Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poojjan ccresta/Archive

14 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Repeated attempts to create NEWAR (same capitalization), same inability to understand explanations of why it is deleted, same comments about pointy noses in same poor English. User:Uck u did not respond to a request to explain the meaning of their username (i.e. as something other than the obvious profane meaning). —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 07:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, IP 202.70.70.59 made an edit here that was reverted. The very same content was then again blanked here by Joan lama. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 07:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

IP 202.70.70.42 made 3 similar edits here. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 08:09, 14 August 2014 (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

 * Master and suspected sock are both blocked indef, IPs haven't edited for a few days so no action taken there. Closing case. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

24 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another cluster of Nepal socks. Similar to previous sock User:Joan lama, User:Sherpaofsherpas (apparently accidentally) blanks out big chunks of text on pages they edit. Additionally, they tend to start talk postings or edit summaries with "&#91;Hi.&#93; I am somename" (Sherpa, Joan's edit summary, Joan)User:Shresthas tag-team reverted with Sherpa at Maharjan —&#91;  Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 01:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Baoshr incorrectly creates sections on talk pages as level-1 headers (i.e. =Something= ), just like Sherpa. Baoshr was also involved in a tag-team with Sherpa at Shrestha over a content dispute with me. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 03:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that it's needed, but here's a nice piece of new evidence relating Baoshr to Joan lama. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

...and Baoshr slow-mo edit-warring over the same change made last by 202.70.70.59. This IP and 202.70.70.42 have patterns similar to the other users above, as mentioned in the Admirenepal case. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 08:19, 29 August 2014 (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 :
 * There are a number of other accounts with few or no edits on the range which are technically similar but I'm not convinced that they're related, in other words keep an eye out for suspicious accounts in case they start editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the class-C range that we're probably talking about, I previously identified .42 and .59 especially (the latter of which is back in business today) as significant, as though they might actually be static. It might be worth blocking them as well, particularly if you can prevent new account creation (or send it through ACC). —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 10:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't comment on the IP addresses except the comment I've already made and that an IP isn't viable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm talking about publicly-visible non-logged-in-IP editing activity that is consistent with the behavior patterns of the accounts listed above (i.e. Nepal-pushing POV). .59 has been warned repeatedly (and final warned now). Assuming you have no knowledge of any of the specifics of this case, from a purely procedural standpoint, what do I do next? Add another SPI case for the IPs? (I wasn't clear on what you meant by "and that an IP isn't viable" – whether that was to say that blocking specific IPs was not possible, in which case reporting them would be useless). —&#91;  Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 11:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you mean, the reviewing admin and decide that, as you've listed the IPs in the last (archived) case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a number of other accounts with few or no edits on the range which are technically similar but I'm not convinced that they're related, in other words keep an eye out for suspicious accounts in case they start editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the class-C range that we're probably talking about, I previously identified .42 and .59 especially (the latter of which is back in business today) as significant, as though they might actually be static. It might be worth blocking them as well, particularly if you can prevent new account creation (or send it through ACC). —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 10:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't comment on the IP addresses except the comment I've already made and that an IP isn't viable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm talking about publicly-visible non-logged-in-IP editing activity that is consistent with the behavior patterns of the accounts listed above (i.e. Nepal-pushing POV). .59 has been warned repeatedly (and final warned now). Assuming you have no knowledge of any of the specifics of this case, from a purely procedural standpoint, what do I do next? Add another SPI case for the IPs? (I wasn't clear on what you meant by "and that an IP isn't viable" – whether that was to say that blocking specific IPs was not possible, in which case reporting them would be useless). —&#91;  Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 11:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you mean, the reviewing admin and decide that, as you've listed the IPs in the last (archived) case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved casename to oldest account. Indeffing socks with tags and blocking IPs 1 month. Consider looking at the IP range contribs to see if you can locate other edits. Closing.

13 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Recently created account (just before block of most likely IP being used) is similar to previous sock. Second edit pushes one of the favorite issues on one of their popular article's (Shrestha) talk page. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

, in their second edit, attempted to remove a POV tag on one of the cluster's favorite articles, but goofed, removing most of the article as well – a common behavior in the past. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 09:11, 13 September 2014 (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 ✅ to the archive:
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if there were more on the range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you intend to consult with another checkuser to look for more socks or is it OK to close up shop with this case? Mike V  •  Talk  22:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The range is extremely busy with various UAs, XFF and no edit accounts. The accounts I've listed above are all related, there's the possibility that there are more. In this case, best to just close and keep an eye on these articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing. Mike V  •  Talk  20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

18 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obviously phonetically similar username to blocked sock, not to mention re-created same user page, with same photos! Requesting checkuser because previous sweep (by ) should have found this sleeper. Maybe we have a new pattern or IP to block. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 22:06, 18 September 2014 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * as well as & .  Tiptoety  talk 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The account Yuppie138 is caught behind an autoblock related to this case.
 * The ISP that these accounts are editing from is very busy. I do not believe that is related to .  Tiptoety  talk 15:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All involved accounts are blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

26 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New users pushing same Nepal POV in same way (this edit by ShrofShrs and this edit by Maygodblessall has been repeatedly tried by various socks, despite being dealt with in discussion). Same inability to create new talkpage sections properly. Same habit of "accidentally" remove big chunks of articles they edit without explanation. Same poor English.  Username ShrofShrs is similar to previous sock SherpaofSherpas. Requesting CU to see if we have a new IP to block, as it previously seemed it might be restricted to just the two that were blocked at [|here]. has been idle a long time with only two previous edits, but then made this ridiculous edit related to this cluster. Maybe compromised? —&#91;  Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 17:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (edited) —&#91;  Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 17:42, 26 September 2014 (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 all highly, bordering on confirmed:


 * . Tiptoety  talk 17:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the listed accounts. I'm assuming that a check was not performed on Robinbshrestha, as the behavioral evidence doesn't seem strong enough. (Pinging Tiptoety just to confirm.) I'd recommend keeping an eye on the account and see how things progress. Mike V  •  Talk  20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for not making that more clear. I'm to check  at this time pending more evidence. Additionally, they did not show up in the sweep performed on the IP range of the first group.  Tiptoety  talk 20:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My thought on that one is that it was odd for it to come to life again after 2 years and turn up in the middle of this to do something the other socks had done. Probably either a compromised or "borrowed" account. I'll warn the edit and keep an eye out. Thanks. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification! Mike V  •  Talk  20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

31 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Looks likely to be yet another sock of Admirenepal. Editing similar articles, such as Madhesi people, Madhesh and Tharu people, and making similar changes therein.

They have recently been editing as an anon (see discussion here) but I still think this is the same person. Sitush (talk) 11:37, 31 March 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 inclined to think this is more likely to be Sockpuppet investigations/Poojjan ccresta (one of the other other possible masters operating on the same range) based on behaviour such as edit summaries and edits outside of ethnicity/language. Due to the crossover in topics it's not an exact science, so I've attributed the edits to the Poojjan sockfarm based on probability.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved the case per Ponyo's comments. Mike V • Talk 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

21 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

same POV edits, have a similar agenda. shiv am (t) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)



more POV edits, including a falsely-dated merge template added after only 21 edits total. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:56, 23 April 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

 * Please, provide WP:diffs of edits made by and diffs of edits made by Poojjan ccresta or previous socks, to illustrate their similarities.   Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , and, for the record,, are all ✅ socks and have been blocked and tagged. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  15:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

26 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

 Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:15, 26 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
This is just for reference. Never gonna See me was confirmed by as a sock of Poojjan ccresta (see: ).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)