista seems very well versed in the technical side of Wikipedia for an editor who supposed only briefly used an IP previously. Page moves, coloring text, other technical bits–those are things that we can see being learned in the various other known sockpuppet accounts and their contributions.

I can provide far more detailed diffs if necessary, but I think that there is more than ample evidence to at least open an investigation, especially when the editor in question really, really wants one. All this is to say nothing of this editor's incivility and WP:HOUNDING (which they accuse me of, perhaps rightly insofar as I spent the last couple hours digging into their edits). ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Pbritti (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor in question is now engaged in punitive hounding: [5] ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vishaal Elias Manesh/Archive ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Br Ibrahim john/Archive for correlation of other socks with similar editing practices and tags to their edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Notes 4 & 5 retracted to encourage a hastier review of original report]

Note 6: Outlander07, who previously encountered and identified VEM socks, has stated they believe account Qaumrambista is a sockpuppet: [6]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I am holding my replies until someone asks me. Qaumrambista (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just went through the edits of Jude Didimus. They seem to have disputes in article talks: [7], [8], [9] and [10] where voting is going on. I haven't been involved in any of those. Then how come an accusation of sockpuppetry! Also those are 'evidences' above listed are simply coincidental. User:Vishal Elias Manesh's and User:Br Ibrahim john's editing patterns are not in match with mine. Both have been involved in disputes in which I have not even looked through. User: Pbritti recently has a history of constant disputes with me on articles Syro-Malabar Church, Eastern Catholic Churches and Seraphim Rose. That alone explains what triggered them to file this SPI. Meanwhile, I have expressed free will for an SPI since they are accusing various allegations everywhere. Actually it is Pbritti's disputable edits in articles Syro-Malabar Church and Eastern Catholic Churches that has prompted me to create an account to edit.Qaumrambista (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was doubtful about this request until I read the \\ thing being in common with the two users. Jude seems to have gotten the habit from John C. during a dispute over at Talk:Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. This behavoir was so prevalent with Quamrambista that I actually posted to their talk page about it.
A check user is definitely warranted here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: There might be evidence of the // thing going back even further: [11] ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now the alleged multiple accounts are over five. I feel this utterly ridiculous. Anybody who is editing articles related to Syriac Christianity are simply being accused. Seems pathetic but there is no fear in investigation. Qaumrambista (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pbritti asked me to take a look.
I see several behavioral similarities between Qaumrambista and the sock farm. Both this user and the sock puppets have added large quantities of apparent WP:OR to List of Saint Thomas Christians. In many cases, these are WP:BLP issues. On other articles, however, Qaumrambista shares the socks habit of finding extremely obscure sources to prioritize specific details, such as these edits to Mar Hormizd Syro-Malabar Cathedral, Angamaly. Compare to this edit which added an excessively long quote to Syro-Malabar Church. The new account and the socks have both also renamed articles related to specific churches, such as a sock moving St. Mary's Church, Kottayam to St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Kottayam, while Qaumrambista has moved Mar Hormizd Syro-Malabar Church, Angamaly to Mar Hormizd Syro-Malabar Cathedral, Angamaly. Nothing too damning by itself, but it all adds up. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all of the arguments mentioned against me here are contradictory and and full of discrepancy. No one has brought forward any evidence to prove sockpuppetry linking all these accounts. None of the accounts seem to work for each other. Simply anyone who edits in topics related to Indian Syriac Christianity are brought up here and I am surprised why they are silent. User:Pbritti has accused almost all who have dispute with them on Indian Syriac Christianity. The only difference is that Pbritti has replaced User:Elizium there [20]. There has not been any follow up there until they have raised it here, linking them (Manabimasu) also with me. Another argument is "\\". They themselves acknowledge that User: Johnchacks has been using it and contribution history proves that Br. Ibrahim John also has used it. Therefore this must not be seen as a behavioural similarity but as a regional usage, which many Indian Keralite users follow. Pbritti argued that I am well known of the technical things, but has miserably failed to associate it with my usage of "\\" instead of the usual one. Meanwhile, being "very well versed in the technical side of Wikipedia" does not mean that they are all sockpuppets, does it? They also say that User:Outlander07 has confirmed me as a sockpuppet of Vishaal Elias Manesh. But they haven't come up here and presented their evidence. Another user here has brought up arguments based on page moves, and I sincerely don't understand what is wrong with them and how they correlate this. They argue that "Both this user and the sock puppets have added large quantities of apparent WP:OR to List of Saint Thomas Christians.", but I didn't see anyone else there other that Vishaal Elias Manesh and their confirmed sockpuppets. Qaumrambista (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is your nature of familiarity with Elizium23? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qaumrambista: Elizium23 does not accuse anyone of anything in that conversation. Odd you cite them, as his last edit was six months before any edits you accept as your own occurred. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing odd. You are reviving old discussions of Elizium23 and overturning consensus made against their view. Elizium23 had disputes with Manabimasu there. You have revived the same dispute and has problems with the same adversary.Qaumrambista (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was asked to come here on my talk page about a week ago from previous filings for Vishaal Elias Manesh. This user tended to use socks to upload copyvios to Commons and insert-spam them into articles on Wikipedia. I found two immediate copyvios (Commons talk page here) but the patterns aren't quite what I remember and I don't have time to dig much deeper, so I'm inconclusive on whether this user is Vishaal. No comment on the possibility of being socks of other accounts. Citing (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti, @Suneye1 @Grayfell @Citing, Here in this investigation page User:Qaumrambista is declaring that the user is no way related to User:Jude_Didimus. But here in Commons:Deletion requests for the image uploaded by User:Jude_Didimus, User:Qaumrambista is disagreeing to the deletion proposal saying that its "my own work". And in the very next moment, User:Jude_Didimus, returns from the "wiki break" and overwrites Qaumrambista's signature!!! Is there any more evidence we need to find for reaching conclusion on this sockpuppet investigation? ---John C. (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deny Johnchacks primary allegation. I have never said that Jude Didimus and Qaumrambista are two different users. Jude Didimus is my additional account which I have always preferred to never disclose. My argument is that this does not come under the category of sockpuppetry because both these accounts never have edited the same page or took part in the same discussion. Note that the directives clearly says that having additional accounts and abusing multiple accounts are two very different things.Qaumrambista (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qaumrambista and Jude Didimus: you failed to demonstrate transparency and indeed lied about the Jude Didimus account. You refer to the JD account as "them" previously–an implicit suggestion that you wanted that account to be considered a different user. @Bbb23: There has been an admission of sockpuppetry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I really don't know procedure here, but this report has been wasting for a month and the user just admitted previously hiding their activity and I'm looking for a clerk to move this along. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of my understanding, having multiple accounts and abusing multiple accounts are two different cases. I have neither edited the same article with both accounts nor used the accounts to create illegitimate votes and support. Pbritti's claim: indeed lied about the Jude Didimus account is false. I never said that both are two different users. My statements were: Just went through the edits of Jude Didimus. They seem to have disputes in article talks: [21], [22], [23] and [24] where voting is going on. I haven't been involved in any of those. Then how come an accusation of sockpuppetry! I never denied the other account. What I was repeatedly denying is the accusation of sockpuppetry. Meanwhile, I use both of these accounts in the same device.Qaumrambista (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven't been involved in any of those" is a blatant lie–you were. You tried to hide that fact. You are not using WP:SOCKLEGIT reasoning, but engaged in WP:LOUTSOCK and WP:SCRUTINY. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lie in it. What I mean is that Quamrambista has not involved in the discussions concerning Jude Didimus. Pbritti is simply hounding me and accusing sockpuppetry without any evidence. They have also alleged sockpuppetry against Anjuvannam and Manabimasu. This sort of behaviour, especially their straw arguments, is not appreciated.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By their recent statement "I have never said that Jude Didimus and Qaumrambista are two different users." User:Quamrambista is making a mockery of all the other users who have participated in this discussion. While other users were pointing out the similarities/overlaps in editing patterns of Jude Didimus and Qaumrambista accounts, Quamrambista was not ready to admit that "Jude Didimus" is their additional account (Technically speaking, Quamrambista is the additional account of Jude Didimus for the reason the account User:Jude Didimus was created first). Finally once this evidence was brought here, Quamrambista changing their stand and raising new argument that though both accounts are of same user but this is not coming under the category of sockpuppetry because both these accounts never have edited the same page.... In fact this statement is not true. This is another absolute lie, there are evidences for both these accounts (Quamrambista & Jude Didimus) edited same article(s). In the article Syro-Malabar Church, Jude Didimus made 24 edits from 1 March 2022 to 20 March 2022 while Qaumrambista made 12 edits from 17 April 2022 to 21 April 2022. Similarly history of the articles Mar Hormizd Cathedral and Saint Thomas Christians show both the accounts made edits in these articles too. If this is not sockpuppetry, what should be called as 'sockpuppetry'? @Bbb23:, @Mz7:, @Ks0stm:, @Ivanvector:, as admins requesting your attention on this investigation. ---John C. (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Qaumrambista recently had a block made permanent following a log-deleted exchange in their sockpuppetry appeal thread. The above IPs came to my attention in the last two days (23-25 June) following a spate of edit warring on topics relevant to Indian Christianity. Pages such as List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church were edit previously by Jude Didimus, another prior Qaumrambista sock. The IPs appear to be in the same range and track to the same part of Kerala and Punjab that previously noted IPs of Qaumrambista appeared in. The user's name is in Malayalam, a language Qaumrambista is fluent in, and was created the day following the extension of the block to Q's talk page. The name means "John" (which lines up with another sockmaster that matches Q's MO, Br Ibrahim John). This user participated to preserve the IP edits, see here: [29]. I can discuss the link between the jumping IP and prior Q edits in greater detail if needed for positive ID.

Below are a list of pages and diffs where the IPs overlapped with Q and Jude Didimus. Most also overlap with Br Ibrahim john:

This IP range is already under a partial lock. I propose that this partial lock be expanded to include the listed articles and the sock account blocked. I think that scanning for sleepers is not unwise. SPI filed following consultation with RoySmith, previously blocking editor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 25 June 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]

17 October 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Achayan remains a semi-active account on English Wikipedia, editing in the sphere of Saint Thomas Christians much like other Qaumrambista socks. Obvious evidence of socking was missed on initial investigation: previously-identified Q-sockmaster Jude Didimus uploaded an image they attribute to Achayan on the Commons; Achayan uploaded the same image in 2018. Two self-made original artistic depictions of venerated Saint Thomas Christians use the same art style, one from each JD and Achayan: April 2022, Achayan; February 2022, Jude Didimus. Further behavioral similarities exist in their apparent significant access to Syro-Malabar prelates. The original sock investigation was confirmed following a similar slip-up wherein the Qaumrambista account was used to make a Jude Didimus edit; I request CheckUser not only to confirm Achayan but check for sleepers like Achayan. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Pbritti (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per RoySmith's request for behavioral overlap:
  • JD and A upload images of the same person with the same origin: this Facebook page, which posted the same image posted on the same day that JD uploaded it as "own work" to the Commons. Achayan uploads the accompanying image in the same category and with identical "own work" claim a month and a half later. Of note, another editor's (Shihymaster) sole edits were the upload and insertion of a cruder version of the same scene to the same article two weeks before it is replaced by JD's cleaner version. This establishes a shared interest in a particular saint and shared practice of lifting images from the same Facebook page as "own work"; it also establishes a shared behavior of copyright violations. Not in and of itself damning.
  • While little more than a shared interest can be drawn from JD's reupload of Achayan's painting photo, what is notable is that JD also uploads another original photo from the same set of paintings almost four years later than Achayan's. This establishes a shared access to the same location. Not in and of itself damning.
  • Both JD and A upload original (at least to the internet) high-quality images of Syro-Malabar prelates: JD's [40], [41], and two others which were deleted; A's [42] and others which have, some of which appear to have been deleted. Not in and of itself damning.
  • EIT suggests significant overlap in editing area and familiarity with historic Syriac roots for Malayalam words on articles Suriyani Malayalam (Qaumrambista and IP sock 2402:8100:390b:eb54:6044:cf27:cbf2:fb12) and List of loanwords in Malayalam (Q and A). Not in and of itself damning; could be common knowledge in the region/shared community.
  • There are a handful of minor discrepancies: A's page moves ([43]) were sometimes undone by JD years later ([44]). Of course, the frequent use of the page-move feature is consistent across all Qaumrambista socks. Additionally, there was an edit war in February this year on George Alencherry with a third and fourth party where both JD and A participated with neither editor reverting the other but to which JD returned some time later to change an honorific inserted by Achayan (check article history; it's quite a wild ride). Again, edit-warring on Syro-Malabar articles is a Q sock behavior. Not in and of itself damning, definitely muddying.
  • Even more perplexing is the insertion of an Achayan image into History of Kollam by an IP in the same range as the other confirmed sockmaster I recently submitted: Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese. EBG is known to also upload high-quality portrait images of Syro-Malabar figures and preferred the same honorific style as Achayan has for George Alencherry; EBG is a known edit-warring rival of Q socks. Yet another complexity.
Overall, there is a significant amount of serious overlap between the Q socks and Achayan. Nothing independently is confirmable simply off of behavior, but the evident similarity in focus, location, edit-warring, and tools use seems like more than enough for a more thorough review–especially in light of other blockable violations like copyright. Apologies for the sluggish response; wanted to cross my Ts and dot my Is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:49, 19 October 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]
  •  Additional information needed - As I mentioned in your 28 April 2022 report, you need to provide better evidence to justify a check. I don't see uploading a modified version of somebody else's image as "Obvious evidence of socking". I often take other people's images and re-upload improved versions using tools like crop and geometry correction, which looks exactly like what was done here. You can't just say "Further behavioral similarities exist", you need to show these specific similarities with diffs. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing enough here to justify a check. This just looks to me like a user who has been around for many years and simply shares an interest in this topic. The other thing is they haven't edited in 6 weeks, so there's really no need to do anything quickly no matter what the situation is. Closing with no action. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qaumrambista/Archive&oldid=1117464104"