Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarao099884556/Archive

19 December 2015

 * 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

 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅:
 * Group 3 – is  to Group 2.
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts in Groups 1 and 2. I've tagged the accounts in Group 1. I'll leave the rest of the tagging decisions to a clerk and .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnhoppan/Archive.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – is  to Group 2.
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts in Groups 1 and 2. I've tagged the accounts in Group 1. I'll leave the rest of the tagging decisions to a clerk and .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnhoppan/Archive.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

01 January 2016

 * 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

 * 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)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

23 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same insertion of pov and OR relating to Mughal articles such as Ali Quli Khan. Similar naming style to the most recently CU'd sock of the master.

NB: could the master actually be. The obsession with Mughal stuff and of inserting invalid images etc is familiar. Eg: File:Alam of the Mughal Empire.svg is pure original research and has been reinstated several times by Mughal Lohar and now by this suspected sock. Sitush (talk) 11:14, 23 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
✅, blocked, and tagged. Read the January 1, 2016, section of the archives of this case if you want to understand why there are two masters, despite the behavioral similarities. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

06 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same naming style, same type of nonsensical pov material thats being added, mostly the same articles.------. Seems like another ducky to me. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just added another account. Though he has made few edits, with his very first edit, he literally reinstated the exact same type of commentary/edit/content that previously CU blocked accounts have made. Furthermore, the account was made not even a day after sock account Hulegudarrrrrrrrr was made.- - LouisAragon (talk) 04:28, 6 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

 * 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)
 * Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:13, 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)
 * Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:13, 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)
 * Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:13, 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)
 * Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

, I wasn't really sure which one of these closely related masters (Jinnhoppan, Mughal Lohar etc) I had to pick, hence I just picked this one. Same old story again as you probably remember it; unsourced edits, WP:OR on many occassions, never using an edit summary, and ofc targeting an article which has been hit by the master multiple times in the past, at the very same sections.. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , just added three more. "Indicc" has the very same editorial conduct as "Orange robe inin", and was created just a few hours ago. Immediately went to the Qizilbash page to reinstate the same material that Orange robe inin had added. "Cavallly66666" and "Horsenunnn55555" (notice the names btw) are both stale most likely, but they both have a username fully akin to the earlier blocked socks (such as Silsal6666666666666666, and they both literally reinstated information that was initially added by "Silsal6666666666666". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , added new account, once again. There's clearly some coordinated disruptive editing going on between all these "accounts", and especially, regarding the newer ones, on the Qizilbash article. "Tring555" was created, literally, a few hours ago, and the very first thing he did was to reinstate a part of the edits, of course unsourced, made by the other accounts linked here. It don't believe that this all can be anything else than sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. -

For the record; how come this was kept open for more than two months? How come not a single comment was made on the extensive editorial evidence? Quite ridiculous TBH. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:25, 22 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

 * Orange robe inin is to Jinnhoppan.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indicc and Orange robe inin are between and just  to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tring555 is ❌ to Indicc and Orange robe inin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action on these CU results - not enough evidence to issue a sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Editing some of the most favorite target articles of Zarao099884556 / Mughal Lohar / Jinnhoppan within a few minutes of each other.-. Examples of earlier CU blocked socks that targeted the same articles, making similar hoax/bogus edits in rapid succession; "Hulegudarrrrrrrrr", "Compass666666", "Papioslhsgshgsl". - LouisAragon (talk) 01:36, 2 October 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

 * - Please compare these accounts to each other and check for sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 00:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The master is.
 * The two accounts listed are to each other, and I don't see obvious sleepers. Katietalk 11:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both account as suspected socks. I'd say that it's to Zarao099884556 based on data in the log. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)