Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya

[edit] Sarvagnya

• Sarvagnya (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Gnanapiti (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Naveenbm (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• KNM (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: C, E

On article Saare Jahan Se Achcha, Sarvagnya has been trolling and going against consensus to keep the Hindi language script on the page. He has vandalized and made 6 reverts to the article, abusing popups many times [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

User:Gnanapiti has well under 100 edits, and has made reverts using popups for his edits(I didnt get popups until I wsa well past 3500 edits and I'm supposed to believe this newbie mastered it in 3 edits and got it after 40 or so) and vandalized a source [7] and removed Hindi again as well [8]. Over a string of 5 days Sarvagnya and his sock have vandalized/reverted to vandalism 12 times s shown by the page history.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note: One editor not using popups till he made 3500 edits, has absolutely got nothing do with another user, under 100 edits or n number of edits, using it. Learning how to use Popups is a matter of few minutes. If a new user uses popups, it is absolutely understandable/acceptable and it can never be a reason for sockpuppetry allegations.

Saare Jahan Se Achcha article has gone over an edit war, and is still protected and the discussion in it's talk page going on. Even you were involved in that edit war, and as well few other editors. If one editor has same view as another editor, then it absolutely doesn't mean they are sockpuppets of each other. Reverting has been done by parties on both the views. Does that mean, one party with one view is a set of sockpuppets? and another party with different view is set of another sockpuppets? Certainly not.

Please refer to this statement: "Over a string of 5 days Sarvagnya and his sock have ...". The result of this complaint has yet to be announced by authorities(if at all the check is made; given that there are no valid reasons) or you must have already the proof that Sarvagnya has used his sock. Without either of them, your statement is both incivil and a personal attack. - KNM ^Talk 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User Naveenbm seems to master wiki policies in lesser time..I think he should be checked too. Mahawiki 05:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is great. Mastering the policies and simplest of the editing techniques is a yardscale for sockpuppetry! If someone didn't know how to use popups till he reached 3500 edit, does that compell me not to do it within 100 edits? Anyways, I'm not going to comment much here. Let this issue be taken care of by concerned admins and the result will speak on behalf of me.Gnanapiti 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Added KNM. He/She has been coming to the rescue of Sarvagnya in content disputes like anything and vice-versa. -;AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at the so called source Bakaman accuses of removed by me. That is a personal blog in terrible English. That too, the reference given to this article is taken from one of the comments to that blog! In no way that can that be considered as valid citation. This is the exact reason I removed that source and I have indicated this in the edit summary.Gnanapiti 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed Gnanapiti is Sarvagnya. Naveenbm and KNM are Unrelated. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, excuse me. Any particular reason for claiming so? What's going on?Gnanapiti 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense! I am sure there's been a mistake. Can you please check again? Sarvagnya 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I request the concerned admins to recheck and rectify the issue as mahawiki is taking advantage of this.Gnanapiti 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the result. What furthur steps are to be followed. I request concerned authorities to take a strict action against Sarvagnya. He is reponsible for harrassing editors and pushing POV by using these tricks. Latest eg. Talk:Belgaum_border_dispute and Talk:Belgaum. Mahawiki 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarvagnya

• Sarvagnya (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Naveenbm (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter:E

User:Mahawiki has been blocked for violating WP:3RR rule on Belgaum article. The article's history - History. Mahawiki reverted four times. But the real perpetrators are going scott free. User:Naveenbm reverted 3 times and User:Sarvagnya reverted 2 times. I have strong reasons to believe that User:Naveenbm is User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet. It seems to be a sleeper account. See the contribs of NaveenBM - NaveenBM contribs. And see the contribs of Sarvagnya - Sarvagnya contribs. User:Naveenbm's account was created on 5th May and after that he contributed just 7 times till October 3, 2006. After which a few edits were made to some other articles to caumoflage sockpuppetry and then out of nowhere this user comes into Belgaum page. See the similarity in English lang/grammar of both. Apart from that, their (or rather his) only intention was to block User:Mahawiki with whom his linguistic fued has been going on for quite some time. Yes, User:Mahawiki is a Marathi and User:Sarvagnya a Kannada-speaker and a lang-war has been going on, of which I have also been a part. Just check the systematic and caumoflaged sockpuppetry of User:Sarvagnya. In fact, I believe even User:KNM, who reported the 3RR violation here, is a sockpuppet of User:Sarvagnya. But, the sockpuppetry has been meticulously well-disguised, so that the culprit doesn't get caught. Just see how KNM comes to the rescue of Sarvagnya many times when Sarvagnya is caught in a heated fued or vice-versa. And not to forget, it is User:KNM who reports about Mahawiki's 3RR violation. Their sockpuppetry has been well-disguised.

Belgaum page history - here

But I am 100% sure about User:Naveenbm being User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet and he was used to block User:Mahawiki. Just see how User:Sarvagnya comes out of nowhere after User:Naveenbm reverts 3 times. Certainly, a severe violation of subverting justice for one's own need. Both User:Naveenbm and User:Sarvagnya must be blocked for this. AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding, Mahawiki's 3RR violation, yes, he was repeatedly reverting the article with the non-English citations without providing English translation along with the original-language quote, which is against Wikipedia:Citing sources policy. This was questioned by multiple editors. He has repeated the revertings, even after questioning from other editors. Just because the same question was asked by multiple editors, all those editors cannot become Sockpuppets.

Having said that, I'm glad my name has been accused as sockpuppet of User:Sarvagnya. Let the result comeout, and everyone will know what is the truth. Atleast after that, we can be hopeful of no more accusations of Sockpuppetry. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated. I suggest you pursue dispute resolution in this conflict. Dmcdevit·t 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)