Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive

Report date September 11 2009, 18:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nsaum75

All are relatively "new" users who seem to have knowledge of wikipedia proceedures. All editing same food articles using the same heavy Indian-POV and removing the same references to Pakistan. Nsaum75 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Sock also hops around on and edits on numerous different IPs. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some quackpuppetry going on there. The similarities of the edit summaries, as well as the edits, make it obvious that these accounts are operated by one person. Blocked and tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * All the new ones blocked and tagged. Thanks for the CU Brandon. NW ( Talk ) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones from 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC) have been blocked and tagged too. NW ( Talk ) 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nsaum75

IP address is making the same edits to the same articles as User:Objectivephysics, one of User:Mrpontiac1's socks.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked for a week. NW ( Talk ) 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 25 2009, 20:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by 86.158.179.169

Seems like mrpontiac pushing usual pro indian pov attacking mughal empire article with same edit summarys as "not as famous" line 86.158.179.169 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive. NW ( Talk ) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Qazmlp1029 has been reverting a banned user, user Nangparbat on the article Mughal Empire and they show that they indeed are reverting a sock from their edit summary. This was the only abuse complaint from 86.158.179.169 which seems to be Nangparbat based on their MO. Note that Nangparbat has a grudge against socks he has dealt with or editors with "pro-Indian" beliefs. The rest of the articles don't seem to be abuse at glance but contributions. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

They also seemed to know that 86.158.179.169 was a sock of Nangparbat. Please see my talk page. User talk:Elockid.

In regards to the usage of "not as famous" on the edit summary. I don't see the this in the edit summary at all. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will give you a chance to apologize now Elockid here is the proof of your banned user sock mates edit summary now you can either own up to aiding blocked socks or you can carry on but I shall tell you this you and your banned users will not have there way anymore elockid you are a incompetent editor who always seems to say "I dont see this" maybe your blind? or maybe your a sock yourself? 86.151.122.53 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your petty threats don't scare me and you clearly don't know when to stop. I can and will revert any edit you do much because you are permanently banned which I have been doing. I am enforcing your ban and you fail to continue to see this because you are wrapped up in your own opinions and POV. Those users have not been banned meaning that they can edit as long as they are not disruptive or breaking WP policies. Your attempts to have your POV remain have clearly not been working. You are not allowed to edit, your editing privileges have been permanently revoked. You have been disproven about socks in the past (you accused someone for being Dewan even though they were not), you didn't know what a block or ban meant in that instance calling me blind but you in fact kept misreading tags. You still don't know the difference between a block and ban after I have explained and showed you the pages. Need I go on because I have plenty more to say? Furthermore that's only one summary. It can be made by anyone. Now if you actually had more, then it would seem more convincing. Plus your evading your block. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat (anon) has made false accusations in the past and in fact block evading multiple and countless times to try and get their POV in. They will go as far as calling out other editors and falsely accuse people of meat puppetry. Please also see User talk:AdjustShift for some the false accusations. They were reverting because of a suspected sock but it fact was another user. It's getting harder to tell whether he is telling the truth or not. It appears that he is basing all his opinions on poor assumptions that have been disproven in the past. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes and a bit of a summary from him taken from AdjustShift's talk page:
 * "All I am doing is removing the blocked users pov edits which got him blocked in the first place hes created many accounts and im trying my best to revert his edits on the Mughal empire page" (blocked users referring to Dewan and socks by him)
 * "But banned user Dewan357 is allowed? im not nangparbat btw" from (comment made after the above comment solidify that Nangparbat only knew that he thought he was dealing with Dewan. Also what an obvious lie that is saying he's not Nangparbat. blocked by Nishkid for being a sock of Nangparbat).
 * "I removed his edits because I knew him and Dewan were in contact" from 86.153.129.29 (how would he even possibly know this? Aamirshkh. this statement was a change in motive after he saw Aamirshkh as a sock of Mrpontiac. His reasoning for his previous edits changed. It's like I was reverting because of User A. Later. I was actually reverting because of User A and B after I found out User B was different user's sock. Nangparbat changes his reasons to why he was reverting to try and twist the situation to his liking)

The entire validity of what they're saying is questionable and any comments made from them are also questionable from what I have experienced with Nangparbat. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 01:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I don't see any behavioral evidence to connect Mrpontiac1 with Qazmlp1029 at this time. I also note that 86.158.179.169 is clearly an IP sock of banned user User:Nangparbat. No action taken at this time. MuZemike 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Nsaum75
Users are repeatedly making the same pro-indian POV edits (at the expense of other cultures/countries, usually Pakistan) to the same food articles. Looks highly suspect, differing IPs might be due to WP:MEAT or one user editing from different internet connections. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I agree with nsaum. We've had some trouble for quite some time with this persistent and egregious sock. Sock has a habit of logging on to multiple IPs within quick succession and making unconstructive edits. IPs listed seem quite suspicious and there could well be many more. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I appended to the above list, as it appears to be another sock of the same user, which popped up within the past hour. Eubulides (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * for checkuser attention. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are ✅ as being socks of :




 * Given the extent of the socking, and the fact that they're continually logging out to edit-war and revert, I'm also stating that 115.252.32.0/20 is a range that is not currently blocked, but could be softblocked ACB with minimal collateral damage - A l is o n  ❤ 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Accounts listed blocked and tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
This seems to be a continuation of a sock war between Mrpontiac and Nangparbat. The only contribution so far is reverting Nangparbat. Please see my talk page on the thread "Nanga Parbat".

As 115.252.32.0/20 is currently active mostly used by what it seems like Mrpontiac editing while not logged in with a sock, it might not be a bad idea to have a rangeblock? Also, this seems to be going to be a long term sock war spanning multiple articles. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I brought up the return of this sock case to Elockid. Part of the convo with him that may be helpful: Nirvana888 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mrpontiac's articles are too numerous to list but invariably involve India and Pakistan and often other related countries such as China and the United States. Interests include among others Indian/Pakistani food, society, politics, foreign relations, wars, military, cinema-related articles. I appreciate your help and I'm Nsaum does as well. If you take a look at a few of his more notable socks you notice a peculiar MO and frequented articles. Some EDIT: (>50) IPs are listed here particularly 115.252.*.* Hope this helps. Thanks again Nirvana888 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Will look into greater detail. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, he's a very prolific/abusive editor as you can see by the number of IPs I've just tagged just now and I probably only scratched the surface. That is on top of his 67 confirmed sock accounts. I'll have a look at the Nangparbat case and see if I can familiarize myself with it. Probably best to follow a policy of WP:RBI Nirvana888 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mrpontiac again: . Wouldn't be surprised if there are a cabal of other sock accounts. I think we need another CU. Looks like him and "Nanga Parbat" just can't seem to avoid each other. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably need a CU. Maybe a hard rangeblock might be possible. A CU will need to look into this though. Investigating range based on the tagged socks and SPI. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look's like User:Alison already found the range. 115.252.32.0/20. We should request a block on this range. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, a .32.0/20 range would only block a minority of his IP range but is worth it in my books. Maybe someone can calculate a wider range that doesn't impinge on other editors. Anyway, could you file a SPI or alert a CU? Many thanks.Nirvana888 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey blocked a whole bunch of Mrpontiac socks just yesterday and it wouldn't surprise me if there are multiple sleepers lying around since their socks were blocked yesterday, they're probably starting a new batch. As a sock war seems to be erupting, creating one sock doesn't seem to be what he would probably do due to the mass finding of socks. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ as being socks of ;




 * I'm recommending you guys go with that /20 rangeblock AO/ACB as he's all over the IP range, editing anonymously - A l is o n  ❤ 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * The accounts Alison listed have been blocked and tagged. 115.252.32.0/20 has been softblocked ACB for 3 months. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nirvana888
Mrpontiac1 is a serial sockmaster with 70 confirmed sock accounts and over 135 IPs used to vandalize articles repeatedly. I am very familiar with this sock and his MO having reported many cases of sock abuse. Tonsitem is a recent creation with a remarkably similar MO as Mrpontaic1 in his editing interests, behavior and comments. In the past, he has created dozens of sleeper accounts at a time so I think it might be worth it to have a CU done. As aforementioned, he typically will log on to many different IPs very rapidly to vandalize and create new accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I actually had this on my agenda but somehow forgot. Anyways this looks to be MrPontiac. Almost all the edits deal with India which is the main subject Mrpontiac edits.

If this is a sock, it is likely that he/she created more per previous investigations. Also, their main IP is still rangeblocked, they might have moved to a new IP range. CU seems appropriate here. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 01:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Nirvana888 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To run a check for sleepers. Mrpontiac1's account is likely to be stale by now, but his most recently confirmed socks are  and, so it may be worth running  against them. Also bear in mind that if Tonsitem is using a new IP the case won't necessarily come up as confirmed for Mrpontiac1, but we should still be able to catch some sleepers and find an IP range. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tonsitem, Magicalpoem, and Naotpu52. I have blocked the new IP range he used to create the accounts. Dominic·t 10:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've tagged the accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.
 * To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there does not appear to be much collateral damage on that range. If you can stop him by just blocking that one, it's not too high a price to pay. I don't see any sleeper accounts on it. Dominic·t 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.
 * To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there does not appear to be much collateral damage on that range. If you can stop him by just blocking that one, it's not too high a price to pay. I don't see any sleeper accounts on it. Dominic·t 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

17 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets



''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''
 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

Fetish for regularly adding the term "Pakistani terrorists" to the Hindi language movie Dhobi Ghat. Main suspected sockmaster blocked for 24 hours by me for edit warring (3RR). But wished to ensure long term sockpuppetry, if existing, ceases. Regards.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  07:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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 other account, is a  match. No comment on the IPs. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * . I think Mdmday is the main account here, actually; it's got way more edits than any of the others. And it is possible that they're socks, but CU will clarify. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so first I moved this case to reflect Mdmday as the master. Next, I indef blocked and tagged the confirmed socks. I also blocked the master for three days for sockpuppeting. As to the IPs, I'm going to leave them alone for now, as the main article in question has been protected. And I'm going to leave the possible sock alone as well; it strikes me as a little different, so it may be a sockpuppet or something. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am putting this case on hold for now per comment on my talk. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked Tnxman for another look at the case. But as of right now, I am considering an indefinite block for Mdmday. I will also note that 115.252.36.155 is autoblocked. I have also reblocked 115.252.32.0/20 for an additional 6 months. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on this note from Tnxmaan307 I have blocked (indef) and tagged this master as Mrpontiac1. Cases probably need merging. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cases merged. All users that needed to be blocked have been blocked. No further action necessary for now. Marking for close. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 18:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

21 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

AnsarParacha is already duck blocked. Need CU to see if there are any sleepers running around/confirm if the other 2 accounts are related to AnsarParacha. A log of the IPs that Mrpontiac1 has been using can be found at User:Nirvana888/Vandal watch. Please also see my talk page. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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 accounts in the archive are, but ✅ the following are matches to each other:
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Accounts blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

06 July 2011



 * Same edits and articles, qualifies for a WP:DUCK block but we need to check on sleepers, there's never been a time when there was only one account. Also, account was created on 6/24, but editing started five days later. Multiple ranges have been hard and soft blocked in the past and the range jumps too, archives has more history and Elockid provided a link to a non-comprehensive listing of IPs used. Sleeper check would be appreciated. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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
Sleeper check please. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This account is a match to the ones in the archive. Same geographic area, but that's it.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

01 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same behavior, Elockid and I evaluated and duck blocked. Elockid's also softblocked one of the usual ranges, but he's used other ranges too in the past. A sleeper check would be beneficial. The last set of socks are just about to dry for any further comparison. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

 * - Everything in the archives is more or less stale, but we can see if there are other users around this one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * given comparison with that last remaining sock. Two socks ✅ belonging to FlyingOnFloor, and . - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's blocked. Marking for close. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

10 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This escaped the last sweep, but behavioral evidence points both Elockid and me to Mrpontiac1. Could we get a sleeper check too? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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
✅ plus:



–MuZemike 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Report date September 11 2009, 18:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nsaum75

All are relatively "new" users who seem to have knowledge of wikipedia proceedures. All editing same food articles using the same heavy Indian-POV and removing the same references to Pakistan. Nsaum75 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Sock also hops around on and edits on numerous different IPs. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some quackpuppetry going on there. The similarities of the edit summaries, as well as the edits, make it obvious that these accounts are operated by one person. Blocked and tagged. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * All the new ones blocked and tagged. Thanks for the CU Brandon. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones from 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC) have been blocked and tagged too. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nsaum75

IP address is making the same edits to the same articles as User:Objectivephysics, one of User:Mrpontiac1's socks.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked for a week. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 25 2009, 20:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by 86.158.179.169

Seems like mrpontiac pushing usual pro indian pov attacking mughal empire article with same edit summarys as "not as famous" line 86.158.179.169 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Qazmlp1029 has been reverting a banned user, user Nangparbat on the article Mughal Empire and they show that they indeed are reverting a sock from their edit summary. This was the only abuse complaint from 86.158.179.169 which seems to be Nangparbat based on their MO. Note that Nangparbat has a grudge against socks he has dealt with or editors with "pro-Indian" beliefs. The rest of the articles don't seem to be abuse at glance but contributions. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

They also seemed to know that 86.158.179.169 was a sock of Nangparbat. Please see my talk page. User talk:Elockid.

In regards to the usage of "not as famous" on the edit summary. I don't see the this in the edit summary at all. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will give you a chance to apologize now Elockid here is the proof of your banned user sock mates edit summary now you can either own up to aiding blocked socks or you can carry on but I shall tell you this you and your banned users will not have there way anymore elockid you are a incompetent editor who always seems to say "I dont see this" maybe your blind? or maybe your a sock yourself? 86.151.122.53 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your petty threats don't scare me and you clearly don't know when to stop. I can and will revert any edit you do much because you are permanently banned which I have been doing. I am enforcing your ban and you fail to continue to see this because you are wrapped up in your own opinions and POV. Those users have not been banned meaning that they can edit as long as they are not disruptive or breaking WP policies. Your attempts to have your POV remain have clearly not been working. You are not allowed to edit, your editing privileges have been permanently revoked. You have been disproven about socks in the past (you accused someone for being Dewan even though they were not), you didn't know what a block or ban meant in that instance calling me blind but you in fact kept misreading tags. You still don't know the difference between a block and ban after I have explained and showed you the pages. Need I go on because I have plenty more to say? Furthermore that's only one summary. It can be made by anyone. Now if you actually had more, then it would seem more convincing. Plus your evading your block. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat (anon) has made false accusations in the past and in fact block evading multiple and countless times to try and get their POV in. They will go as far as calling out other editors and falsely accuse people of meat puppetry. Please also see User talk:AdjustShift for some the false accusations. They were reverting because of a suspected sock but it fact was another user. It's getting harder to tell whether he is telling the truth or not. It appears that he is basing all his opinions on poor assumptions that have been disproven in the past. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes and a bit of a summary from him taken from AdjustShift's talk page:
 * "All I am doing is removing the blocked users pov edits which got him blocked in the first place hes created many accounts and im trying my best to revert his edits on the Mughal empire page" (blocked users referring to Dewan and socks by him)
 * "But banned user Dewan357 is allowed? im not nangparbat btw" from (comment made after the above comment solidify that Nangparbat only knew that he thought he was dealing with Dewan. Also what an obvious lie that is saying he's not Nangparbat. blocked by Nishkid for being a sock of Nangparbat).
 * "I removed his edits because I knew him and Dewan were in contact" from 86.153.129.29 (how would he even possibly know this? Aamirshkh. this statement was a change in motive after he saw Aamirshkh as a sock of Mrpontiac. His reasoning for his previous edits changed. It's like I was reverting because of User A. Later. I was actually reverting because of User A and B after I found out User B was different user's sock. Nangparbat changes his reasons to why he was reverting to try and twist the situation to his liking)

The entire validity of what they're saying is questionable and any comments made from them are also questionable from what I have experienced with Nangparbat. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 01:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I don't see any behavioral evidence to connect Mrpontiac1 with Qazmlp1029 at this time. I also note that 86.158.179.169 is clearly an IP sock of banned user User:Nangparbat. No action taken at this time. MuZemike 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Nsaum75
Users are repeatedly making the same pro-indian POV edits (at the expense of other cultures/countries, usually Pakistan) to the same food articles. Looks highly suspect, differing IPs might be due to WP:MEAT or one user editing from different internet connections. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I agree with nsaum. We've had some trouble for quite some time with this persistent and egregious sock. Sock has a habit of logging on to multiple IPs within quick succession and making unconstructive edits. IPs listed seem quite suspicious and there could well be many more. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I appended to the above list, as it appears to be another sock of the same user, which popped up within the past hour. Eubulides (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * for checkuser attention. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are ✅ as being socks of :




 * Given the extent of the socking, and the fact that they're continually logging out to edit-war and revert, I'm also stating that 115.252.32.0/20 is a range that is not currently blocked, but could be softblocked ACB with minimal collateral damage - A l is o n  ❤ 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Accounts listed blocked and tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
This seems to be a continuation of a sock war between Mrpontiac and Nangparbat. The only contribution so far is reverting Nangparbat. Please see my talk page on the thread "Nanga Parbat".

As 115.252.32.0/20 is currently active mostly used by what it seems like Mrpontiac editing while not logged in with a sock, it might not be a bad idea to have a rangeblock? Also, this seems to be going to be a long term sock war spanning multiple articles. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I brought up the return of this sock case to Elockid. Part of the convo with him that may be helpful: Nirvana888 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mrpontiac's articles are too numerous to list but invariably involve India and Pakistan and often other related countries such as China and the United States. Interests include among others Indian/Pakistani food, society, politics, foreign relations, wars, military, cinema-related articles. I appreciate your help and I'm Nsaum does as well. If you take a look at a few of his more notable socks you notice a peculiar MO and frequented articles. Some EDIT: (>50) IPs are listed here particularly 115.252.*.* Hope this helps. Thanks again Nirvana888 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Will look into greater detail. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, he's a very prolific/abusive editor as you can see by the number of IPs I've just tagged just now and I probably only scratched the surface. That is on top of his 67 confirmed sock accounts. I'll have a look at the Nangparbat case and see if I can familiarize myself with it. Probably best to follow a policy of WP:RBI Nirvana888 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mrpontiac again: . Wouldn't be surprised if there are a cabal of other sock accounts. I think we need another CU. Looks like him and "Nanga Parbat" just can't seem to avoid each other. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably need a CU. Maybe a hard rangeblock might be possible. A CU will need to look into this though. Investigating range based on the tagged socks and SPI. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look's like User:Alison already found the range. 115.252.32.0/20. We should request a block on this range. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, a .32.0/20 range would only block a minority of his IP range but is worth it in my books. Maybe someone can calculate a wider range that doesn't impinge on other editors. Anyway, could you file a SPI or alert a CU? Many thanks.Nirvana888 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey blocked a whole bunch of Mrpontiac socks just yesterday and it wouldn't surprise me if there are multiple sleepers lying around since their socks were blocked yesterday, they're probably starting a new batch. As a sock war seems to be erupting, creating one sock doesn't seem to be what he would probably do due to the mass finding of socks. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ as being socks of ;




 * I'm recommending you guys go with that /20 rangeblock AO/ACB as he's all over the IP range, editing anonymously - A l is o n  ❤ 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * The accounts Alison listed have been blocked and tagged. 115.252.32.0/20 has been softblocked ACB for 3 months. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nirvana888
Mrpontiac1 is a serial sockmaster with 70 confirmed sock accounts and over 135 IPs used to vandalize articles repeatedly. I am very familiar with this sock and his MO having reported many cases of sock abuse. Tonsitem is a recent creation with a remarkably similar MO as Mrpontaic1 in his editing interests, behavior and comments. In the past, he has created dozens of sleeper accounts at a time so I think it might be worth it to have a CU done. As aforementioned, he typically will log on to many different IPs very rapidly to vandalize and create new accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I actually had this on my agenda but somehow forgot. Anyways this looks to be MrPontiac. Almost all the edits deal with India which is the main subject Mrpontiac edits.

If this is a sock, it is likely that he/she created more per previous investigations. Also, their main IP is still rangeblocked, they might have moved to a new IP range. CU seems appropriate here. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 01:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Nirvana888 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To run a check for sleepers. Mrpontiac1's account is likely to be stale by now, but his most recently confirmed socks are  and, so it may be worth running  against them. Also bear in mind that if Tonsitem is using a new IP the case won't necessarily come up as confirmed for Mrpontiac1, but we should still be able to catch some sleepers and find an IP range. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tonsitem, Magicalpoem, and Naotpu52. I have blocked the new IP range he used to create the accounts. Dominic·t 10:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've tagged the accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.
 * To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there does not appear to be much collateral damage on that range. If you can stop him by just blocking that one, it's not too high a price to pay. I don't see any sleeper accounts on it. Dominic·t 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.
 * To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there does not appear to be much collateral damage on that range. If you can stop him by just blocking that one, it's not too high a price to pay. I don't see any sleeper accounts on it. Dominic·t 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

17 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets



''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''
 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

Fetish for regularly adding the term "Pakistani terrorists" to the Hindi language movie Dhobi Ghat. Main suspected sockmaster blocked for 24 hours by me for edit warring (3RR). But wished to ensure long term sockpuppetry, if existing, ceases. Regards.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  07:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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 other account, is a  match. No comment on the IPs. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * . I think Mdmday is the main account here, actually; it's got way more edits than any of the others. And it is possible that they're socks, but CU will clarify. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so first I moved this case to reflect Mdmday as the master. Next, I indef blocked and tagged the confirmed socks. I also blocked the master for three days for sockpuppeting. As to the IPs, I'm going to leave them alone for now, as the main article in question has been protected. And I'm going to leave the possible sock alone as well; it strikes me as a little different, so it may be a sockpuppet or something. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am putting this case on hold for now per comment on my talk. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked Tnxman for another look at the case. But as of right now, I am considering an indefinite block for Mdmday. I will also note that 115.252.36.155 is autoblocked. I have also reblocked 115.252.32.0/20 for an additional 6 months. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on this note from Tnxmaan307 I have blocked (indef) and tagged this master as Mrpontiac1. Cases probably need merging. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cases merged. All users that needed to be blocked have been blocked. No further action necessary for now. Marking for close. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 18:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

21 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

AnsarParacha is already duck blocked. Need CU to see if there are any sleepers running around/confirm if the other 2 accounts are related to AnsarParacha. A log of the IPs that Mrpontiac1 has been using can be found at User:Nirvana888/Vandal watch. Please also see my talk page. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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 accounts in the archive are, but ✅ the following are matches to each other:
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ASHOKBINDUSARA is a match.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Accounts blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

06 July 2011



 * Same edits and articles, qualifies for a WP:DUCK block but we need to check on sleepers, there's never been a time when there was only one account. Also, account was created on 6/24, but editing started five days later. Multiple ranges have been hard and soft blocked in the past and the range jumps too, archives has more history and Elockid provided a link to a non-comprehensive listing of IPs used. Sleeper check would be appreciated. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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
Sleeper check please. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This account is a match to the ones in the archive. Same geographic area, but that's it.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

01 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same behavior, Elockid and I evaluated and duck blocked. Elockid's also softblocked one of the usual ranges, but he's used other ranges too in the past. A sleeper check would be beneficial. The last set of socks are just about to dry for any further comparison. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

 * - Everything in the archives is more or less stale, but we can see if there are other users around this one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * given comparison with that last remaining sock. Two socks ✅ belonging to FlyingOnFloor, and . - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's blocked. Marking for close. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

10 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This escaped the last sweep, but behavioral evidence points both Elockid and me to Mrpontiac1. Could we get a sleeper check too? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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
✅ plus:



–MuZemike 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

23 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I've seen accusations at ANI and in edit summaries suggesting that these accounts are involved in sockpuppetry, and have noticed similarities in edits, plus similar reversions and removal of citation/reference templates. The Arinjatt account was created after the Iamtrhino account was blocked, with the other sock later created after Arinjatt was also blocked (although that block has expired). Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

(originally posted on a case opened with Arinjatt as the master): Their edits clearly pass the duck test. These users edit with the same pro-Hindu, anti-Muslim agenda. Similarity in edits: by Arinjatt, by Iamtrhino and by Desijattt and this one by Iamtrhino on 's talk page. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk  13:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Two editors opened this case independently (one from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arinjatt), and based on behavior it's exceedingly likely they're the same. On the other hand, I also have a slight suspicion that we're looking at collusion between two different editors, so I'm endorsing to clarify. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * . Tiptoety  talk 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tags updated. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

25 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After the puppet master's last appeal this account, with similar edits, arrived. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It's clearly them. Clear duck evidence from the editing. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 12:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ the following are the same:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked DeltaQuad to merge Iamtrhino's case to Mrpontiac1's case. The similarities between the cases was brought up to me by. I agree with his findings and performed an extra a check to verify whether these accounts had any relation. and have the same UAs as each other. Secondly, both are editing from the same area. Coupled with the behavioral evidence, I have concluded that the users are to be related. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

04 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

these 3 accounts were created november 2011. all 3 are editing or rather pov-pushing on similar pages. HelloAnnyong told me that these accounts might also belong to the banned user Iamtrhino, hence this request.--  mustihussain   19:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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
All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm endorsing this case mostly because I think there's evidence enough for it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * . WilliamH (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ socks:
 * Whoa. I guess we're done then.. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

06 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This account was mentioned on my talk page. I've blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK, but am endorsing for more sleepers, as well as if we can get an IP block, given that the previous case was a day ago. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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 as being the same editor;



.. and some older, already blocked accounts;


 * etc ....
 * etc ....


 * I also see a very clear /19 IP range that could be softblocked with ACB that would have minimal impact on others- A l is o n  ❤ 03:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can do the /19 block, go for it. All of these accounts are blocked, so we're done here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

07 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

clearly an iamtrhino sock. same edits on same pages...incredible. i suggest a range block. ps: he also blanked this page twice.  mustihussain   19:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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 blocked, looking for sleepers. Courcelles 19:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. . Courcelles 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've protected a bunch of articles. We're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

22 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

- I believe that Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive and Sockpuppet investigations/Sridhar100/Archive are connected because VanshKaushal (sock of Mrpontiac1) edits and behaves like Littleboy58 (sock of Sridhar100 ). Another blocked socks of Mrpontiac1 was making very similar edits as 'Littleboy58'' who is now blocked as sock of Sridhar100.
 * There is a sockmaster party at Indian/Pakistani related pages (just few examples:    ) but it's difficult to track who is who. Kiftaan (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They all create profiles on user page and usually give detail about name, location and work.

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

 * - Ok, through all those links, none of them being diffs, it looks like your calling in 4 sockmasters/SPI cases, and without diffs, i'm not going fishing into 4 sockmasters to look for a connection. Diffs please... -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this who admits to socking around and this, where 3 socks one after another (User:Mughal Lohar, User:Risingstar12, User:Littleboy58) edited the same page very recently, and this one who strangly doesn't edit but comes to comment at Sockpuppet_investigations/Sridhar100/Archive. Also, the history of this page shows that the same person is using all these socks.--Kiftaan (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just merged in a case from Sockpuppet investigations/Iamtrhino that overlapped with most of these accounts. Almost all of them have been blocked, so is there anything else to do here? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so I still don't see the connection to the 3 other cases, though I never looked into the socks, but they have been dealt with by the case below. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

23 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

these accounts are making exactly the same edits as iamthrino.--  altetendekrabbe   12:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Tnxman307, if you don't mind, can you please check this sockmaster party if edit-warrior  is a sock of banned sockmaster User:Ironboy11? I'm very sure he is and is also behind many other Ids. The same person is likely behind,  and a number if others (i.e edits same Pakistani articles that Ironboy11 used to edit, same behaviour, pov, writing, and edit summaries). Also, User:Mar4d is already a confirmed sock of banned User:Strider11  from Australia  but is still not blocked, and is likely using other accounts. Thanks.--Kiftaan (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note to the admin who reads this, the above user is a sockpuppet account of the banned and blocked User:Lagoo sab / User:NisarKand based in Islamabad, Pakistan, who mostly edits Afghanistan-related articles (refer to contribs). This sockmaster user has a historical trait of levelling sockpuppet allegations against every user he comes across. He's got the distinction of filing two SPIs on me, the first one in which it was verified that User:Drspaz is an alternative account of mine and the case was closed by HelloAnnyong. The second one was filed in September in which he basically labelled every user he could come up with as a sockpuppet of User:Strider11, including my account. A checkuser was conducted in that report, and the closing statement there speaks for itself. He also goes around on Wikimedia Commons under the username "Officer" and has a history there of tagging free/public-domain images as copyright violations, which several other users have opposed. The block currently enforced on my account at Commons was a result of some edit-warring and a cock-and-bull email sent to the admin by this user. I have contacted the admin to review the block and am awaiting a reply there. Mar4d (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the admin should go through the contributions of the other users he's mentioned in his poorly researched story above and decide for him/herself whether they even remotely resemble sockpuppet accounts or are single-purpose accounts. There are enough damning reasons why they're not but this is probably not the right page to discuss the issue so I rest my case. An SPI on Lagoo sab should also be in place soon. Mar4d (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mar4d, you cannot deny that you are not in the Sydney, Australia, area because this Australian IP was in fact used by you and on that same day you were desperatly trying to make admins erace your posts so that your location doesn't show but it was too late. Do you remember that or do I need to show your action here? At Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11/Archive your ISP is listed as being used by sockmaster Strider11 so why are you still denying all this? You are in fact the banned sockmaster who's been creating and using many many accounts by connecting to different ISP ranges in your area. The Austalian located ISPs listed here perfectly matches with one of the ones you were using here for disturbances (you were also confirmed to be using this and this sockpuppet on that same day, which conntects to your Australian IP). You used a sock (User:Teckgeek) to create the page Afghans in Pakistan in 2009 and upto now you are still editing it and filling it with your anti-Afghan povs  There are dozens of other similar evidence that you are the banned sockmaster Strider11.--Kiftaan (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:TopGun is in fact another sockmaster who's been indef-blocked many times but returns to edit the same pages. He's the one who leaves :) smilies in talk pages and partially Pakhtun. this is another sock of his that he just created for single purpose. Mar4d, you know well that he is a sockmaster like you and that's why you are here defending him. He is connected to at least User:Ironboy11 and any admin who runs a CU on that will be able to see. I tried to figure out where the indef-blocked went because I'm sure he's still editing under new accounts. You guys are causing collateral damage to Wikipedia with all these damn socks. Anyone who looks at almost any Pakistani-related page will be able to realize that you sockmasters are doing all the edits.--Kiftaan (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the above fairy tale and swift response confirms the inevitable. He's also resorting to his old tricks of vandalising mine and other people's userpages now, , . Admin, please clear this up ASAP. Mar4d (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you weren't one of the sockmasters that I mentioned you wouldn't have even come to comment. You keep denying being Strider11, I think on judgement day you will try to deny this in front of God, lol.--Kiftaan (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, I have been following you and already knew that you were Lagoo sab right from this day. You just made the job easier though. Mar4d (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was obviously fixing vandalism and organizing images. Since you knew that you were exposed by admin Fastly in November as being a sock of Strider11, you began watching me for fear that I would report you. Unless you are in love with Lagoo sab, what other reason do you have to be watching for him? Btw, I'm aware that if admins block all of you Pakistani sockmasters, you will come again and again and again with new names and edit the same Pakistani pages. You guys have been doing this since 2005 and I really don't care about all that shit. You are destroying the Pakistani articles by filling them with nonsense. For example, you add anything you read in news into articles, i.e. Joe Biden mentions "Taliban not enemies", 95% of terrorism in Pakistan relate to Afghan refugees, etc. Just because nobody challenge your edits doesn't mean that you're doing a good job, you're just messing up pages with weak news reports and this is very disturbing. Stop blaming the mess in your country (Pakistan) on others when you know you are doing bad yourself. For example, you are socking here (violating Wikipedia) and refuse to accept this bad deed of yours.--Kiftaan (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are asking me why I am following you; I think I can ask you the same question: What are you doing stalking my contribs, checking out what pages I edit or who's editing the Pakistan article? My reason could be to compile enough evidence and get you permanently banned on Wikipedia (although I don't have to do that anymore). What's you're reason? And 2005? I never even knew the 'edit this page' button on Wikipedia back then! Mar4d (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All the "evidence" which Lagoo sab claims he has used for his allegations here have three things in common: 1) Amateurism and a lack of research; 2) Far too many personal opinions being presented as facts, in what appears to a desperate attempt to portray all the involved editors as sockmasters; he's also engaging in WP:personal attacks, an offence which is liable for a block (although that's not relevant since an indefinite ban on the current account is in order) and 3) Far too many inconsistencies and fabricated material in observations. I can list out many points on which he's taken a u-turn on from his previous SPIs on my account. First of all, I think admins can review my contributions and editing history and decide better for themselves whether I'm a sockpuppet or not. I have been on Wikipedia with this account for 2.5 years, have made 23,000 edits and have often received recognition for some of my constructive work here. Sockpuppets like Kiftaan who create hundreds of accounts and flout the project's rules will never be able to understand the spirit of Wikipedia. Where I live and what I do has no relevance to the issue at hand, and neither is it your business to make guesses of where I live. There are many editors around the world who edit Pakistan-related topics on Wikipedia and are active members of WikiProject Pakistan. If you think I'm the only Pakistani editor in Australia, that's your misconception. There are many Pakistani Wikipedians who edit from Australia, with User:Hassan514 being one example I know.
 * You're using IP addresses to meat up your claims. That's a very weak bit of evidence. First, IP addresses are not reliable and do not always indicate the correct location of a user. My IP address shows me in a suburb of Sydney, yet I'm not in Sydney. All Australian IP addresses start with the digits '123' and '124' for your information. I've seen Strider11's IPs, and none of them are the same, except the starting digits. Furthermore, this has something to do with the telecom company. I have seen Australian IPs here which trace to exactly the same region as indicated on mine because they use the same internet company as I do, yet those IPs are not actually from where they're shown to be on IP2location. See my interaction (here) with User:Saimdusan, who is another Australia-based editor who extensively edits Pakistan and South Asia related topics. He's based in a completely different city yet the IP address of his showing in that discussion (after he forgot to sign in) shows the exact same location as mine and that person also uses the same telecommunications company as me.
 * My third point, and this is important. Before registering my current account, I used to have another account (my first ever serious account) which I created in 2008 or 2009 while I was in another country (Pakistan). I edited extensively from that account for a number of months in 2009 to 2010 in Pakistan. If my memory serves me correct, I created Mar4d sometime in 2010 in Pakistan, some time before temporarily moving to Australia. I still know that other account. If an admin is interested, I can email the details of that other account so that an admin can establish its connection and verify it was used in Pakistan (and over here at the start). I am not going to reveal anything about that account here because there are some obvious real-life stalkers who invade people's right to anonymity, which I'd rather not prefer.
 * I find the claims of sockpuppetry against other editors such as TopGun ludicrous because he's an experienced editor who's been here for quite a while. Also, I know what User:Ironboy11 is like because I have interacted with him before and have read his articles as well as contributions. One thing I can definitely tell you without second thought is that Ironboy11's editing behaviours and interests are completely different and his command of the English language is very, very, very different from that of the accused editor. The admin who went through Ironboy11's articles and blocked him for copyright vio's will be able to confirm in a minute that he is a different person than TopGun or any of the other editors above just by looking at the language differences. Furthermore, Ironboy11 is based in the United States. None of the above users are from there.
 * After the admins read all of this, I request them that this page be blanked in courtesy or that this text be erased from the revision history. There are far too many personal details which invade user rights to privacy. Mar4d (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mar4d, according to yours and Strider11's  ISP, you are in the same exact location (New South Wales, Chatswood, Australia) and nobody said you were in Sydney (your IP is clearly listed in this CU). In addition, both of you share alot in common, i.e. edit the same Pakistani pages in a very similar style and even uploaded copyrighted Pakistani images. The info on you two being the same is very convincing and I don't care what anyone else says. It makes no sense for me to believe that Strider11 and Ironboy11 all of a sudden stopped making new socks and stopped editing. You and I both know that they or he is still active using new names. Sometimes admins cannot detect new names if the ISP range changes which is usually done automatically. I'm not stalking you, everyone who looks at the history of Pakistan pages see a bunch of IDs editing the same pages the very same way and are active at the same time. This makes everyone suspecious.
 * Your edits are mostly based on propaganda, making Pakistanis as the good guys and making everyone else as the bad guys, exaggerating info in Pakistani pages. This is annoying, disruptive, unstructive and leads to edit-wars. You add anything you read in Pakistani news and add this to Wikipedia as facts without doing a research on the matters, this is again annoying and disturing to many. This is worst than using many accounts to edit. Some people do use multiple accounts, which is bad thing of course, but at least they do very contructive edits.
 * is not only an experienced editor as you say but he is also an experianced sockmaster. He took over the same pages that Ironboy11 was editing. There is also and so many others who edit the same Pakistani pages in a very similar style, (i.e. mainly Pakistani armed forces, Pakistani diaspora, politics of Pakistan, etc.--Kiftaan (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not in Chatswood, and I am not in the state of New South Wales. Refer to my comment above. I do not upload images. Have you ever seen me insert pictures and images on articles in the same way that you do? The rest of your reply is simply the same ridiculous rant you've been saying continously. I'm not going to reply to you anymore, so consider this my last post here until an admin intervenes. Mar4d (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are clearly MEAT PUPPETING, and defending others who may be socking, you may be using multiple computers and that is still socking. Not your this ID but you used other IDs to upload copyvio images.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Conclusion:
 * It makes sense that is a sock of banned, see this please. Ironboy11 was indef-blocked in October 2011 and sleeper account TopGun came in the same month to take over Ironboy11's editing. Is this coincident that he edits the same very low traffic pages i.e.  which Ironboy11 edited only a month ago? He may have sleepers but some may be stale though.
 * It makes sense that, also known as , is sock of because of technical evidence and the fact that he had used more than one account and edits the same exact pages. He may also have some stale accounts (i.e.  see this please) and possibly have some sleepers too.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just to confirm that there is yet another user, Ian.thomson, who has refuted Kiftaan's sockpuppet conspiracy theories at his talk page (see this). A complaint has been launched by that user against Kiftaan at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Some pretty narrow results here: These two are the same: These two are the same: These three are the same:
 * While there are no hard and fast technical links between the groups, the common editing areas seems pretty damning. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the accounts above as socks. As a side note, I've merged this case in from one that was open at Sockpuppet investigations/Iamtrhino. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While there are no hard and fast technical links between the groups, the common editing areas seems pretty damning. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the accounts above as socks. As a side note, I've merged this case in from one that was open at Sockpuppet investigations/Iamtrhino. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the accounts above as socks. As a side note, I've merged this case in from one that was open at Sockpuppet investigations/Iamtrhino. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

24 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This account was mentioned on my talk page. The behavior fits: first edit to undo an edit? Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I acknowledge that I archived the previous case without handling the long wall of text that came after it was closed. This is not the place to snipe at each other about who is who (neither is my talk page, thanks.) If you want to accuse each other, go ahead and open whatever cases you want - but don't pile them all into this one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, more evidence:
 * They created their user page with content taken from User:Tigerboy1966. I find that a little suspicious.
 * Their only mainspace edit - the undo - had the edit comment "Reverted edits from banned User:Mughal Lohar". Compare that to this edit's summary by SunidhiSharmaAmbala, a sock I blocked: "reverted edits by sock puppet Mughal Lohar". A brand new unrelated account would probably not have their first edit be nearly identical to another sock's account, and they would also probably not be that well informed as well. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 06:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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
that the following users are related: --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * . Undoing an edit as your first action is not sufficient information to perform a checkuser. Please provide more. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Deskana. Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

26 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Contributions, eg [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=467740511] which reinstated another sock's edit [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=461396783&oldid=457010609 ] Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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

 * This the third time I've moved a case from SPI/Iamtrhino to here. Please be careful when opening these cases. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had like three of these cases in three days. Endorsing for confirmation, sleepers, and any sort of IP blocking that can be done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat inconclusive because I smell something proxyish, but it's a to  match to . WilliamH (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this account is operating exclusively via open proxies, which I've now blocked - A l is o n  ❤ 20:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 08:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

28 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

similar edits on similar pages.  altetendekrabbe  17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

 * A rather clever strategy: editing your own page enough to get past the semiprotection. I've blocked and tagged this account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

29 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

same old story.  altetendekrabbe  20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

 * Another proxy, but that's him. WilliamH (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

02 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edits by this editor and  by a blocked sock (and earlier edits at this article) and likewise  and. Note also the edit summary [ here] where he claims to be deleting copyvio material while apparently adding some, eg the text I searched for here. Any chance of a range block? Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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
It's him but no rangeblock possible. Same as last time. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#AD1C24;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

09 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

same pattern.  altetendekrabbe  19:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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
A lot of proxy use here, but I was able to nail down some results. Please note, since I am passingly familiar with this account, I was able to look through the contribs and see enough evidence for a check. Going forward though, evidence/diffs must be presented as to why listed accounts are suspected of being socks. Anyway, the following are matches to each other:


 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

10 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The user in question reverted edits in the articles and  to the sockpuppets' version. Also, it seems like the user refactored other users' comments in. Klilidiplomus &#124;  Talk  06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

 * ✅ - no other socks that I can see. There's a range being used exclusively here that appears to be populated with misconfigured servers. I'm going to block it for a while as he's all over it - A l is o n  ❤ 06:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, done. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

20 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

as before, his sock edits enough (this time on his talk page and another article) to get around semi-protection and then restores his old edits with minor changes. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This time he has copied User:Michael Jester's userpage onto his. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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
Proxy use makes this difficult to completely nail down. Based on the edits and the available technical data, I'd say. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

29 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

the users show the same behavior, and have made edits on a similar topics as other socks of mrpontiac1. user antamangkesh has been reverting and blanking his own edits, , in order to increase the number of edits. user sarkar-rajya has been doing the same thing. this is the most conspicuous hallmark of a mrpontiac1 sock, along with the anti-muslim agenda. dbkasar is re-adding all the edits of other mrpontiac1 socks.  altetendekrabbe  17:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

 * I'm calling this one highly that it's  on behaviour and the fact that they're almost exclusively using open proxies. The following accounts are ✅ as being the one editor;




 * Oh, and and, making the personal attacks on Nawlin's talk page, are ✅ to be Grawp. Surprise :/ I've also blocked a number of proxy IPs -  A l is o n  ❤ 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. Left Grawp to WP:DENY. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

04 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Contributions virtually identical to early socks. Would a range block help? Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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 are matches to accounts in the archive:
 * Unfortunately, the use of open proxies means that a rangeblock is a no-go. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the use of open proxies means that a rangeblock is a no-go. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the use of open proxies means that a rangeblock is a no-go. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the use of open proxies means that a rangeblock is a no-go. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

07 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

the same old story. identical topics, edits, behavior and so on.  altetendekrabbe  23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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
Two groups here and they are ❌ to each other:

Socks of :

The following are ✅ socks of :

for both groups. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked/tagged second group, split first group into its own case. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

28 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

exactly the same edits as usual.  altetendekrabbe  09:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Altetendekrabbe deleted multiple old edits(not just mine) from the page of Maratha Empire and is now accusing me of being a Sock. He/she is pushing a agenda and should be noted. My edit history is evident of what my contributions have been. BeachHome (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * : Precisely what would be the "usual" edits? If you are new to the process of reporting sock-puppets, then please be aware of how clear it is made that we require of all reports clear evidence of sock-puppetry. If every report consisted of a list of usernames and no evidence, then the process would collapse under its inbox after about three days. Please return with evidence. AGK  [•] 23:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

05 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Hukinear registered on 30 April and Freak'n on 16 May. Per their contribution histories, both edit similar material, mostly connected to Rajput-based issues. Both use edit summary statements that suggest prior experience. Both also have an idiosyncratic manner of blanking their user and talk pages as almost their first edits. Freak'n in particular is displaying tendentious behaviour similar to the banned User:Mrpontiac1, as in this thread, while the IP displays similar behaviour at Dhoni (clan) (an article recently created by Freak'n) and has blanked Hukinear's page. In my experience, they appear to appear around the same time of day, although I haven't checked this out fully.

CU requested because of the possible Mrpontiac1 connection. I realise that CU cannot connect IPs to usernames, btw. Sitush (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * These are pretty much socks of Mrpontiac1, the common IPs used between the socks (and they don't geolocate) are in the ranges 1.23, 90.200, 213.57 etc. It's been established that he uses a wide array of visible and invisible proxies. As I've been blocking him for over two years now, I can hear the quacking, but as I haven't been active for a few months, I'll ask Elockid to look at this SPI. I believe it should be merged to the Pontiac SPI. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And please add to the list too. I believe  ought to get in too, but there's some sort of cross-puppeting going on to to throw us off me thinks. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
90.182.143.162 blocked as an open proxy. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The following are ✅ as :

is technically but I would say /❌ to the above and does not seem to be related to anyone I can think of at the moment.

Could a clerk please merged this case to Mrpontiac1's case please? Thanks in advance. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was checking at the same time and concur with Elockid. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the three - Freak'n, John Mckalie and Hukinear. Marking for close now to allow a clerk to merge to Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

15 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

the recent edits of user qwersome are identical to the edits of banned user raghu-holkar, a confirmed sock of mrpointiac1 diff1, diff2 and just like other socks of mrpointiac1, qwersome makes several meaningless additions in order to gain edits. he does this to get access to semi-protected pages diff3  altetendekrabbe   14:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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
Blocked as well as the OPs they're editing from. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

22 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Did the old sleeper 10 edit autoconfirmed thing to make a page move just like the CU blocked User:Haryana-shakti. Blocked as an obvious duck. Perhaps there are more sleepers hiding? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * With the huge amount of overlap, it's a little difficult to be exactly sure between, ML, Sridharbabu and Mrpontiac1, but these two appear to be MrPointiac. Elockid could perhaps confirm on that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After looking some more after I filed this report, I did notice that there were other socks involved. I had just picked the most recent sock to edit the page and with Haryana-shakti not tagged, I couldn't tell whose sock this is.  But it is obviously somebody's sock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This is actually editing through proxies. I found one other account,. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocks and tags completed, could this case be archived to Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive instead of this page's archive? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Archived from Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar, where this case was originally filed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

03 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

AtulyaGarima and the IP seem to be WP:SPAs at best, but the likelihood of sockpuppetry seemed too high for me to not request an investigation. Here are the facts of the case as I understand them: an article, Rajput resistance to Muslim invasions has been repeatedly deleted and salted per G5. Hrubed created an article called Rajput resistance and started an RM to move it to the salted title. Three editors subsequently voiced support for proposal. Of the three, I've seen Hillcrest98 around elsewhere and have no reason to suspect him in this case. But AtulyaGarima's only contributions are to this RM and his own user page. The same can be said about Hrubed. The IP has three other edits. I wouldn't be surprised if CheckUser found the IP to match that of Hrubed and AtulyaGarima. This could all be a misunderstanding and a coincidence, and I'll give my apologies to all involved if so, but. BDD (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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 accounts are ✅ matches. Could a clerk please merge this case with Mrpontiac's? I've blocked the IP as an open proxy. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

16 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Shahdaan Khan has been editing disruptively, edit-warring to push a pro-Indian, anti-pakistani point of view, and has been blocked twice. He/she attempts to suppress content not consistent with his/her point of view in connection with his/her point of view. The point of view is certainly similar to that of Mrpontiac1 and socks, and there do seem to be some other similarities. This report is a result of contact on my talk page, and I reproduce the content of the relevant talk page here:


 * Start of talk page copy.
 * This guy (User:Shahdaan Khan) is without doubt the sockmaster User:ABDEVILLIERS0007 (User:Mrpontiac1) who has been mass socking since at least 2009, and keeps creating new accounts just to vandalise pages. He is Hindu but creates Pakistani Muslim names and he should be indef blocked. Thanks.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what makes you believe this is the same person? If you can give really convincing evidence then I will block the account indefinitely. If you can give evidence which is reasonably suggestive but not conclusive then I will take this to a sockpuppet investigation and request a checkuser. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Notice the capital letters in the edit summaries and name  . Another person suggested he is ABDEVILLIERS0007 . On Afghanistan, confirmed sockpuppets of Mrpontiac1 constantly showed up to edit the same 1747-1818 Afghan-Sikh war stuff, defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs. Notice the google book link starts with "books.google.co.in" which suggests he's in India. User:Theman244, who is also socking (i.e. User:Thejatt, User:Desijatt1), defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs, copy-pastes links with "books.google.co.in"  the same way as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Mrpontiac1, and the dozens of Mrpontiac1's confirmed socks.


 * Further, these confirmed socks of Mrpontiac1 have very similar names as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Desijatt1, Shahdaan Khan. (i.e. User:Desijattt and User:ASHOKBINDUSARA). Shahdaan Khan is obviously a Muslim name (particularly Pakistani) but the operator is a Sikh/Hindu based on his edits and location, and he used many other sockpuppet names to try to pass as a Pakistani Muslim editor.  The bottom line is User:Shahdaan Khan and User:Theman244 are new undetected sockpuppets of the notorious sockmaster Mrpontiac1 and I think they should both be indef blocked.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * End of talk page copy.

In addition, User:Darkness Shines thinks there is reason to think this is a sockpuppet account, as seen from this edit. I do not know what reasons Darkness Shines has, but i will invite him/her to comment here. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ABDEVILLIERS alright. I'm not sure if Elockid linked him to MrP though, there's been a lot of OP editing, and I'm not going to say any more on wiki per beans. But Elockid should be able to confirm this one way or the other, we've had to block quite a lot recently. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here, Shahdaan Khan is without a doubt ABDEVILLIERS0007. Not MrPontiac releated I believe. Theman244 is not ABDEVILLIERS0007 and I do not know enough about MrP other to hazard a guess. The IP posting here is a blocked account BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I point out in this edit, Shahdaan Khan seems to in effect admit to having used at least one other account. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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
Shahdaan Khan and Theman244 are ❌ to Mrpontiac1. Shahdaan Khan is technically /❌ to ABDEVILLIERS0007. The gap in editing may suggest otherwise. I am confident is saying now that ABDEVILLIERS0007 is ❌ to Mrpontiac1 (see my previous statement in the archives). Also, none of the accounts appear to be related to another.

Just as an FYI, the last Mrpontiac1 sock to surface is. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There does not seem to be any convincing evidence of any connection to Mrpontiac1. Such issues as the similar point of view mean little, as there are many Indians with such opinions. Considering the CU results, there seems to be no case for connecting any account to Mrpontiac1, though there could be connections. However, I have received an email pointing out striking behavioural connections between ABDEVILLIERS0007 and Shahdaan Khan, which, together with other evidence, makes a connection there look very likely, and, considering that the checkuser says "Unlikely/Unrelated" rather than "Unrelated", I am prepared to block Shahdaan Khan. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

22 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

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
Adding for reference. No further action necessary. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

16 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

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
Already blocked (added for reference). @CheckUsers: please contact me for more information if you are handling this case. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

25 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

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
Sock farm blocked. Adding for reference. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 16:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Just noting that this IP user has identified himself as dbkasar. The IP appears to be a proxy server and probably nothing needs to be done. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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 IP is indeed a proxy, and hasn't edited since. Closing. GABgab 01:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)