Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputbhatti/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rajputbhatti

Rajputbhatti (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
16 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Continued edit war after master was blocked, and !voted in support of master's non-transcluded RfA Legoktm (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Master extended to 1 week, sock indef, closing. Rschen7754 05:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


16 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

A new user account that immediately started to revert edits on the same articles that Rajputbhatti and Gujar8 were blocked for edit warring on, to the versions preferred by those two (diffs: [1],[2],[3]). Thomas.W talk to me 13:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Estonian1 has been indef blocked by Daniel Case, but IMHO Rajputbhatti deserves a longer block than a week now since he clearly shows that he's not going to change his ways. Thomas.W talk to me 15:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Already blocked. --Rschen7754 15:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair point, increased to 1 month. --Rschen7754 15:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Created after previous master and socks were blocked. Similar articles. Focusses on Islam, Russians, Islam in Estonia (the name of one of the socks too). And has asked me how to contribute to Indonesia the topic of previous sock and master edits. Merbabu (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I suggest a search for sleepers because my instinct tells me that Rajputbhatti might have created a few spare accounts, reserved for future use. Thomas.W talk to me 14:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per report below. --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The original sock master is: User:Rajputbhatti who is blocked for 1 month. Proven socks are User:Gujar8 and User:Estonian1 blocked in recent days. see sock case archive. All accounts created and/or blocked within the last few days. Julia patrick account created after the other two socks were block.

  • Julia patrick edits on Estonian-related topics particularly ethnicity and islam topics [4] [5] and User:Estonian] is a proven sock - ie, "Estonia".
  • Julia patrick makes Islam-related edit to Russians [6] as did Rajputbhatti yesterday.[7]
  • User:Rajputbhatti identifies as a Muslim. Julia patrick edits on Islam related articles (diffs above).
  • Similar style on talk pages. Says they are new, asks for advice, similar use of syntax and language
  • Julia patrick: Asked me for advice yesterday [11] on editing in Indonesia and the previous two accounts have tried to edit war their identical contribution into the article in the last few days. See Indonesia history: [12]

All 4 accounts have used "hy" to start talk page comments:

Tells users they "admire" someone's work:

. Merbabu (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added brand new account Thomas Ivan (talk · contribs). Edits the same articles (Islam in Estonia, Religion in Nigeria) as the other suspected socks, including removing material that both Rajputbhatti and Estonian1 have tried to remove. The talk page says "helo" though, not "hy"... Thomas.W talk to me 11:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • ha ha - yeah, I had to give away the "hy" for the check user endorsement - they did specifically request diffs. he won't do that again. However, Thomas Ivan made identical edits on Indonesia (insertion of the same photos into the article, and a comment about Muslim denominations). ie, Thomas Ivan, Rajputbhatti. --Merbabu (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 more...

I've added User:Pablo iscobar and User:Jewishnights. Pablo appears after Julia patrick (one of the alleged socks above) was blocked for two days for disruption. Pablo claims to be a Jew from Spain who is here to work against "Muslim vandals" - sockmaster Rajputbhatti is apparently a Muslim from India who edited around Islam and Muslim topics. I'm guessing he thinks by pretending to be a Jew we will be deceived into not thinking he is actually the Muslim Rajputbhatti - all the socks have a shown a tendancy in edit summaries and talk pages to think we are all easily fulled and deceived.

  • User:Pablo iscboar seems quite proficient and went straight for the topics of interest: Estonian Tartars, Religion in Nigeria, Indonesia, and chased up and tried to befriend Rajputbhatti's nemesis to fight against sockpuppets *rolls eyes*.
  • yet here, Pablo is saying he is cleaning up after the known socks, but actually he is deceiving us and actually reinstates the sock edits. pablo's edit and previous sock diff. Much (most?) is the same info but it's not a clean rollback, hence I'm alleging intended deception.
  • User:Pablo iscobar uses a very similar User page layout to USer:Rajputbhatti .
  • User:Jewishnights was created very soon after Pablo iscobar to award him a barnstar for his work improving Jewish related articles. Pablo was editing at the same time. No other edits from Jewishnights.

Please let me know if you need more info. There is more evidence, but I want to keep some up my sleeve so we can catch the next lot of socks. Happy to send off wiki if need be. many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: If User:Pablo iscobar is a Spanish Jew? So why he reverted all edits which less adventage comments and promoted biased information only for Islam/Muslim (as he did in these articles which also involved by blocked Indian/pro-Pakistani Muslim User:Rajputbhatti [20], [21]). And he even edited in Islamic and Pakistani related articles and I am quite surprise about it, especially with a Spanish Jew like User:Pablo iscobar (evidences [22], [23]). He also left a very dirty message in my Talk Page too [24].Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Julia patrick (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (definitely a sockpuppet account of Rajputbhatti) starts to creating new article of List of Hindu Extremist Organizations and added external links in some major Hindu-related articles, such as: Religion in India, Hindu nationalism, Hinduism in India, Hindu politics, Hindutva. And he also deleted some disadventage opinions toward Islam and Muslim crimes against other religions (Persecution of Muslims). And under his former blocked accounts of Estonian1, Gujar8, and Rajputbhatti; he mostly created new articles of Muslims in Russian republics, and Estonians, with biased Muslim opinions against Christianity (in Nigeria, Religion in Nigeria, Albania, Islam in Albania) or Hinduism. This user is a really dangerous and he needs to be eliminated. Thank youAngelo De La Paz (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angelo, with reference to your last sentence about him/her being dangerous and the need to eliminate them as an editor, remember this page is being used to determine whether Rajpitbhatti is using alternate accounts to evade a 1 month block. It doesn't have another purpose. Apart from the sockpuppet issue, this page should not concern itself about whether Rajputbhatti is a benefit or not to wikipedia. It's just about getting a check user. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another evidences to pointed he is a religious bias, promotes for Hindu terrorism and hides Islamic terrorism [25][26]. This user is really pissed me off.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Angelo, your concerns over the editor's bias may well be valid, however, per my previous comment to you, this particular page is to determine whether Rajputbhatti is using sockpuppets. There are other pages to discuss any problems that editors have within wikipedia policy and norms - the two diffs you provide are about claims of bias, not evidence for sockpuppetry. Let's keep this page focussed on evidence for sockpuppeytry. If it is established that sockpuppetry is occuring, then those edits can be removed immediately as they were done by a proven blocked editor. Although, I am curious as to whether it normally takes this long for a checkuser to be carried out. --Merbabu (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is a war going at me.I don't know rajpotbhati.It can be just a co-incidence.I have recently checked the the contribution page of rajpot.please look at differences. he is indian. I am of partial Estonian and tatar heritage residing in Russia. he contributes to Nigeria,albania and Indonesia topics. I contribute to Estonia and Russia topics. particularly about Islam(religion of my tatar mother) he doesnot seem to have anger towads hindus. I am a critic of Hinduism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia patrick (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Endorse per diffs given; seems a bit DUCKy to me, but a sleeper check might be helpful. --Rschen7754 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Appeared at my talk page (here) asking me to make edits at Indonesia to "avoid an edit war" despite being a new user and is very impatient to have sectiomns changed despite having references refused to make the changes themselves. Shows same behaviours and use of similar userboxes types. See also talk page follow-up.

Edit style re: Islam is consistent. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Flat Out let's discuss it 07:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I'm very familiar with these socks, and the latest, Americanluck, is clear - he follows the same style as all the others. I'd rather not say on wikipedia lest the sock change their ways, however, the clerk or other users/admins are welcome to email to discuss this evidence. But it's clear as day to me. --Merbabu (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, I was not really expecting these comments from you. you mentioned me as a sock of user Rajput, I have viewed comment and it made me pretty frustrated.you said that I am new.Who told you that?whould you expect a new user creating a bunch of articles in no time.I have been editing Wikipedia anonymously. secondly, I asked you to edit article Indonesia because I a fully aware of its article history, Every new your who changes the demographic section of the article is associated with socks of rajpitbhati. so I nominated you(established user) to make these edits.Just tell me, do I was asking you make wrong edits. Instead of citing actual information you wasted your time mentioning me as sock(It realy hurt me).third you said that I make edits on moslim related page, my dear fellow please check my contributions page, I am pretty much interested in nephrology and also make Christian related edits. and another thing I want to remember you is that, I completely know that you are deleting page created by me only to hurt me.why are you asking now that it is duplicated, why you not applied for speedy deletion just after I created page.you were the first visitor on my page. The only thing I learned after joining Wikipedia is that it consist of a bunch of users who only know to take revenge and hurt other users.(haaah)Americanluck (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Closing, will handle above. --Rschen7754 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


25 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The user's first edit (diff: [27]) was a direct continuation of the edit warring User:Rajputbhatti and his multiple socks have been carrying out on Religion in Nigeria. Thomas.W talk to me 09:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

203.124.30.5 picked up editing at same articles as known sock Americanluck and in same style. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 and others. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:Localtiger. See the following diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, admits being a sock here, 6. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
24 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Confirmed socks per [29], filing for the record. Rschen7754 20:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
30 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


started editing on 22 Sept 14:06 - pages edited: Growth of religion, Tanzania, Natural philosophy, Albanians, Massai people, Religion in Guinea-Bissau ‎ , Sri Lanka, Business decision mapping , Religion in Tanzania, Hypertriatum (created). The majority of edits are to religious articles of religion sections of articles.

Some edits, such as this one have been reverted as POV, including[30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

Requested undeletion of Minto pyramid principle [35]. The page was created by Americanluck, one of the blocked socks and is now deleted again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


29 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Their first edit was to request the restoration of an article created by a Rajputbhatti sock, and subsequent edits have been to Saffron terror and its redirect Hindu terrorism, which tallies with the kind of subject area Rajputbhatti's socks concern themselves with. bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

@Bonadea: did you mean to post this request here? Materialscientist (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: As best I can tell, the sockmaster here is Rajputbhatti (not Rajpubhatti, an account which doesn't exist). I'm correcting the misspelling and renaming this SPI page accordingly. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is already an active SPI for Rajputbhatti. Taking a closer look to try to straighten things out. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed NativeForeigner Talk 06:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Only 1 day old user, and already got 4 similar page edits. These should be looked as well, [36] these users were ultimately Rajputbhatti, and the Blolay's upload was re-inserted by Ora7, can be seen at page Hinduism's recent history. Same person made changes to Yoga as well, where he had massive edit war before, but with other accounts. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]
  • I have reverted edits by Ora7, the subject of this SPI, who tried to change the target of it to a different user account. I have also given Ora7 an only warning for vandalism for it. Thomas.W talk to me 11:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, before any user checks me i admit that i am rajputbhatti. but please let me explain why i have been making so much socks? my first sock was gujar. I was foolish enough to create it because i was blocked for tow days? I have now realized that i had waited for 2 days then nothing like this would have happened. with my these socks i became so notorious on wiki. my last sock was blolay. after its block, i almost had given up because it was just waste of time for wiki and me. i have not made any socks for more 1month. but at last i made another sock because i can't resist editing wiki. plz check contribs of ora. they are all sourced and neutral except hinduism(i watched on a tvchannel that hindu worship cows)but now i am sorry. the only request from is that plz give me one last chance so that i can prove that i am a true lover of wiki.Ora7 (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • for God's sake.plz just 1 chance. if i make any bad edits then block me at once.Ora7 (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • i know that rules are rules but i have been breaking them for a long time. plz stop me doing this and give me one last chance.Ora7 (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

information Administrator note Ora7 indef-blocked and tagged, but, in view of this editor's extensive history of sockpuppetry, a CU for possible sleepers would be welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed - for sleeper chekc. Rschen7754 09:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sleepers, no good rangeblocks to add. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
02 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Retreived/Recovered same edit that was made by RajputBhatti on Hinduism in Russia, [37], known for adding Fringe on Hinduism, just did it once again too. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

17 July 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Recently, I reported Balolay on WP:ANI, where he gave his replies. But during this, Naranirma came and posted a comment. Suddenly removed the comment. After some time, Balolay posted the same comment. See diffs, [38] [39] [40]. See edit history of them [41] [42]. Empire AS Talk! 04:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Here are edits that are very similar between Epipagni and Balolay/Naranirma. Both seem to go around putting the same image up on Abolitionism: Epipagni and Balolay. Both like putting up the exact same Saladin quote: Epipagni and Naranirma (also both edit summaries say "quote + source"). And epipagni has a short editing history, yet overlapping edits with Balolay on Rape in Islamic law and overlapping edits with Naranirma on Kaaba.VR talk 17:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

18 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hyponasty is a confirmed sock puppet of Epelerenon. Balolay was indef blocked on July 17, and both these accounts were created on July 18. Epelerenon has only been editing for 3 weeks, but has an overlap of 46 articles with Balolay. In those 46 articles, Epelerenon/Hyponasty often edits the exact same sentence Balolay edited. At Religion in Turkey, Balolay moved a paragraph higher, later Epelernon restored the same paragraph. At Zayn Malik Hyponasty added a source to a sentence that inserted by Balolay. The source added had also been used by Balolay. At Bolivia Balolay edited the link to Indigenous Bolivians, Hypnostaty did too. At God, Balolay edited the footer of the image in the lead and Epelerenon did too. At Religion in Tonga Balolay edited the first sentence and Epelerenon edits the same sentence. At Religion in France Balolay changed the colors of the pie chart and later Epeleronon did too.

On the Islam article, Balolay edit warred to have an image of Muhammad inserted and Epelerenon also edit warred to have an image of Muhammad inserted.  

Given that Balolay and Epelerenon/Hyponasty have a confirmed history of sockpuppetry, I request a checkuser. VR talk 11:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Status changed to CheckUser requested to reflect the reporter's request. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk endorsed - Needs a check for overlap because behaviourally they seem connected. qedk (t 愛 c) 21:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically speaking, it's  Confirmed Salvio 08:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked, closing. qedk (t 愛 c) 10:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

25 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Mingling2 was indef blocked on September 30, 2018 for sockpuppetry, and Balolay was created the very next day (October 1, 2018). When Balolay's last sockpuppet was blocked in 19 August 2020 by QEDK, Mingling2 put in an unblock request less than a week later which was approved by PhilKnight. Mingling2 has only been unblocked for 12 hours and yet has made so many of the same edits as Balolay and sockpuppets of Balolay.

Mingling2 added this content to Criticism of Islam which was previously added by Epelerenon. At Female genital mutilation, Mingling2 added the same content that was added by Balolay (both use the Robert Heffner source). Mingling2 has removed the same sentence in Islam that Hypnostaty tried to water down. Mingling2 voted to change the name of Concubinage in Islam to "Sexual slavery in Islam" - this was also done by Epelerenon. Mingling2 edited the link to Indigenous Bolivians at Bolivia, Balolay also edited the link and Hypnostaty did too. Mingling2 changed the figures in the pie chart at Religion in India as Balolay had done in the past. VR talk 15:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  In progress - Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mingling2 is  Confirmed to all of the accounts listed above except RandiGashti, which is  Stale.  Blocked but awaiting tags. Note that the accounts listed above where previously blocked as sockpuppets following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balolay.  Clerk assistance requested: Please merge the archive of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balolay into this one, and it would be a good idea to retag all the accounts here with Mingling2 as the master. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: the other case has been moved into this page. The accounts have all been retagged as requested. Master is WP:3X banned as three separate CU confirmations have been done per archives and in this report for this sockmaster. Closing. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06 September 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Mingling2 was indef blocked on Aug 25 and AnglicanNights was created August 26. AnglicanNights's first edit was to change the name "Concubinage in Islam" to "Sexual slavery in Islam", which was advocated for by User:Epelerenon (Mingling2's sockpuppet). AnglicanNights also made an edit to Islamic views on slavery which was the same an edit made by User:Naranirma (another Mingling2 sock). AnglicanNights has only been editing a shortwhile but has an overlap of 21 articles with Epelerenon (editor interaction util).

Episcopa was created August 31 and has few edits, but one of them is to vote for the name "Sexual slavery in Islam", which again was how Epelerenon voted. The other edits seem to be linking edits on ethnicity related articles[43][44], which is similar to what Epeleronon did[45][46].VR talk 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC) VR talk 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopa also adds adds religious demographics to country Infoboxes, which was frequently done by Epelerenon[47][48][49][50].VR talk 19:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed to Mingling2, however they are  Confirmed to Rajputbhatti who was indeffed by Rschen7754 in this SPI case and that appears to be the master of this case.

Accounts are blocked but this case and its archive need to be moved to the Rajputbhatti case name and tags applied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Compare this edit with this one by previous sock Epelerenon. Both are mobile edits, adding the same information with similar edit summary styles. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

08 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New editor making same edit as previous sock. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aprosty added per this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

01 February 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Icelandt wrote:

Muhammad (himself a slave owner) never expressed any intention of abolishing the practice

This was previously written by known socks of Rajputbhatti: User:AnglicanNights[51] and User:Naranirma[52]. Arinaco wrote:

The Shafi'i version of Islam has received criticism for advocating female genital mutilation...

This was previously written by User:Balolay, another sockpuppet. VR talk 21:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed.
Also found and  Confirmed:
Meganpeltz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06 February 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New editor making same edit as previous sock. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

18 April 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New editor replacing religion data with figures from globalreligiousfutures.org, which is characteristic of past socks (e.g. here). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
    The link insertion is pretty ducky, and the edit summaries are very similar to past socks; there's also a decent amount of overlap too, especially given the low edit count.  Clerk endorsed – this one likes to create sleepers, so a sweep seems like a good idea. Blablubbs|talk 17:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possible. Same geolocation and common user agent, different range. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 June 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Reported for gaming extendedconfirmed at ANI (Special:Permalink/1026496743). See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Epiphyta is  Confirmed to Pyoderma (talk · contribs) from the previous investigation. As well:
    • Trinirma (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Technically indistinguishable. The earlier accounts have focused on edits to religion topics in Africa while this one has focused on religion in Germany, but also note that Epiphyta's original account name was "Bundestag1", and Trinirma has edited Bundesrat of Germany to request a reference for information about the Bundestag. They also refer to the same obscure source that Pyoderma used for their "2020 update"s. On the combination of behavioural and technical evidence, this account is  Confirmed. Likewise, based on the checkuser's comment in the previous case, identical behaviour, and info I can glean from the private logs, Pyoderma is elevated to  Confirmed.
All accounts  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another obvious duck, messing with infoboxes and the usual globalreligiousfutures.org source. Recommend just blocking and denying (hence why my instinct was AIV), because if this has lasted for the last 8 years we're well into LTA/DENY territory RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

22 October 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Goalcy makes the same edit as many of the other socks:[53][54][55].

Goalcy removes Shiite from Kumail Nanjiani[56], as does Naranirma[57]. Goalcy restores text[58] that Balolay added before[59].VR talk 19:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC) VR talk 19:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Most of the old socks are stale now. However, given the reinstatements of near-identical content at multiple articles, the general shared interests, continued reliance of that globalreligiousfutures source, and certain behavioural similarities to previous socks, I am highly confident that this is the same person. Blocked, tagged, closing. Girth Summit (blether) 13:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Literally restoring Goalcy (talk · contribs) edits: [60][61], [62][63]. CMD (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

10 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another obvious duck, messing with infoboxes and the usual globalreligiousfutures.org source. Focused on edits to religion starting with Africa again. Behavioural also has similarities to previous socks with preferred terms. Lots here to fix :-(

Editor Interaction Analyser

Restoring edits by last puppet "Pyoderma (" i.e [64] vs [65]

and [66] vs [67]

and [68] vs [69] Moxy- 07:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Moxy- 07:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The CU data is a fairly close match to notes from previous cases, but they seem to be using a different device from before. Created on the same day as the last sock to be blocked, and very similar editing behaviour, so I'm calling this proven. Don't see any others jumping out at me, but these are some busy ranges. Girth Summit (blether) 08:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The Raceda account shows up only a few days after the last sock, Neplota, was blocked and picks up right where Neplota left off. There is significant overlap with the last sock in terms of topic and articles editted. The new sock has reinstated a few edits of the previous sock that had been reverted - here and here, and here and here. FyzixFighter (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  In progress - Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed to Neplota and Persiqa (previously blocked as socks of this master).  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Theres strong evidence of the editor Groznia being another sockpuppet of editor Rajputbhatti[70] when compared to confirmed sockpuppets previously reported on this case, specially Balolay[71], Epiphyta[72] and Pyoderma[73]. When one compares pages edited a huge overlap is evident, as Groznia edits topics related to population figures, religion (mainly related to Islam) and African culture (Editor Interaction Analysis of Groznia with balolay here[74], with Epiphyta here[75] and with Pyoderma here [76]). Additionally, in recent days I had a conflict with the editor Groznia in the article of Mexico on which Groznia wanted to perform the same edits and use the same sources [77][78][79] that Epiphyta did [80][81][82].

Similarly in the case of Wolfman5678 there's a huge overlap with the aforementioned blocked sockpuppets, as all of then edit articles with topics such as population figures, religion (albeit this time the link is not as strong) and African culture (Editor Interaction Analysis of Wolfman5678 with Balolay here[83] with Epiphyta here[84] and with Pyoderma here[85]). The Interaction Analysis with Groznia is also very strong[86] with instances on which both accounts edit the same articles with difference of hours. Even though when it comes to edits in the article of Mexico Wolfman5678 hasn't edited anything related to ethnic groups (but added a rather unplaussible estimation of total population [87]), its worth noting that on the Spanish Wikipedia he did, and emplyed the same source that Epiphyta and Groznia used[88] (the World Factbook, whose data its been denounced in several instances as unprecisse and/or outdated).

When it comes to Largoplazo, we see a huge overlap with the already blocked sockpuppets, as all of them edit articles with topics such as population figures, religion and African culture (and this time there's more coincidence when it comes to relatively specific and little known articles) (Editor Interaction Analysis of Largoplazo with Balolay here[89] with Epiphyta here[90] and with Pyoderma here[91]). Additionally when compared to Groznia[92] and Wolfman5678[93] an overlap of days, and in some cases hours is evident again, specially with the latter. There seems to exist a dynamic on wich the throaway accounts (on this case Groznia and Wolfman5678) perform delicate edits to an article and then Largoplazo stays ready to revert in the case that other editors attemp to undo them, thus creating the illusion of more people backing up said edits, this is exactly what has been happening in the article of Mexico, on which Largoplazo has defended and restored edits[94] performed by both, Wolfman5678 (which introduced a rather unplaussible total population estimation) and Groznia (who attemps to modify data related to ethnic groups). Largoplazo (aptly named so) has been on Wikipedia for a long time while the currently designated sockmaster, Rajputbhatti, is an account with mere 300 edits[95] (alas a throwaway account) so its likely that Largoplazo is the actual sockmaster to all of them. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • What a bizarre association. Yes, I've been editing here since 2006; patrolling my watchlist most of that time which means that, yes, I have made an extremely large number of reversions; and I have over 36,000 edits on over 15,000 extant pages, which means I'm likely to show multiple intersections with a fairly large number of other accounts.
In addition, it makes no sense. My activities have occurred, as I noted, over a very long period of time, and they're clearly in compliance with the role of someone who patrols Wikipedia for the good. What nefarous anti-Wikipedia purpose would I be trying to fulfill through alternate accounts?
I'm going to suggest that the inclusion of my account may be in retaliation for my disagreeing with the nominator over their justification for a deletion of sourced content that I'd reverted at Mexico a few days ago. See User talk:Largoplazo#The World Factbook is often inaccurate for the discussion.
Finally: I think that I may have created one other account once but it was so long ago that I don't remember it or why I did it, and it would have been for only an edit or two. Largoplazo (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the nominator appears to be so convinced that their case against the reliability of the World Factbook (cited in perhaps thousands of articles) is so overwhelming that any two accounts that cite it or that revert the nominator's removal of data sourced to it must be the same person, because there can't possibly be more than one such person. Largoplazo (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is not that much that we have a disagreement, even though you are regrettably defending an addition by an editor reported on this investigation, (which I've tried to make you understand in your talk page with multiple references and arguments, its inaccurate but you reply with evasives instead) but that theres enough evidence to have a reasonable suspicion: I kow that you have been on Wikipedia for a long time and thus your edits may overlap with the edits of other users across the years, but that does not explain why you, Groznia and Wolfman5678 in multiple instances visit the same articles within hours/days time, you being a patroller doesn't explain it either, as you do not revert them, but defend them, heres is another example from the article for the country of El Salvador: Wolfman5678 changes population figures[96], other editor attemps to revert him[97] and then you come to deffend[98] all in a timespan of hours (and you are defending a poor quality source again, which is the opposite of what a patroller is supposed to do). Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit not even Wolfman5678 to Groznia? I guess I'll have to look for more evidence in the next days (I think I just found another sock: the account Ccoolnice1234[99] whose name is similar to Wolfman5678, edited almost at the same time than Wolfman5678 and modified ethnic groups data with poor quality sources[100] similarly to what Groznia did in the article of Mexico[101]. To have Groznia caught so quickly is a positive sign though, I've participated on SPIs on which accounts who are originally dismissed as being socks get caught weeks later [102] under behavioral similarities. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply RoySmith. I have one more question though, what do you think of the possibility of the account Ccoolnice1234 being a sockpuppet related to Wolfman5678 based on the diffs I provided on my reply above? Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The evidence justified a check on Groznia, who is  Confirmed to Raceda - I have blocked. The other two accounts listed do not look like Rajputbhatti to me, and so I am not prepared to check (but I will note that I didn't see them on the checks I ran on Groznia's IP ranges). Girth Summit (blether) 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the timecards of a few recent accounts, it looks really unlikely that Wolfman or Largoplazo are the same person as Groznia, etc. There's certainly a ton of editing overlap between all these accounts, but that's not enough to convince me of anything. Closing with no further action. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The edit history of the previous sock account of groznia is very similar to reltus as they mainly edit religion pages and reltus has multiple times put the same source’s groznia used back and the account reltus was made after the groznia account was made.

Editing same pages with some even using same sources edits like here [[103]] and here [[104]]

And here all three sockpuppet accounts made edits here[[105]] The previous sock accounts include Groznia and Neplota

Here as well both groznia and reltus edited religion in Canada and religion in ethiopia

Groznia edits [[106]] and reltus [[107]]


And

Groznia [[108]] and Reltus [[109]] Gheghji (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2022[edit]

The edit history between Boldex and socks of this account like Groznia and Neplota is similar as they make lots of edit in religious demographics-based topics such as "Islam in [country]" and "Religion in [country]"

Also, Groznia and Boldex both removed the 2011 census pie chart from "Religion in Croatia"; Groznia: [[110]] and Boldex: [[111]]

They edit the same pages as socks like Raceda and Groznia, such as in Religion in Uganda [[112]]. Both Boldex and Reltus (another sock) edit the European Canadians page [[113]].

Boldex and socks like Groznia, Raceda, and Tiptay all made edits in the Religion in Argentina page [[114]]

Boldex and Neplota both make edits to Islam in Portugal [[115]] and Islam in Cameroon [[116]]

Boldex, like other socks, occasionally reduces Muslim numbers in certain articles without providing a source such as in Islam in Cameroon [[117]]. Socks like Neplota reduce Muslim numbers in Islam in Costa Rica without a source [[118]] and Reltus removes the Muslim percentage in the infobox of European Canadians without a source [[119]]

Boldex reworded Islam from being the second largest religion in England to a "minority religious affiliation" [[120]] This is similar to the behavior of other socks like Reltus who reworded Islam from being the second largest religion in Canada to "a minority religion" [[121]].

On a final note, the edit summary of Boldex and socks like Groznia is similar in that they both use certain abbreviations like "rm" for remove; Boldex using "rm" in the edit summary of this edit in Religion in Argentina [[122]] and Groznia using the same "rm" in the edit summary of this edit in Religion in Croatia [[123]] Renamed user 240sh0loqa&5d (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Lets ping a few people...Girth Summit@ ,, Ivanvector@Moxy- 13:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

25 February 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Confirmed. Pro-forma filing per [124]. MarioGom (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

08 March 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Canistia booted up just two days after the last edit by the Jobas sock Riopex, and, in two short weeks, the two accounts' edits already overlap on over a dozen articles. Also noticeable is the similarly laconic and predominantly lower case edit summaries (when inserted at all), such as just "grammar", e.g.: from Riopex, from Canistia, from Canistia. I previously noted Riopex's disruptive swapping of images on various pages, and when I saw the Canistia account creation date and saw the type of pages being edited, Riopex came immediately to mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

13 March 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account created only 12 hours ago and is restoring and edit warring over an edit [125] of a previous sock [126]. They also use vocabulary of the previous sock like "grammar" as mentioned in the previous report [127] Uzek (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - the behavioural evidence is convincing. Please indef Clonense as a suspected sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

29 April 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar editing pattern to the puppeteer as well as another sock of the puppeteer, Groznia. See this. Onel5969 TT me 09:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

11 May 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar pattern of religion demography disruptions with an anti islam bias. See the overlap on multiple articles compared with two 2 recent blocked accounts [128]

The IP is being used to restore their older reverted edits (compare 12 and the interaction timeline [129] Uzek (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed to previous confirmed socks. I don't see any other accounts; no comment on the IP. Girth Summit (blether) 15:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP blocked by me. Account was blocked by Girth when the CU was done. We're done here. Marking as closed. Courcelles (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar pattern of religion demographics edits, with an emphasis on Islam. Of particular interest, they restored verbatim an edit by a previous sock that had been reverted per WP:BE. I suspect there may be other sleepers given the past use of socks, so requesting a CU. FyzixFighter (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • The IP address 39.33.235.201 has been used in attempts to disrupt this investigation, including attempting to remove the name of the suspected sockpuppet account. This is recorded in the edit filter log. JBW (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed along the three I’m going to add to the template above. Not marking as checked yet, another sweep could be useful. Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Relisted per Courcelles. Spicy (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hunted around a bit more, didn't find anything beyond what Courcelles already found, so just tagging and closing. RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Nutnate shows similar editing pattern of religious articles, in particular "Religion in <country>" articles as previous socks. Also, this edit pushes the usage of the same image as previous socks, for example here. Nutnate also appears to be tag teaming on articles with Entschuldigungo, another potential sock, a pattern also seen with previous socks as an attempt to obfuscate the sock abuse. Entschuldigungo has repeated the same challenged edit here, pushed by multiple previous socks, for example here. Both accounts are relatively recent, after the latest sock blocks. Requesting CU given past history and prolific nature of this LTA. FyzixFighter (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The accounts listed above are  Confirmed to each other. Leaving further checks for another CU more familiar with this case. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - 'another CU more familiar with this case' - I guess that's me... Girth Summit (blether) 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two named accounts are unambiguously  Confirmed to one another, and they are so exceedingly likely to previous confirmed socks of this master that I'm going to go ahead and tag as confirmed. I don't think there are any others, but they're operating out of some busy ranges to i might have missed something - come back if you see any more. Girth Summit (blether) 19:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Showed up just after the last batch got identified and blocked. Lots of topic and article overlap with previous socks, such as Diwali, Religion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Religion in Australia, etc. The strongest evidence imo is here, where this new potential recreates exactly an earlier set of edits by the last two identified socks. CU request just to confirm and identify any sleepers given their propensity and persistence. Thanks. FyzixFighter (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

31 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Gimlian: [130] vs [131][132]; topic area (religion in ...); using 39.43.160.2 to loutsock ([133][134] & [135][136] & [137][138][139]; cf. archive where 39.43.180.54 was reported; relevant range is /19).

Nipocola: [140] vs [141]; topic area; colluding with both 39.43.160.2 and 223.123.95.222 (see below) [142][143][144][145] (or instead of previous four diffs at the time of writing more simply [146])

Bhoomo: [147] vs [148][149]; topic area; colluding with 223.123.90.57 (see below) [150][151]

Pricta: [152] vs [153][154][155]; topic area; [156]

They are now also using 223.123.90.57 to loutsock ([157][158] vs [159]; [160][161][162] vs [163]). The goal of this loutsocking seems to be to clutter up the edit history (the majority of their account edits, also by previous socks, are immediately followed by IP edits from one of the two ranges, the apparent goal being to make rollback impossible); see at the time of writing [164][165][166][167]. Relevant range appears to be /21.

Asking CU not for the IPs, but to check the accounts and to look for other accounts. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • All named accounts are  Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). They are very  Likely related to sockpuppets listed in the archive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: All named accounts are  Blocked and tagged. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same edits [168] [169]. Same for the ip sock [170][171] Kiu99 (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

04 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same edit [172] as previously identified sock [173]. First edits to user and talk page also follow pattern of most recent socks. FyzixFighter (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

10 October 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New user overlaps with previous socks at Jesus and changing images at God with no explanation or discussion. The initial pattern of creating their user page matches the pattern on the most recent socks (compare [174] to [175] and [176]). There is also a pattern of very minor edits (adding spaces, removing spaces) to artificially pass the auto-confirmed user threshold prior to editing articles semiprotected pages like Jesus. CU requested in case there are more sleepers out there. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

19 October 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I also suspect this account to be a sockpuppet:

Very similar edit history as there previous account

and also uses ARDA source on religion sections of articles:

]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180772218 diff] Barbardo (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I came across these independently when they started reverting my reverts of old socks. Both  Confirmed to one another, and to older confirmed socks, both blocked, tagged, closing. Girth Summit (blether) 09:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same subject matter as previous socks - religion data of countries, Jesus, etc. Particularly, recent edit matches this previous edit by an identified sock. Also, the initial pattern of creating their user page matches the pattern on the most recent socks. CU requested in case there are more sleepers. FyzixFighter (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of sock behavior:

  • Edit by this account; edit by previously identified sock
  • Edit by this account; edit by previously identified sock
  • Edit by this account; edit by previously identified sock

There are probably some more, but these seem to be the strongest ones I could find in a few hours. Let me know if this is insufficient or more information should be provided. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The following are  Confirmed
  • Both blocked and soon to be tagged. Closing.-- Ponyobons mots 21:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same editing area (religion related). Re-adds the same unsourced part [177] like the previous sock [178]. More work in the same topic area [179] [180] [181]

Substantial interaction [182] Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

21 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Simply a duck Moxy🍁 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tromneck vs Hordeolum
CheckUser for sleeper accounts as per the norm maybe inorder? @Girth Summit: last blocking adminMoxy🍁 16:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Thank you @Moxy: for doing this and letting me know the original name of the long sockpuppet list. Can any admin take a look at this, please? This user is again reverting and doing changes without any kind of source to back up his changes. Basically in the same topics and same attitude as all of the sockpuppets of Rajpubhatti have done. --LucenseLugo (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: and @Ponyo: please help! I am pinging you as I saw you have dealt with this user in the past and the other mentioned admin seems to have had his last edit on Wikipedia about 3 weeks ago.

Please also check for "sleeper" accounts. This user is obsessed mainly with editing religion pages / infoboxes as all of the previous socks. Worth mentioning not a single change he makes is approved by any source or he just inserts that random unreliable source he did with multiple banned accounts in the past. --LucenseLugo (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Tromneck is  Confirmed. Note that if checkuser is requested then the case status needs to make that clear. In this case the ranges in play are so large and busy that it's hard to effectively pick out sleepers unless they're creating multiple accounts at the same time. -- Ponyobons mots 17:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajputbhatti/Archive&oldid=1219658976"