Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive

12 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)
 * (many more in this range)


 * Later additions




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Common interests - Articles on Islam in India, Islam in Tamil Nadu, Tamil Muslims, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham etc

1) User:O0I1E3S5 is IP 117.193.37.73 (IP started argument that gbooks shouldnt be used as sources ) and continued to do after logging in as O0I1E3S5) He created this account for the purpose of edit war. At the end of the day logged out, copied all the discussion in his talk page to mine as the IP)

2) User:Qarub is IP 117.193.37.73 - IP starts edit war in Rajkiran that birthname is to be used, couple of days later Qarub comes along and does the same. IP removes description of the image of tomb of Mahmud of Ghazni from Somnath article.  Few days later Qarub removes the same image file from Mahmud of Ghazni article and Ghazni article

3) User:Katheeja is User:Qarub - Katheeja uploads a file on and Qarub uses barely 2 hours later. Katheeja has not used the file anywhere

4) User:Prakashbabu77 is User:Katheeja Katheeja uploads a file on  and Prakashbabu77 uses it 4 minutes later . This account was created to edit Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham article. Katheeja has not used the file anywhere

5) User:Shinas is User:Katheeja. Shinas uploads a file on  and Katheeja adds it to an article 18 minutes later. Shinas has not used the file in any article (Both accounts are old and have become active in November 20010 after long periods of inactivity). They also both uploaded the same image with the same description twice within 30 min of

6) User:Shinas edits logged out from 117.193.32.0/19 range as shown by this diff (IP blanks the criticism section and Shinas starts editing the article four minutes later)

7) All the above users have the habit of using a single "fx" as edit summary without explanation for large content changes

8) Similarity in User pages. The new accounts created in the past week (Qarub, Prakashbabu77 and O0I1E3S5) create their userpages and talkpages as their first edits to make them blue links.

There is a sockmaster operating from the IP range 117.193.32.0/19. The IP range is from Chennai and belongs to the state isp BSNL which provides dynamic IP's contributions from both IP ranges are overwhelmingly about the same subjects (Islam in India, Islam in Tamil Nadu). Contributions begin in the middle of Nov 2010. I haven't been able to identify the original sockmaster for sure. But these five accounts are sure his sockpuppets. As this IP range is usually quiet, there is a high chance that most of the new accounts created from it since Nov 20 are sockpuppets of this master. Sodabottle (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Note, I've added the two users in the later additions section. Given the no of accounts created in such a short time, I also believe there are a few others that haven't been identified yet and a CU would be beneficial. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the CU findings, master account should change to who has a block log for sockpuppetry. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Alright, so I've blocked and tagged the socks per WP:DUCK. I've also blocked the master for two weeks for puppeting. As to the IP range: the /19 is pretty wide and would cause a decent amount of collateral damage, so I'm hesitant to block there. And the other IPs haven't edited in at least five days. It may be better to protect some of the articles that have been frequented by this person as a deterrent. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Following SpacemanSpiff's comment above, I've added a CU to this to try to dig out other editors. I'm also not entirely convinced that all of these are socks, in that it could also be pretty widespread meatpuppetry. Either way, CU will help sort all this out. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given 24 hours to Trialbailiff for 3rr vio following an AN/3 report . His opponent, who also violated 3rr, was blocked too. If Trialbailiff turns out to be a sock then Vivvt should probably be has been unblocked owing to these discoveries. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per a request on my talk, I've looked into this. The following are ✅ as being the same:
 * TN X Man 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then. All the confirmed socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then. All the confirmed socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then. All the confirmed socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then. All the confirmed socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then. All the confirmed socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then. All the confirmed socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then. All the confirmed socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

18 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

I have identified a few more socks of Anwar Saadat/Shinas. He is currently targeting Malaysian/Indonesian articles relating to hinduism (or with any other indian connection). He has been removing wikilinks to India/Hinduism and categories relating to hinduism with deceptive edit summaries like "cleanup" and removing "excessive links". All four accounts were created within ten days. The last time i did it he hounded me across wikis using open proxies and i had to go ask for help in meta to get a global block. He generally edits from the IP range - 117.193.32.0/19, which belongs to the ISP BSNL, which assigns dynamic IPs.

Qaru, sillysickn and muziah (his socks) used to do this: - ,,, ,. Current socks are also doing the same thing: 1) Burstminor 2) ChloeJH91 3) Plotruly 4) An IP from his known range

You can see the IP starts work on 18 Dec 9.46, plotruly picks up at 9.51, ChloeJH91 continues from 9.54 to 10.12, then BurstMinor continues from 10.26 to 10.35. All four edit Indonesian/Malaysian articles removing categories and wikilinks with edit summaries like "cleanup" and "rm excessive links"

Also Sillysickn and ChloeJH91 both remove section headings.

Also if there is a way to do sleeper account checks, please do that too. I again recommend a block for the range 117.193.32.0/19. over the years this range is fairly low traffic and any collateral would be limited when compared to the damage done by this sockmaster. Sodabottle (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note On the rangeblock, short-term may be preferred as the master has used different ranges (on another continent) in the past. CU could probably help in that, specifically the Anwar saadat account as that was the primary/main. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Likely; CU needed to find sleepers and also see if we can do a rangeblock here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are the same:
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN X Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, although the balance of sock edits to good ones is getting to the point where we could reconsider if it keeps up. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

29 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Removes wikilinks to India and Hindu and removes mentions of the word Hindu.,, ,, (His whole contribution history is like this). Previous Anwar Saadat/Shinas socks used to do the same thing -, ,. Also this account was created on Dec 19 8.36, two hours after the previous set of socks were banned. From past history, he must have created a lot of other socks as well. Request sleeper account check as well. He uses the dynamic ip range - 117.193.32.0/19, Sodabottle (talk) 18:00, 29 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

 * Account was created two hours after the last case was closed. CU requested for sleeper check, and also to see if we can get a rangeblock here, as it's still a problem. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

✅ –MuZemike 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

18 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Account was created 3 hours after the last SPI block. His first edit was to put a notice at Wikiproject islam noticeboard asking somebody to revert Islam in India article to his peferred version he edited as User:Katheeja. After that he has been edit warring at various "Demographics of Country" articles claiming there are more arabs/muslims (a standard practise of his). The issue is currently at ANI - Ani. Has also started edit wars in couple of other articles - consistent with past behaviour.

I request a sleeper check as well, as past behaviour indicates he creates mutliple socks. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Sodabottle (talk) 17:13, 18 January 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
✅. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

20 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Shinas/Anwar Saadat was indef blocked in December 2010 for socking. He tried to circumvent it using openproxies for a while but they were blocked quickly. Since then he has obtained a new internet connection. It is a mobile dialup connection which uses a wide range of IPs in two IP ranges. (The ISP is Tata Photon / Tata teleservices. The IP ranges 59.161 and 14.96 are assigned to the tata photon mobile product and ips are allocated randomly when users connect).

Evidence 1: He used to edit from the 117.193.40.17/19 range (as proved in previous SPIs). He was editing Fathima Beevi article in December 2010 from this range. After the block he switched to a openproxy to do the same edits. The openproxies were then blocked. On 17 may 2011 he appeared again as an ip from 117.193 range appeared again to redo the same edit. When reverted he switched to his mobile connection and is redoing the same. He himself admits 59.91 and 14.96 are the same here

Evidence 2: The List of conglomerates in Tamil Nadu was created by Anwar.Saadat and he has been updating it over the years. The revision history reveals updates from 14.96 and 59.161 ips since april 30. It is clear he has come back to update his articles.

Evidence 3: He has the habit of removing the terms hindu, hindus or internal links to Hindu names (evidence in 18 december spi). The 14.96 IP did the same thing today.

Evidence 4: Today a 117.93.32.* ip edited the Tamil Muslim article (a favourite of Anwar socks) adding the same information, Shinas/Anwar socks used to add prior to his block with the same sources. This is also the same ip range he has used before

It is clear this prolific sockmaster has comeback and obtained a internet connection (apart from his original connection) that is too wide to range block. Per his past behaviour, i believe he would have created a lot of sleeper accounts as well. I request a sleeper check to identify the accounts and a page protection for Fathima Beevi and Tamil Muslim so that i can clean up his pov pushing and false representation of sources. Sodabottle (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

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've protected Fathima Beevi. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's really all that much else that can be done. No effective rangeblocking can be done since it jumps around so much. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

04 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

1) First edit was to Tamil calendar, removing "hindu", and other terms relating to hindu and internal links to "hindu. with a deceptive edit summary "remove excessive linkspam". In the same edit removed categories "hindu calendar" and "tamil culture". This is the same behaviour (removing "Tamil" and "Hindu" with deceptive edit summaries) of previous shinas/anwar saadat socks. see dec 18, dec 29 spis. This edit alone is pretty much DUCKish (a few illustrative diffs from previous socks, )

2) Same other areas of interest as shinas (economic data for india and china)

3)The last SPI was on 20 May. After that for a few days he tried to edit through ips in his usual 117.193.32.0/19 range and some of them were repeatedly blocked on may 25. . He created this id immediately after on 28 may. Sodabottle (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Request a sleeper check as well, as usually creates socks in multiple lots.

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've blocked and tagged the account per WP:DUCK. Per the opener's request I'm adding a checkuser to find other socks operating on the same IP as this one. Note that we can't draw a connection to the master, though, as all of their accounts are stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ as Shinas (using old stored information) along with . Dominic·t 02:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh.. hm, alright. Blocked and tagged both. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

06 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

1) WP:DUCK. Account created on 14.16 June 5 - a few hours after the previous socks were blocked. His usual practice is to immediately target articles contributed to by the SPI filer. Similarly this account is disrupting one of the articles expanded by me with deceptive edit summaries. Instances of previous retaliatory behaviour can be found.

2)WP:DUCK again. His first edits were to create his user and talk pages to blue links., consistent behaviour with previous shinas socks (see 12 december 2010 spi and the latest sock)

Note to CU: He has previously used open proxies and anonymising software to do this retaliatory attacks. Sodabottle (talk) 03:54, 6 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

 * Blocked and tagged. I'm not really sure we need a CU here; relist when more things happen and we'll run it then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked user is requesting that the block be reviewed. Time to CU? Marcus   Qwertyus   06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats his MO - he has proclaimed his innocence repeatedly before - . CU would be a waste of time--Sodabottle (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did one anyway, and found and blocked another sock, User:Dorr e Dorran. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Sodabottle (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

08 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

He's been removing the same information on Fathima Beevi. See the edit history. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 01:58, 8 September 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

 * IP blocked 1 month. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)