Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pethmakhama/Archive

27 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

SPAs involved in disruptive editing of Pethmakhama, Budgam. The edits are essentially identical - adding the same bits of text, reverting other users' edits, and removing maintenance templates. The registered account and the IPs are connected e.g. by these edits: and, and these edit summaries:  and. The IPs are completely unresponsive to the many warnings placed on their various talk pages, and they hop from one IP to another within the same range rather rapidly, apparently in order to escape further warnings or sanctions. bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Less than ten minutes after the article was protected Pethmakama was back out from their hiding place, continuing the "work" of the IPs by repeatedly (#1, #2) removing the maintenance templates, making the connection between the master and the socks obvious. Thomas.W talk 14:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IPs and the master have been inactive for the last 10 days, so short-term blocking would be useless. I left a warning at user's talk page. If he continues this practice in the future, he has to be blocked. Closing now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are two more IPs that are active:
 * Since those IPs display the same behaviour as those mentioned earlier (|example), I'm asking 178.152.19.35 (the most recently active IP) to be blocked for three days. The possibility of a rangenblock should be explored.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since those IPs display the same behaviour as those mentioned earlier (|example), I'm asking 178.152.19.35 (the most recently active IP) to be blocked for three days. The possibility of a rangenblock should be explored.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since those IPs display the same behaviour as those mentioned earlier (|example), I'm asking 178.152.19.35 (the most recently active IP) to be blocked for three days. The possibility of a rangenblock should be explored.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * - Please check 178.152.16.0/20 for collateral/potential rangeblock. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)