Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar/Archive

12 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After Mughal Lohar received his final warning for the article Aurangzeb, this IP made edits very similar to Mughal Lohar's, including the unexplained blanking of a section unfavorable to Aurangzeb.  Ja Ga  talk 22:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I am also convinced that this is the same editor. He's done this before. Some of his edits are constructive, others added copyvio, and others, such as these, are attempts to remove a pov with which he doesn't agree. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is likely the same editor. As his talk page shows, he has ignored a number of warnings on various wikipedia policies, and is particularly focused on the Aurangzeb article, as is this IP. Dialectric (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per WP:DUCK, I've blocked the IP for 3 days; master blocked 24h. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

23 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There is a complete range of IPs and I think they are used by banned User:Mughal Lohar. See the edit history of these articles : Aurangzeb, Third Battle of Panipat, Sambhaji. Earlier he used to edit with the name Mughal Lohar. But after getting banned, he is using this range of IPs. SubQuad (talk) 14:12, 22 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
Closing for now. All of these are stale and I'm also playing whack-a-mole (no chance of rangeblock). Elockid  ( Talk ) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

2 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Here are more, editting from the same area.

Suggest semi-protection of articles : Sambhaji and Shuja-ud-Daula. SubQuad (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Block stale as far as i'm concerned, plus filer is a sock. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

15 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As well as superficial similarities between account names, there is a significant amount of overlap between the editing patters of the two: 16 articles in all. Considering Shahan Mughal has edited just 42 pages as of writing, this does not seem incidental. In November 2011, Mughal Lohar's editing style was described as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#User:Mughal_Lohar There have been problems with this editor for some time, from copyright violation to failure to communicate to his even when told not using proper references (no details of books, just links, sometimes to snippets). He's been asked to use edit summaries a number of times, for instance, and still doesn't.] One of Shahan Mughal's article was tagged as a possible copyright violation, indicating similar issues surrounding and the references are formatted in the same manner. As can be seen from Shahan Mughal's contributions, they have not used a single non-automatic edit summary (perhaps not surprising for a new editor, but indicative when taken in the context of the other evidence). Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 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
Unfortunately, all of the accounts in the archive are. Any action taken will need to be based on behavioral evidence alone. TN X Man 18:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account is already blocked as a sock, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

20 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'd like a CU but these are pretty obvious. See for instance Battle of Sikandarabad (1760). There are a number of 182 range pretty obvious socks editing related articles. If you look at the history of Talk:Battle of Panipat (1761) you also find, typically, a Mrpontiac1 sock (Wachoviadeal) Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, these are all done by the 182 range and then edited by PV455H at . Some 182 edits edit material added by, another sock, at . PV455H then creates a new article (this account's only other edit), and if you look at its edit history at  it is 182 IPs and the other two editors who are editing it. I have other evidence including typical copyvio but am reluctant to put it here, as this editor is getting more clever. I will of course do that if required. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'd requested Dougweller to step in as I'm very constrained on wiki time now. This is becoming an incredible mess as both Sridhar100 and Mughal lohar have been creating multiple socks and pushing a lot of original research in an unwatched part of the encyclopaedia. The number of socks is also growing significantly (we've blocked a few as suspected socks, they are in the category if required), but given the number, a sleeper sweep would be beneficial too. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
to process a checkuser request as diffs are required as evidence to compare the accounts. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * - as the accounts look similar and based on the degree of abuse a look should be done for sleepers. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  15:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The following appear to match : <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all, blocked and tagged as socks of, could the clerk merge this to Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar prior to archiving? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

04 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Clear similarity with edits of sockmaster Mughal Lohar. This time he has created a new article as well: Later Mughal-Maratha Wars with those same googlebooks.pk sources. Milescoast.wiki (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' See also Sockpuppet investigations/Sridhar100/Archive. Same use of Google urls with no details, use of snippets, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Added If you look at this edit by an IP sock it was virtually replaced by Fgh667 here.. Once the 182 range block expired we always get major sock puppetry. Lots of copyvio between articles also. Even if the CU from the old case is stale, I expect CU will show a link between these two new accounts. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Technically speaking, is a  match to. Both are matches to the previous batch of socks. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged per tech possibility and behavioral match. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

07 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

From that same range 182.182... and Edits in same articles. Milescoast.wiki (talk) 07:29, 7 August 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

 * Even if it is them, the IP has not edited in several days, so it is stale for blocking purposes. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:03, 7 August 2012 (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
Adding for reference. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

02 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recreated 2 articles created by Mughal Lohar socks, Yahya_Khan_Bahadur and Amir_Beg. His username is extremely similar to those of other socks, eg PT336V, PV455H, GH34456K. CU needed to check for any other socks. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2015 (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

 * ✅. Nothing obvious that I can see, but it's a really busy range... T. Canens (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 16:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

22 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (Blocked, inserted only for comparison)
 * (Blocked, inserted only for comparison)
 * (Blocked, inserted only for comparison)


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

I am also counting BeachHome, because he was blocked for block evasion and he edited just like this user.

Inserting criticism on Maratha Empire- just like he did with duck IP on Shivaji.-- Using bare weblinks on both of the changes. Long edit summaries----

Adequately mentions that who has vandalized.--

His latest duck account, 468SM had changed many pages where Ghatus had also contributed including Siege of Trichinopoly (1741) where they made extraordinary changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2015 (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
❌ as far as I can see to Mughal Lohar or to any other socks I've handled in that target area. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm going to close this with no action taken against Ghatus. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 03:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

11 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Given the edit conflict that these articles are having these days, I recalled this edit after reading this one. Account sounds similar to.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Per my usual practice, I had checked the archives and also checked the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mughal Lohar. You can find a number of socks that weren't listed here, thus it was, the last blocked sock. I try providing some more behavioral evidence..


 * Flag parameters:
 * 
 *  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:33, 16 May 2015 (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 not sure if CU can help us here, the last account was blocked in January, but we can try anyway. can you, please, provide some more evidence (diffs) for the case CU can't help us.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  10:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked due to the interest in the same area and similar username to User:468SM. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

02 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Like previous socks of Mughal Lohar, a focus on Mughal Empire and in particular Akbar and Aurangzeb. And in particular, the repeated replacement or addition of (false) Mughal flags to dozens of wikipedia articles, eg these edits by most recent sock User:468Shahi,  versus these edits by User:Binggo666 ,  (well over of a hundred similar edits).

Also repeated replacement of existing map on the Mughal Empire page with an orthographic projection map, eg most recent sock   versus Binggo666, ,  (again several more similar edits are available since user and previous socks edit-war to retain their edits).

Note also this report by User:Ugog Nizdast on my talkpage a couple of days back, who too suspected Binggo666 of being a Mughal Lohar sock. Abecedare (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't familiar enough with Mughal Lohar enough to be really sure before and thought comparison with would confirm/refute the identification, but now that the user has edited from  and, which are in the  known Lohar range, a CU would be both unnecessary and unwarranted. Can some uninvolved admin block the account and IP socks as WP:DUCKS now? Abecedare (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The behavioral evidence is very strong. The almost exclusive interest in flags of various Mughal and Islamic rulers. The repeated addition of copyrighted material. And the complete refusal to engage on the talk page. All are characteristics of socks of Mughal Lohar. --regentspark (comment) 01:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * appears to have commented on their own talk page through IP: not that this is illegal, but in case they are dancing around identities, FYI. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 13:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , who spoke as if they were on that userpage as I mentioned, is now engaging in editing multiple Mongol-related pages, including flag activity. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've declined the CU request for several reasons. First, there's been no comment explaining why it's needed. Second, there are no confirmed non-stale socks. Finally, it would appear that this report can be evaluated behaviorally anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is WP:DUCK and should be indeffed.  should also be blocked for three days, as he admits being Binggo666 here.  I don't see any evidence against  here. Can you add some and explain?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  12:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked and tagged. Both IPs blocked for 3 days given it's the same range and Mahmud of Ghazni. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

06 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New account created soon after previous sock was blocked. Same venues (medieval Indian kingdoms and battles) + same POV (undermining rivals to Mughal rulers eg, labeling Hemu a usurper and Maratha empire a confederacy) + same obsessions with adding flags in infoboxes,  + same edits eg, , ,  (note that the image being added was uploaded by previous sock, and is falsely titled and described) or ,.

WP:DUCK reported on my talkpage by User:Cpt.a.haddock, but not blocking myself since I had discussed some of the prior socks' edits with them before I realized that long-term sockpuppetry was involved. Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2015 (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 going to check against non-stale suspected socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to . Blocks, tags, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

09 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Back at the usual haunts. For example, the named account has been fiddling with the infobox, images, flag images at Battle of Talikota, just like the previous two socks and  and then IP socks (from the known Mughal Lohar range) have been adding links to the article on other usual hants of the sock-master,,. I can expand upon the behavioral evidence, if more is needed, but should be WP:DUCK; see interaction report with last two socks. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And now adding dubious self-created flags to numerous articles, eg compare this edit by new account with this by a previous sock. Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2015 (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

 * Account indef'd. IPs blocked for two days. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

18 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Has made 33 edits and it's over the same article range Deccan Sultanates, Muslim World etc. Editing style is same: continuous non-MOS changes to images and galleries with no edit summary whatsoever. A sample edit from the previous IP 182.182.22.16 blocked recently edit and the accused's edit over the same article add the similar formatted bare url to "https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue". Also notice that compared with the IP other addition, the google books link goes to Pakistan too (books.google.com.pk). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2015 (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

 * is ✅. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

21 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK but filing an SPI for the record, and in case CU's can help detect any other missed/sleeper accounts. Abecedare (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See:
 * Supposed real name (self-) reported here.
 * Edit history overlap with a previous sock and some recent IPs
 * Discussion on my talk-page analyzing individual edits and editing area. Pinging who participated in that discussion

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This edit at the Teahouse is a giveaway. However, I haven't blocked this set in a long time, so I'd like to make sure my assessment is right before doing any duck block. Anyone else can just evaluate and block if it seems ok. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  23:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking through carefully, I see no reason to not do a duck block and have done so. I think the request can be closed unless anyone expects another account to be involved. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing per request. Bbb23 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

28 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New account, with fast-pace editing and POV pushing at same set of medieval India articles. Similar anti-Maratha soapboxing (this exact text was cut-n-pasted to a dozen other talk pages); compare with similar criticism mentioned  in previous SPI reports (eg diff). Same sources (eg, mainly google.pk links and even more "coincidentally" www.royalark.net/India/najibabad.htm cited both by this user and an earlier sock IP). Requesting checkuser mainly to see if any intermediate/sleeper accounts were missed. Note that since last SPI report from 4 days back, the user has been editing using IPs and, which were block/reverted by User:SpacemanSpiff as obvious cases. See extended discussion of the sockmaster's activities on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention: similar obsession with image galleries (of images uploaded by user on wikimedia commons with false source information), and adding flags in infoboxes. Compare and . Abecedare (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2015 (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

 * Looks like a duck. The strong overlap of interest in Mughal related stuff is a giveaway and the flags make it almost certain. I don't think a checkuser is necessary. I would block but I'm rusty and will instead ping  or  instead. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Especially edits on Qutb Shahi dynasty are quite clear. I'd like CU if only for the record and for finding sleepers; this dude is prolific. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The account is ✅. .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

04 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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


 * I've blocked Hinono134 per duck, as the edits are all the same (including starting off with reverting on the unprotected pages in the target category as well as addition of the same images across multiple articles). Upsy777's only contributions have been to recreate a page created by another sock, but I think some technical evidence there might be helpful. Also since there's at least two socks active at this point, I'm requesting a CU. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was Later Mughal-Maratha Wars (1728-1763) which was originally created by a sock. Other edits prior to this (second) deletion included those from  which is in the range for this group. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Quick note: While this SPI as been open, two more DUCKS have popped up:
 * Pirhana7777's entry was expected, since the account had uploaded files on common that User:Hinono134 started adding to wikipedia pages. Pirhana took over once Hinono was blocked, and has since uploaded File:Flag of the Sultanat-e-Khudadad of Mysore.jpg, which is both a made-up-flag and a copyvio, picked up from a video-gaming forum, that a previous sock User:Binggo666 had also copied stuff from. Bonaparte2015 is tag-teaming with Pirhana7777 on the same pages.
 * Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pirhana7777's entry was expected, since the account had uploaded files on common that User:Hinono134 started adding to wikipedia pages. Pirhana took over once Hinono was blocked, and has since uploaded File:Flag of the Sultanat-e-Khudadad of Mysore.jpg, which is both a made-up-flag and a copyvio, picked up from a video-gaming forum, that a previous sock User:Binggo666 had also copied stuff from. Bonaparte2015 is tag-teaming with Pirhana7777 on the same pages.
 * Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admin action needed - All edits by Upsy777 are deleted. I need an admin to review her edits and comment about the possible similarity to the master.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - to compare Upsy777 with other socks of Mughal Lohar.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocks and tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocks and tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocks and tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocks and tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocks and tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

07 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar edit pattern and a fetish for OR flags. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Blocked per duck; since we just ran a broad check a few days back I don't see the value of running another CU, so marking for close -- of course any CU/Clerk feel free to revert that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

14 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I usually block Mughal Lohar socks per duck, but I'm not entirely sure here and would like a CU check. This edit here matches that of Mughal Lohar's IP and then there's also usage of flags from prior socks -,. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've blocked a couple of the socks below per duck, but I think at this point a sleeper check is also needed as these socks went undetected. Also, pinging as this socking seems to extend to Commons too and all this might come in handy there too. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I just blocked  created just after I blocked the socks below! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Speaking of Mughal Lohar socks there was also one who i didn't bother to report (since they stoppped after two edits):
 * Compare Tawi's edit, with that of a previous sock, User:DurChalen123. And MughalLohar's IPs used over the last week that need to be reverted (and the affected articles possibly protected)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also found:
 * Tag-teaming with some of the above listed IPs to add Battle of Talikota stuff to numerous articles, after that article itself was semi-protected due to his sock-activities. Abecedare (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tag-teaming with some of the above listed IPs to add Battle of Talikota stuff to numerous articles, after that article itself was semi-protected due to his sock-activities. Abecedare (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And we can possibly expect the sock:
 * to be active at some point since the account is being used to add images (that are either copyrighted or have false source information) on wikimedia commons, which are then being added to numerous article by the above listed socks. Can a English wikipedia checkuser confirm sockpuppetry before the account has edited here? Are there any "global" checkusers who can do so? Abecedare (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * to be active at some point since the account is being used to add images (that are either copyrighted or have false source information) on wikimedia commons, which are then being added to numerous article by the above listed socks. Can a English wikipedia checkuser confirm sockpuppetry before the account has edited here? Are there any "global" checkusers who can do so? Abecedare (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And now at:
 * undoing the reversions of previous socks' edits. Abecedare (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * undoing the reversions of previous socks' edits. Abecedare (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Latest:
 * undoing the reversions of previous socks' edits at Ali. Can these latest socks at least be blocked as ducks (ping )? And given the proliferation of socks even over the time-period this SPI has been open, a CU sweep does seem needed. Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick (and necessary!) blocks, Spaceman. Wonder if it is finally time to block editing (and account creation?) from the 182.182.0.0/17 range? There are some legitimate edits from that range but a significant majority is consistently Mughal Lohar, going back years. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick (and necessary!) blocks, Spaceman. Wonder if it is finally time to block editing (and account creation?) from the 182.182.0.0/17 range? There are some legitimate edits from that range but a significant majority is consistently Mughal Lohar, going back years. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following are ✅:


 * The following is :


 * I will also take a look at things on Commons. Tiptoety  talk 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All above socks and a new one blocked and tagged. Someone else please handle this for the next couple of days as I'll be pressed for time online. Closing &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

10 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * added 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * added 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * added 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * added 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * added 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * added 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


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

I thought he'd left with the recent protections, but it seems he's just moved to new articles. Durrani Empire has been a random target of the socks in the past, but he's focused his efforts there now: from sock 1 for the obsession with the Maratha confederacy w.r.t. the Islamic empires, from sock 2 for the random insertion of google books common to the socks; from sock 3 for more Mughal obsession, from sock 4 assigning meanings to images from Commons. Given that there's these four that I came up on accidentally, can we do a sweep as I suspect he's branched out to other articles too. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe he's using two distinct IP ranges now, so a range block becomes even more difficult at this point as we have two busy ranges. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just added the fifth one as I just found it, assuming it's the latest one. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:13, 10 September 2015 (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
Haqi6666 is ✅ to match, , and
 * Based on behavior alone, the first two - Haqi666 and Remolddedr444444 - are definite socks and I'll block them both. Rest look likely and I suggest a CU to make sure and unearth others. --regentspark (comment) 16:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Likely to the above, but confirmed to each other are, , , , and
 * Hydeeo4444 is to the first group. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I don't see anything here related to new activity on Commons, but you may want to keep a watch there. All blocked and tagged now, so closing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

23 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Unfortunately the new accounts are being used for very few edits now so it's difficult for us to track them out. These two edits are consistent with and. The last time I brought it here (a week or so ago) there were a few more socks identified than I had unearthed, so bringing again for that purpose. At this point I haven't been able to find any other though. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:18, 23 September 2015 (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 account is ✅. Blocked and tagged. . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

13 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This has been a while in coming as I'd protected most of the pages and therefore haven't found new socks, but today this account popped up to do this which is in keeping with Mughal Lohar edits. However, there's a weird bit here in that in 2011/2012 we often confused Mughal Lohar for -- see Sockpuppet investigations/Sridhar100, a globally locked account (most socks are also globally locked) but now editing as. So, I have to bring it here to figure out what's going on as this edit pattern is common to both masters. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And if it is Mughal Lohar, I hope a sleeper check can be done. There are usually a few socks at a time. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:31, 13 October 2015 (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

 * ✅, but searching for sleepers is rather difficult. None that pop out at me, though. Courcelles (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

01 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Similar naming style like his last sock, similar editorial pattern, similar obsession with Mughal articles. All in line with other Mughal Lohar socks. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC) LouisAragon (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. That's quite some wacky stuff. Thanks for explaining/pointing it out, it will be of further use. ;-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2016 (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

 * There are two cases that are getting mixed up because of similarity in edits and usernames by the accounts. However, technically, the cases are distinct and the technical data consistent within each case.  The first is this case. The second is Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnhoppan dated December 21, 2015, where I made complex findings.  When I refer to groups below, I am referring to the groups in that case. Bear in mind that from a technical perspective, the only accounts confirmed to Group 1 were not confirmed to any other account.
 * The only account ✅ to Mughal Lohar is (Group 4).
 * The following accounts are ✅ to Group 2:
 * I've blocked all the unblocked accounts without tags. I'll let a clerk and the administrators below I pinged decide what tags to use and what to do with the other case. At a minimum, it needs a link to this case. I would recommend creating a new case using the oldest account in Group 2 as the master, but I understand if that isn't done because of behavioral evidence. I'm pinging and  for their input.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Zarahus99 is confirmed to Mughal Lohar, and Zarahus101 is confirmed to Jinnhoppan (here), then why don't we merge those two cases into one? Beside almost identical usernames, Zarahus99 and Zarahus101 also made identical edits ( and ).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The two cases should not be merged. Effectively, there are three masters: Mughal Lohar, Jinnhoppan (Group 1), and the oldest account in Group 2. That's why I suggested creating a third case based on Group 2. I understand that behavioral evidence can override my technical findings, but in this instance I don't think they should be. First, the technical findings are very consistent within each master. Second, it will create some confusion in any CUs run in the future because the accounts won't confirm. Third, although the behavioral evidence may occasionally overlap, I can see distinctions among the masters/socks that defeat the notion that there is only one person involved here. There should, of course, be crosslinks from each case to the other two cases so that editors understand the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the unblocked accounts without tags. I'll let a clerk and the administrators below I pinged decide what tags to use and what to do with the other case. At a minimum, it needs a link to this case. I would recommend creating a new case using the oldest account in Group 2 as the master, but I understand if that isn't done because of behavioral evidence. I'm pinging and  for their input.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Zarahus99 is confirmed to Mughal Lohar, and Zarahus101 is confirmed to Jinnhoppan (here), then why don't we merge those two cases into one? Beside almost identical usernames, Zarahus99 and Zarahus101 also made identical edits ( and ).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The two cases should not be merged. Effectively, there are three masters: Mughal Lohar, Jinnhoppan (Group 1), and the oldest account in Group 2. That's why I suggested creating a third case based on Group 2. I understand that behavioral evidence can override my technical findings, but in this instance I don't think they should be. First, the technical findings are very consistent within each master. Second, it will create some confusion in any CUs run in the future because the accounts won't confirm. Third, although the behavioral evidence may occasionally overlap, I can see distinctions among the masters/socks that defeat the notion that there is only one person involved here. There should, of course, be crosslinks from each case to the other two cases so that editors understand the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the unblocked accounts without tags. I'll let a clerk and the administrators below I pinged decide what tags to use and what to do with the other case. At a minimum, it needs a link to this case. I would recommend creating a new case using the oldest account in Group 2 as the master, but I understand if that isn't done because of behavioral evidence. I'm pinging and  for their input.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Zarahus99 is confirmed to Mughal Lohar, and Zarahus101 is confirmed to Jinnhoppan (here), then why don't we merge those two cases into one? Beside almost identical usernames, Zarahus99 and Zarahus101 also made identical edits ( and ).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The two cases should not be merged. Effectively, there are three masters: Mughal Lohar, Jinnhoppan (Group 1), and the oldest account in Group 2. That's why I suggested creating a third case based on Group 2. I understand that behavioral evidence can override my technical findings, but in this instance I don't think they should be. First, the technical findings are very consistent within each master. Second, it will create some confusion in any CUs run in the future because the accounts won't confirm. Third, although the behavioral evidence may occasionally overlap, I can see distinctions among the masters/socks that defeat the notion that there is only one person involved here. There should, of course, be crosslinks from each case to the other two cases so that editors understand the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The two cases should not be merged. Effectively, there are three masters: Mughal Lohar, Jinnhoppan (Group 1), and the oldest account in Group 2. That's why I suggested creating a third case based on Group 2. I understand that behavioral evidence can override my technical findings, but in this instance I don't think they should be. First, the technical findings are very consistent within each master. Second, it will create some confusion in any CUs run in the future because the accounts won't confirm. Third, although the behavioral evidence may occasionally overlap, I can see distinctions among the masters/socks that defeat the notion that there is only one person involved here. There should, of course, be crosslinks from each case to the other two cases so that editors understand the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your effort in unraveling this miss, . I think it's better to leave the final labeling of these miscreants to your steady hands. Favonian (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but I'd prefer that take care of the clerical work. Vanja, do you understand what it is I want and would you mind doing it? As an aside, I just blocked  without tagging. The account is ✅ to Group 2.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I blocked:
 * as DUCK of Silsilarozoshab7777777777777; didn't have time to look any further at that point (and I'm not generally familiar with this set of sock-drawers). DMacks (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * as DUCK of Silsilarozoshab7777777777777; didn't have time to look any further at that point (and I'm not generally familiar with this set of sock-drawers). DMacks (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I copied the report on those that are confirmed to Group 2 to Sockpuppet investigations/Zarao099884556. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

07 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Gyijnmvh is a brand new account that immediately continued the work of recently blocked socks User:Fenrisjkshklshgl, User:Figirocukjf, User:ElfMasterLLLLLisfihfiiaf and others on Norse religion (see page history), adding images and pure fantasy to the article, with their very first edit being reverting my removal of the material added by the previous socks. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 7 February 2016 (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
✅ to. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

08 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

More of the same on Norse religion. New account with a name that fits Mughal Lohan's naming pattern, reverting to the same version of the text as a number of previous socks. Thomas.W talk 08:31, 8 February 2016 (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 are ✅ to :
 * Blocked, tagged (in a sec), closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged (in a sec), closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged (in a sec), closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged (in a sec), closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged (in a sec), closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

06 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[...]
 * In all the previous checks I've run, Mughal Lohar and Zarao099884556 have always edited from the same IP range. In the CU results below, all the accounts have edited from a new range.
 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other and ❌ to Mughal Lohar and Zarao099884556:
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅ to Mughal Lohar:
 * I've blocked and tagged the Group 2 accounts. I've blocked without tags the Group 1 accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Zarao099884556.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the Group 2 accounts. I've blocked without tags the Group 1 accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Zarao099884556.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the Group 2 accounts. I've blocked without tags the Group 1 accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Zarao099884556.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the Group 2 accounts. I've blocked without tags the Group 1 accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Zarao099884556.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

15 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Continued with the exact same type of edit that previous socks have made on Norse religion (compare what this account added and removed in this edit, to what previous socks have done: #1, #2), as soon as the protection of the article expired. Also fits the naming pattern of previous socks (such as blocked sock Shekh555555555555). Requesting CU to make sure there aren't sleepers, since they seem to use separate accounts for separate articles, to make it harder to track their activities. Thomas.W talk 14:38, 15 February 2016 (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

 * Superbowl555555555555555555 is ✅ to, among others. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

20 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

quack quack. Another Mughal Lohar sock. Same target articles (e.g. ---), same type of nonsensical unsourced WP:OR bogus info thats being added, reinstatement of alot of the same content as priorly CU blocked socks have added. Asking for a CU to see whether there are more of them as it has been some "days" since the last sweep. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC) LouisAragon (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2016 (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

 * is ✅ to a number of the accounts in the archive. Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)