Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blscholljim/Archive


Blscholljim

15 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Hi there! User:Blscholljim was involved in an edit war on several articles a week ago and was blocked for 31 hours because of it. After the block was expired he started same pattern of edit war again by keep on changing the figures of gdp on same articles without providing a reliable source & making concensus on talk page. After that I filed a complain against him and he was blocked indefinitely by User:EdJohnston. Now, he has created another account named Rsajim and has started changing the figures of GDP on same articles again. Here are the evidence:

1. Economy of Chittagong (User:Blscholljim: [1], User:Rsajim: [2])

2. Economy of Kolkata (User:Blscholljim: [3], User:Rsajim: [4]), Here sentence added by Blscholljim in article is exactly similar with the edit summary written by Rsajim.

3. Economy of Mumbai (User:Blscholljim: [5], User:Rsajim: [6])

4. Economy of Delhi (User:Blscholljim: [7], User:Rsajim: [8])

5. Economy of Dhaka (User:Blscholljim: [9], User:Rsajim: [10])

He also changed the GDP figures on Economy of Karachi, Economy of Lahore which I reverted. But now these two articles are semi-protected for seven days and his new account User:Rsajim is not autoconfirmed, that's why he is unable to do so. Innocent Paki (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please include :

Similar editing behaviours e.g. edit-warring attempts to enforce $50bn GDP figure for Economy of Kolkata for example, and some similiarities in edit summaries ("Previously there was misinformation..."), and trying to Rsajim (sock2) Prem jim (sock3), Jiamprem (sock1). Also username similarities ("jim"/"jiam"). Dl2000 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


All accounts generally focused on edit warring on India subcontinent economic articles. Master & sock1 were blocked but other socks continue similar behaviour e.g. edit-warring attempts to enforce $50bn GDP figure for Economy of Kolkata for example, and some similiarities in edit summaries ("Previously there was misinformation..."), and trying to Rsajim (sock2) Prem jim (sock3), Jiamprem (sock1). Also username similarities ("jim"/"jiam"). Dl2000 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge to existing case above and close my addition; not sure how I missed seeing the active case, thanks to Innocent Paki. Dl2000 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2021 (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

 Confirmed to Blscholljim (talk · contribs):

See also some notes I left in the CU wiki. Distinctive behavior: reducing GDP numbers in articles on 'Economy of X' where the X are Indian cities, possibly so they don't compare so favorably to Bangladesh cities. There are now some counter-edit-warriors trying to revert the city-economy articles back. For example, at Economy of Kolkata. I'm planning to semiprotect some of these articles and perhaps apply some EC protections, to stop the newly-created socks. — EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked all the confirmed accounts. Can a clerk decide whether to tag? The structure of this case may need to be fixed because it now has two sections that are both marked 15 February. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Changing numbers on Economy of X articles on the Indian subcontinent. Lowering Indian numbers to make them look worse than Bangladeshi numbers. A few examples below. Name is also Promit_prem, compare to Prem jim from earlier socking.

[11] Reorders cities and leaves per capita GDP values

[12] changes cited value. Original value was correct

[13] changes GDP ranking

Apologies if I filled this out wrong, it's my first time. Be gentle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:2409:4072:70f:8005:ad02:b769:6c10:8c5c just started with the same edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2021 (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 following accounts are  Confirmed Blscholljim socks and are blocked:

16 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


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

27 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


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

  • ...and still more:
  • @Ponyo: Great! The funny thing is after I blocked DS I was going to ask you to do a check for other accounts because I was 99% certain they existed. So, I was watching to see when you returned from your usual extended weekend. Then this afternoon I noticed Your Royal Presence and was about to ask you to do all this on your Talk page, but you beat me to it! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blscholljim/Archive&oldid=1037450904"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blscholljim/Archive, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.