Mrpontiac1

Mrpontiac1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date September 11 2009, 18:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nsaum75


All are relatively "new" users who seem to have knowledge of wikipedia proceedures. All editing same food articles using the same heavy Indian-POV and removing the same references to Pakistan. Nsaum75 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Some quackpuppetry going on there. The similarities of the edit summaries, as well as the edits, make it obvious that these accounts are operated by one person. Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the new ones blocked and tagged. Thanks for the CU Brandon. NW (Talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones from 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC) have been blocked and tagged too. NW (Talk) 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nsaum75


IP address is making the same edits to the same articles as User:Objectivephysics, one of User:Mrpontiac1's socks.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 25 2009, 20:54 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by 86.158.179.169

Seems like mrpontiac pushing usual pro indian pov attacking mughal empire article with same edit summarys as "not as famous" line 86.158.179.169 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Qazmlp1029 has been reverting a banned user, user Nangparbat on the article Mughal Empire and they show that they indeed are reverting a sock from their edit summary. This was the only abuse complaint from 86.158.179.169 which seems to be Nangparbat based on their MO. Note that Nangparbat has a grudge against socks he has dealt with or editors with "pro-Indian" beliefs. The rest of the articles don't seem to be abuse at glance but contributions. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They also seemed to know that 86.158.179.169 was a sock of Nangparbat. Please see my talk page. User talk:Elockid.

In regards to the usage of "not as famous" on the edit summary. I don't see the this in the edit summary at all. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a chance to apologize now Elockid here is the proof of your banned user sock mates edit summary [1] now you can either own up to aiding blocked socks or you can carry on but I shall tell you this you and your banned users will not have there way anymore elockid you are a incompetent editor who always seems to say "I dont see this" maybe your blind? or maybe your a sock yourself? 86.151.122.53 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your petty threats don't scare me and you clearly don't know when to stop. I can and will revert any edit you do much because you are permanently banned which I have been doing. I am enforcing your ban and you fail to continue to see this because you are wrapped up in your own opinions and POV. Those users have not been banned meaning that they can edit as long as they are not disruptive or breaking WP policies. Your attempts to have your POV remain have clearly not been working. You are not allowed to edit, your editing privileges have been permanently revoked. You have been disproven about socks in the past (you accused someone for being Dewan even though they were not), you didn't know what a block or ban meant in that instance calling me blind but you in fact kept misreading tags. You still don't know the difference between a block and ban after I have explained and showed you the pages. Need I go on because I have plenty more to say? Furthermore that's only one summary. It can be made by anyone. Now if you actually had more, then it would seem more convincing. Plus your evading your block. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat (anon) has made false accusations in the past and in fact block evading multiple and countless times to try and get their POV in. They will go as far as calling out other editors and falsely accuse people of meat puppetry. Please also see User talk:AdjustShift for some the false accusations. They were reverting because of a suspected sock but it fact was another user. It's getting harder to tell whether he is telling the truth or not. It appears that he is basing all his opinions on poor assumptions that have been disproven in the past. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and a bit of a summary from him taken from AdjustShift's talk page:

The entire validity of what they're saying is questionable and any comments made from them are also questionable from what I have experienced with Nangparbat. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note I don't see any behavioral evidence to connect Mrpontiac1 with Qazmlp1029 at this time. I also note that 86.158.179.169 is clearly an IP sock of banned user User:Nangparbat. No action taken at this time. MuZemike 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 11 2009, 19:01 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Nsaum75
[edit]

Users are repeatedly making the same pro-indian POV edits (at the expense of other cultures/countries, usually Pakistan) to the same food articles. Looks highly suspect, differing IPs might be due to WP:MEAT or one user editing from different internet connections. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

I agree with nsaum. We've had some trouble for quite some time with this persistent and egregious sock. Sock has a habit of logging on to multiple IPs within quick succession and making unconstructive edits. IPs listed seem quite suspicious and there could well be many more. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appended Recnalew (talk · contribs) to the above list, as it appears to be another sock of the same user, which popped up within the past hour. Eubulides (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 6 2010, 03:15 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Elockid
[edit]

This seems to be a continuation of a sock war between Mrpontiac and Nangparbat. The only contribution so far is reverting Nangparbat. Please see my talk page on the thread "Nanga Parbat".

As 115.252.32.0/20 is currently active mostly used by what it seems like Mrpontiac editing while not logged in with a sock, it might not be a bad idea to have a rangeblock? Also, this seems to be going to be a long term sock war spanning multiple articles. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
I brought up the return of this sock case to Elockid. Part of the convo with him that may be helpful: Nirvana888 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mrpontiac's articles are too numerous to list but invariably involve India and Pakistan and often other related countries such as China and the United States. Interests include among others Indian/Pakistani food, society, politics, foreign relations, wars, military, cinema-related articles. I appreciate your help and I'm Nsaum does as well. If you take a look at a few of his more notable socks you notice a peculiar MO and frequented articles. Some EDIT: (>50) IPs are listed here [2] particularly 115.252.*.* Hope this helps. Thanks again Nirvana888 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Will look into greater detail. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, he's a very prolific/abusive editor as you can see by the number of IPs I've just tagged just now and I probably only scratched the surface. That is on top of his 67 confirmed sock accounts. I'll have a look at the Nangparbat case and see if I can familiarize myself with it. Probably best to follow a policy of WP:RBI Nirvana888 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mrpontiac again: Qdfgt763547 (talk · contribs). Wouldn't be surprised if there are a cabal of other sock accounts. I think we need another CU. Looks like him and "Nanga Parbat" just can't seem to avoid each other. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably need a CU. Maybe a hard rangeblock might be possible. A CU will need to look into this though. Investigating range based on the tagged socks and SPI. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look's like User:Alison already found the range. 115.252.32.0/20. We should request a block on this range. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a .32.0/20 range would only block a minority of his IP range but is worth it in my books. Maybe someone can calculate a wider range that doesn't impinge on other editors. Anyway, could you file a SPI or alert a CU? Many thanks.Nirvana888 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

YellowMonkey blocked a whole bunch of Mrpontiac socks just yesterday and it wouldn't surprise me if there are multiple sleepers lying around since their socks were blocked yesterday, they're probably starting a new batch. As a sock war seems to be erupting, creating one sock doesn't seem to be what he would probably do due to the mass finding of socks. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
The following accounts are  Confirmed as being socks of Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs);
I'm recommending you guys go with that /20 rangeblock AO/ACB as he's all over the IP range, editing anonymously - Alison ❤ 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Report date February 12 2010, 00:57 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Nirvana888
[edit]

Mrpontiac1 is a serial sockmaster with 70 confirmed sock accounts and over 135 IPs used to vandalize articles repeatedly. I am very familiar with this sock and his MO having reported many cases of sock abuse. Tonsitem is a recent creation with a remarkably similar MO as Mrpontaic1 in his editing interests, behavior and comments. In the past, he has created dozens of sleeper accounts at a time so I think it might be worth it to have a CU done. As aforementioned, he typically will log on to many different IPs very rapidly to vandalize and create new accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

I actually had this on my agenda but somehow forgot. Anyways this looks to be MrPontiac. Almost all the edits deal with India which is the main subject Mrpontiac edits.

If this is a sock, it is likely that he/she created more per previous investigations. Also, their main IP is still rangeblocked, they might have moved to a new IP range. CU seems appropriate here. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nirvana888 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed To run a check for sleepers. Mrpontiac1's account is likely to be stale by now, but his most recently confirmed socks are RavaDosa (talk · contribs) Qdfgt763547 (talk · contribs) and Silvervilver (talk · contribs), so it may be worth running Tonsitem (talk · contribs) against them. Also bear in mind that if Tonsitem is using a new IP the case won't necessarily come up as confirmed for Mrpontiac1, but we should still be able to catch some sleepers and find an IP range. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Tonsitem , Magicalpoem, and Naotpu52. I have blocked the new IP range he used to create the accounts. Dominic·t 10:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've tagged the accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 23 2010, 23:04 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Elockid
[edit]

Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.

To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note 115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. Elockid (Talk) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Report date April 23 2010, 23:04 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Elockid
[edit]

Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.

To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note 115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. Elockid (Talk) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
17 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Fetish for regularly adding the term "Pakistani terrorists" to the Hindi language movie Dhobi Ghat. Main suspected sockmaster blocked for 24 hours by me for edit warring (3RR). But wished to ensure long term sockpuppetry, if existing, ceases. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:01, 17 December 2010 (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 other account, Arhamad (talk · contribs) is a  Possible match. No comment on the IPs. TNXMan 14:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I am putting this case on hold for now per comment on my talk. Elockid (Talk) 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I asked Tnxman for another look at the case. But as of right now, I am considering an indefinite block for Mdmday. I will also note that 115.252.36.155 is autoblocked. I have also reblocked 115.252.32.0/20 for an additional 6 months. Elockid (Talk) 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Based on this note from Tnxmaan307 I have blocked (indef) and tagged this master as Mrpontiac1. Cases probably need merging. —SpacemanSpiff 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Cases merged. All users that needed to be blocked have been blocked. No further action necessary for now. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 18:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


AnsarParacha is already duck blocked. Need CU to see if there are any sleepers running around/confirm if the other 2 accounts are related to AnsarParacha. A log of the IPs that Mrpontiac1 has been using can be found at User:Nirvana888/Vandal watch. Please also see my talk page. Elockid (Talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (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 in the archive are  Stale, but  Confirmed the following are matches to each other:

information Administrator note Accounts blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2011
[edit]
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]

 Clerk endorsed Sleeper check please. Elockid (Talk) 12:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same behavior, Elockid and I evaluated and duck blocked. Elockid's also softblocked one of the usual ranges, but he's used other ranges too in the past. A sleeper check would be beneficial. The last set of socks are just about to dry for any further comparison. —SpacemanSpiff 13:05, 1 October 2011 (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]

 Clerk note: Everyone's blocked. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This escaped the last sweep, but behavioral evidence points both Elockid and me to Mrpontiac1. Could we get a sleeper check too? —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 10 October 2011 (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 plus:

–MuZemike 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report date September 11 2009, 18:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nsaum75


All are relatively "new" users who seem to have knowledge of wikipedia proceedures. All editing same food articles using the same heavy Indian-POV and removing the same references to Pakistan. Nsaum75 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Some quackpuppetry going on there. The similarities of the edit summaries, as well as the edits, make it obvious that these accounts are operated by one person. Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the new ones blocked and tagged. Thanks for the CU Brandon. NW (Talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones from 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC) have been blocked and tagged too. NW (Talk) 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nsaum75


IP address is making the same edits to the same articles as User:Objectivephysics, one of User:Mrpontiac1's socks.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 25 2009, 20:54 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by 86.158.179.169

Seems like mrpontiac pushing usual pro indian pov attacking mughal empire article with same edit summarys as "not as famous" line 86.158.179.169 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Qazmlp1029 has been reverting a banned user, user Nangparbat on the article Mughal Empire and they show that they indeed are reverting a sock from their edit summary. This was the only abuse complaint from 86.158.179.169 which seems to be Nangparbat based on their MO. Note that Nangparbat has a grudge against socks he has dealt with or editors with "pro-Indian" beliefs. The rest of the articles don't seem to be abuse at glance but contributions. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They also seemed to know that 86.158.179.169 was a sock of Nangparbat. Please see my talk page. User talk:Elockid.

In regards to the usage of "not as famous" on the edit summary. I don't see the this in the edit summary at all. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a chance to apologize now Elockid here is the proof of your banned user sock mates edit summary [3] now you can either own up to aiding blocked socks or you can carry on but I shall tell you this you and your banned users will not have there way anymore elockid you are a incompetent editor who always seems to say "I dont see this" maybe your blind? or maybe your a sock yourself? 86.151.122.53 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your petty threats don't scare me and you clearly don't know when to stop. I can and will revert any edit you do much because you are permanently banned which I have been doing. I am enforcing your ban and you fail to continue to see this because you are wrapped up in your own opinions and POV. Those users have not been banned meaning that they can edit as long as they are not disruptive or breaking WP policies. Your attempts to have your POV remain have clearly not been working. You are not allowed to edit, your editing privileges have been permanently revoked. You have been disproven about socks in the past (you accused someone for being Dewan even though they were not), you didn't know what a block or ban meant in that instance calling me blind but you in fact kept misreading tags. You still don't know the difference between a block and ban after I have explained and showed you the pages. Need I go on because I have plenty more to say? Furthermore that's only one summary. It can be made by anyone. Now if you actually had more, then it would seem more convincing. Plus your evading your block. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat (anon) has made false accusations in the past and in fact block evading multiple and countless times to try and get their POV in. They will go as far as calling out other editors and falsely accuse people of meat puppetry. Please also see User talk:AdjustShift for some the false accusations. They were reverting because of a suspected sock but it fact was another user. It's getting harder to tell whether he is telling the truth or not. It appears that he is basing all his opinions on poor assumptions that have been disproven in the past. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and a bit of a summary from him taken from AdjustShift's talk page:

The entire validity of what they're saying is questionable and any comments made from them are also questionable from what I have experienced with Nangparbat. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note I don't see any behavioral evidence to connect Mrpontiac1 with Qazmlp1029 at this time. I also note that 86.158.179.169 is clearly an IP sock of banned user User:Nangparbat. No action taken at this time. MuZemike 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 11 2009, 19:01 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Nsaum75
[edit]

Users are repeatedly making the same pro-indian POV edits (at the expense of other cultures/countries, usually Pakistan) to the same food articles. Looks highly suspect, differing IPs might be due to WP:MEAT or one user editing from different internet connections. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

I agree with nsaum. We've had some trouble for quite some time with this persistent and egregious sock. Sock has a habit of logging on to multiple IPs within quick succession and making unconstructive edits. IPs listed seem quite suspicious and there could well be many more. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appended Recnalew (talk · contribs) to the above list, as it appears to be another sock of the same user, which popped up within the past hour. Eubulides (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 6 2010, 03:15 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Elockid
[edit]

This seems to be a continuation of a sock war between Mrpontiac and Nangparbat. The only contribution so far is reverting Nangparbat. Please see my talk page on the thread "Nanga Parbat".

As 115.252.32.0/20 is currently active mostly used by what it seems like Mrpontiac editing while not logged in with a sock, it might not be a bad idea to have a rangeblock? Also, this seems to be going to be a long term sock war spanning multiple articles. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
I brought up the return of this sock case to Elockid. Part of the convo with him that may be helpful: Nirvana888 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mrpontiac's articles are too numerous to list but invariably involve India and Pakistan and often other related countries such as China and the United States. Interests include among others Indian/Pakistani food, society, politics, foreign relations, wars, military, cinema-related articles. I appreciate your help and I'm Nsaum does as well. If you take a look at a few of his more notable socks you notice a peculiar MO and frequented articles. Some EDIT: (>50) IPs are listed here [4] particularly 115.252.*.* Hope this helps. Thanks again Nirvana888 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Will look into greater detail. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, he's a very prolific/abusive editor as you can see by the number of IPs I've just tagged just now and I probably only scratched the surface. That is on top of his 67 confirmed sock accounts. I'll have a look at the Nangparbat case and see if I can familiarize myself with it. Probably best to follow a policy of WP:RBI Nirvana888 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mrpontiac again: Qdfgt763547 (talk · contribs). Wouldn't be surprised if there are a cabal of other sock accounts. I think we need another CU. Looks like him and "Nanga Parbat" just can't seem to avoid each other. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably need a CU. Maybe a hard rangeblock might be possible. A CU will need to look into this though. Investigating range based on the tagged socks and SPI. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look's like User:Alison already found the range. 115.252.32.0/20. We should request a block on this range. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a .32.0/20 range would only block a minority of his IP range but is worth it in my books. Maybe someone can calculate a wider range that doesn't impinge on other editors. Anyway, could you file a SPI or alert a CU? Many thanks.Nirvana888 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

YellowMonkey blocked a whole bunch of Mrpontiac socks just yesterday and it wouldn't surprise me if there are multiple sleepers lying around since their socks were blocked yesterday, they're probably starting a new batch. As a sock war seems to be erupting, creating one sock doesn't seem to be what he would probably do due to the mass finding of socks. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
The following accounts are  Confirmed as being socks of Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs);
I'm recommending you guys go with that /20 rangeblock AO/ACB as he's all over the IP range, editing anonymously - Alison ❤ 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Report date February 12 2010, 00:57 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Nirvana888
[edit]

Mrpontiac1 is a serial sockmaster with 70 confirmed sock accounts and over 135 IPs used to vandalize articles repeatedly. I am very familiar with this sock and his MO having reported many cases of sock abuse. Tonsitem is a recent creation with a remarkably similar MO as Mrpontaic1 in his editing interests, behavior and comments. In the past, he has created dozens of sleeper accounts at a time so I think it might be worth it to have a CU done. As aforementioned, he typically will log on to many different IPs very rapidly to vandalize and create new accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

I actually had this on my agenda but somehow forgot. Anyways this looks to be MrPontiac. Almost all the edits deal with India which is the main subject Mrpontiac edits.

If this is a sock, it is likely that he/she created more per previous investigations. Also, their main IP is still rangeblocked, they might have moved to a new IP range. CU seems appropriate here. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nirvana888 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed To run a check for sleepers. Mrpontiac1's account is likely to be stale by now, but his most recently confirmed socks are RavaDosa (talk · contribs) Qdfgt763547 (talk · contribs) and Silvervilver (talk · contribs), so it may be worth running Tonsitem (talk · contribs) against them. Also bear in mind that if Tonsitem is using a new IP the case won't necessarily come up as confirmed for Mrpontiac1, but we should still be able to catch some sleepers and find an IP range. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Tonsitem , Magicalpoem, and Naotpu52. I have blocked the new IP range he used to create the accounts. Dominic·t 10:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've tagged the accounts. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 23 2010, 23:04 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Elockid
[edit]

Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.

To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note 115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. Elockid (Talk) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Report date April 23 2010, 23:04 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Elockid
[edit]

Same types of articles being edited mostly Indian articles or articles that have Indian information from the same range which was previously blocked by three months used from him. This block did expire about a month ago. Previous range was 115.252.32.0/20.

To add, Mrpontiac came back right after his soft range-block of 3 months expired and another range block elapsed and has made 100+ edits already in a couple of weeks. Perhaps we need a very long-term range block? Sock exhibits a pattern of regular and incorrigible abusive behavior. Past investigation has revealed creation of dozens of sleepers at a time. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Self endorsing for a collateral damage check on 115.252.32.0/20. Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. This user creates quite a lot of socks per the archives. Elockid (Talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note 115.252.32.0/20 reblocked for 3 months, same as last time. Elockid (Talk) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
17 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Fetish for regularly adding the term "Pakistani terrorists" to the Hindi language movie Dhobi Ghat. Main suspected sockmaster blocked for 24 hours by me for edit warring (3RR). But wished to ensure long term sockpuppetry, if existing, ceases. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:01, 17 December 2010 (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 other account, Arhamad (talk · contribs) is a  Possible match. No comment on the IPs. TNXMan 14:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I am putting this case on hold for now per comment on my talk. Elockid (Talk) 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I asked Tnxman for another look at the case. But as of right now, I am considering an indefinite block for Mdmday. I will also note that 115.252.36.155 is autoblocked. I have also reblocked 115.252.32.0/20 for an additional 6 months. Elockid (Talk) 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Based on this note from Tnxmaan307 I have blocked (indef) and tagged this master as Mrpontiac1. Cases probably need merging. —SpacemanSpiff 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Cases merged. All users that needed to be blocked have been blocked. No further action necessary for now. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 18:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


AnsarParacha is already duck blocked. Need CU to see if there are any sleepers running around/confirm if the other 2 accounts are related to AnsarParacha. A log of the IPs that Mrpontiac1 has been using can be found at User:Nirvana888/Vandal watch. Please also see my talk page. Elockid (Talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (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 in the archive are  Stale, but  Confirmed the following are matches to each other:

information Administrator note Accounts blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2011
[edit]
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]

 Clerk endorsed Sleeper check please. Elockid (Talk) 12:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same behavior, Elockid and I evaluated and duck blocked. Elockid's also softblocked one of the usual ranges, but he's used other ranges too in the past. A sleeper check would be beneficial. The last set of socks are just about to dry for any further comparison. —SpacemanSpiff 13:05, 1 October 2011 (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]

 Clerk note: Everyone's blocked. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This escaped the last sweep, but behavioral evidence points both Elockid and me to Mrpontiac1. Could we get a sleeper check too? —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 10 October 2011 (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 plus:

–MuZemike 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I've seen accusations at ANI and in edit summaries suggesting that these accounts are involved in sockpuppetry, and have noticed similarities in edits, plus similar reversions and removal of citation/reference templates. The Arinjatt account was created after the Iamtrhino account was blocked, with the other sock later created after Arinjatt was also blocked (although that block has expired). Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

(originally posted on a case opened with Arinjatt as the master): Their edits clearly pass the duck test. These users edit with the same pro-Hindu, anti-Muslim agenda. Similarity in edits: by Arinjatt, by Iamtrhino and by Desijattt and this one by Iamtrhino on Saravask's talk page. — Abhishek  Talk 13:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
25 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


After the puppet master's last appeal this account, with similar edits, arrived. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

It's clearly them. Clear duck evidence from the editing. — Abhishek  Talk 12:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

I asked DeltaQuad to merge Iamtrhino's case to Mrpontiac1's case. The similarities between the cases was brought up to me by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs). I agree with his findings and performed an extra a check to verify whether these accounts had any relation. Iamtrhino (talk · contribs) and Shail kalp (talk · contribs) have the same UAs as each other. Secondly, both are editing from the same area. Coupled with the behavioral evidence, I have concluded that the users are  Likely to be related. Elockid (Talk) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


these 3 accounts were created november 2011. all 3 are editing or rather pov-pushing on similar pages. HelloAnnyong told me that these accounts might also belong to the banned user Iamtrhino [5], hence this request.-- mustihussain  19:41, 4 December 2011 (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 blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This account was mentioned on my talk page. I've blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK, but am endorsing for more sleepers, as well as if we can get an IP block, given that the previous case was a day ago. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 6 December 2011 (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 - the following accounts as being the same editor;

.. and some older, already blocked accounts;

I also see a very clear /19 IP range that could be softblocked with ACB that would have minimal impact on others- Alison ❤ 03:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


clearly an iamtrhino sock. same edits on same pages...incredible. i suggest a range block. ps: he also blanked this page twice.[6]  mustihussain  19:22, 7 December 2011 (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 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


[7] [8] - I believe that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sridhar100/Archive are connected because VanshKaushal (sock of Mrpontiac1[9]) edits and behaves like Littleboy58 (sock of Sridhar100 [10]). Another blocked socks of Mrpontiac1 was making very similar edits as 'Littleboy58 who is now blocked as sock of Sridhar100.

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]
23 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


these accounts are making exactly the same edits as iamthrino.-- altetendekrabbe  12:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Just a note to the admin who reads this, the above user is a sockpuppet account of the banned and blocked User:Lagoo sab / User:NisarKand based in Islamabad, Pakistan, who mostly edits Afghanistan-related articles (refer to contribs). This sockmaster user has a historical trait of levelling sockpuppet allegations against every user he comes across. He's got the distinction of filing two SPIs on me, the first one in which it was verified that User:Drspaz is an alternative account of mine and the case was closed by HelloAnnyong. The second one was filed in September in which he basically labelled every user he could come up with as a sockpuppet of User:Strider11, including my account. A checkuser was conducted in that report, and the closing statement there speaks for itself. He also goes around on Wikimedia Commons under the username "Officer" and has a history there of tagging free/public-domain images as copyright violations, which several other users have opposed. The block currently enforced on my account at Commons was a result of some edit-warring and a cock-and-bull email sent to the admin by this user. I have contacted the admin to review the block and am awaiting a reply there. Mar4d (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the admin should go through the contributions of the other users he's mentioned in his poorly researched story above and decide for him/herself whether they even remotely resemble sockpuppet accounts or are single-purpose accounts. There are enough damning reasons why they're not but this is probably not the right page to discuss the issue so I rest my case. An SPI on Lagoo sab should also be in place soon. Mar4d (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mar4d, you cannot deny that you are not in the Sydney, Australia, area because this Australian IP was in fact used by you and on that same day you were desperatly trying to make admins erace your posts so that your location doesn't show but it was too late. Do you remember that or do I need to show your action here? At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11/Archive#Report date October 22 2009.2C 05:33 .28UTC.29 your ISP is listed as being used by sockmaster Strider11 so why are you still denying all this? You are in fact the banned sockmaster who's been creating and using many many accounts by connecting to different ISP ranges in your area. The Austalian located ISPs listed here perfectly matches with one of the ones you were using here for disturbances (you were also confirmed to be using this and this sockpuppet on that same day, which conntects to your Australian IP). You used a sock (User:Teckgeek) to create the page Afghans in Pakistan in 2009 [19] and upto now you are still editing it and filling it with your anti-Afghan povs [20] There are dozens of other similar evidence that you are the banned sockmaster Strider11.--Kiftaan (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TopGun is in fact another sockmaster who's been indef-blocked many times but returns to edit the same pages. He's the one who leaves :) smilies in talk pages and partially Pakhtun. this is another sock of his that he just created for single purpose. Mar4d, you know well that he is a sockmaster like you and that's why you are here defending him. He is connected to at least User:Ironboy11 and any admin who runs a CU on that will be able to see. I tried to figure out where the indef-blocked SyedNaqvi90 (talk · contribs) went because I'm sure he's still editing under new accounts. You guys are causing collateral damage to Wikipedia with all these damn socks. Anyone who looks at almost any Pakistani-related page will be able to realize that you sockmasters are doing all the edits.--Kiftaan (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above fairy tale and swift response confirms the inevitable. He's also resorting to his old tricks of vandalising mine and other people's userpages now [21], [22], [23]. Admin, please clear this up ASAP. Mar4d (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't one of the sockmasters that I mentioned you wouldn't have even come to comment. You keep denying being Strider11, I think on judgement day you will try to deny this in front of God, lol.--Kiftaan (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, I have been following you and already knew that you were Lagoo sab right from this day. You just made the job easier though. Mar4d (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was obviously fixing vandalism and organizing images. Since you knew that you were exposed by admin Fastly in November as being a sock of Strider11, you began watching me for fear that I would report you. Unless you are in love with Lagoo sab, what other reason do you have to be watching for him? Btw, I'm aware that if admins block all of you Pakistani sockmasters, you will come again and again and again with new names and edit the same Pakistani pages. You guys have been doing this since 2005 [24] and I really don't care about all that shit. You are destroying the Pakistani articles by filling them with nonsense. For example, you add anything you read in news into articles, i.e. Joe Biden mentions "Taliban not enemies"[25], 95% of terrorism in Pakistan relate to Afghan refugees[26], etc. Just because nobody challenge your edits doesn't mean that you're doing a good job, you're just messing up pages with weak news reports and this is very disturbing. Stop blaming the mess in your country (Pakistan) on others when you know you are doing bad yourself. For example, you are socking here (violating Wikipedia) and refuse to accept this bad deed of yours.--Kiftaan (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me why I am following you; I think I can ask you the same question: What are you doing stalking my contribs, checking out what pages I edit or who's editing the Pakistan article? My reason could be to compile enough evidence and get you permanently banned on Wikipedia (although I don't have to do that anymore). What's you're reason? And 2005? I never even knew the 'edit this page' button on Wikipedia back then! Mar4d (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in Chatswood, and I am not in the state of New South Wales. Refer to my comment above. I do not upload images. Have you ever seen me insert pictures and images on articles in the same way that you do? The rest of your reply is simply the same ridiculous rant you've been saying continously. I'm not going to reply to you anymore, so consider this my last post here until an admin intervenes. Mar4d (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly MEAT PUPPETING, and defending others who may be socking, you may be using multiple computers and that is still socking. Not your this ID but you used other IDs to upload copyvio images.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Some pretty narrow results here: These two are the same:

These two are the same:

These three are the same:

24 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This account was mentioned on my talk page. The behavior fits: first edit to undo an edit? Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I acknowledge that I archived the previous case without handling the long wall of text that came after it was closed. This is not the place to snipe at each other about who is who (neither is my talk page, thanks.) If you want to accuse each other, go ahead and open whatever cases you want - but don't pile them all into this one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, more evidence:

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]

 Likely that the following users are related:

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Contributions, eg [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=467740511] which reinstated another sock's edit [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=461396783&oldid=457010609 ] Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2011 (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]
28 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


similar edits on similar pages.  altetendekrabbe  17:09, 28 December 2011 (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 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


same old story.  altetendekrabbe  20:22, 29 December 2011 (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]
02 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Edits [31] by this editor and [32] by a blocked sock (and earlier edits at this article) and likewise [33] and [34]. Note also the edit summary [ here] where he claims to be deleting copyvio material while apparently adding some, eg the text I searched for here.[35] Any chance of a range block? Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2012 (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]

It's him but no rangeblock possible. Same as last time. Elockid (Talk) 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


same pattern.  altetendekrabbe  19:48, 9 January 2012 (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]

A lot of proxy use here, but I was able to nail down some results. Please note, since I am passingly familiar with this account, I was able to look through the contribs and see enough evidence for a check. Going forward though, evidence/diffs must be presented as to why listed accounts are suspected of being socks. Anyway, the following are  Likely matches to each other:

10 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The user in question reverted edits in the articles Sardar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Siege of Bijapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the sockpuppets' version. Also, it seems like the user refactored other users' comments in Talk:Bain & Company/Misleading content related to so-called Bain India incident (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). Klilidiplomus | Talk 06:11, 10 January 2012 (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]
20 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


as before, his sock edits enough (this time on his talk page and another article) to get around semi-protection and then restores his old edits with minor changes. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This time he has copied User:Michael Jester's userpage onto his. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2012 (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]

Proxy use makes this difficult to completely nail down. Based on the edits and the available technical data, I'd say  Likely. TNXMan 14:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

the users show the same behavior, and have made edits on a similar topics as other socks of mrpontiac1. user antamangkesh has been reverting and blanking his own edits [36], [37], in order to increase the number of edits. user sarkar-rajya has been doing the same thing. this is the most conspicuous hallmark of a mrpontiac1 sock, along with the anti-muslim agenda [38]. dbkasar is re-adding all the edits of other mrpontiac1 socks. altetendekrabbe  17:32, 29 March 2012 (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'm calling this one highly  Likely that it's Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs) on behaviour and the fact that they're almost exclusively using open proxies. The following accounts are  Confirmed as being the one editor;
Oh, and Bespattered with blood and filth (talk · contribs) and Feces shoved in your mouth (talk · contribs), making the personal attacks on Nawlin's talk page, are  Confirmed to be Grawp. Surprise :/ I've also blocked a number of proxy IPs - Alison ❤ 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
04 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Contributions virtually identical to early socks. Would a range block help? Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2012 (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  Likely matches to accounts in the archive:


07 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


the same old story. identical topics, edits, behavior and so on.  altetendekrabbe  23:16, 7 April 2012 (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]

Two groups here and they are Red X Unrelated to each other:

Socks of Buddhafollower (talk · contribs):

The following are  Confirmed socks of Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs):

 IP blocked for both groups. Elockid (Talk) 14:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


exactly the same edits as usual.  altetendekrabbe  09:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Altetendekrabbe deleted multiple old edits(not just mine) from the page of Maratha Empire and is now accusing me of being a Sock. He/she is pushing a agenda and should be noted. My edit history is evident of what my contributions have been. BeachHome (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
05 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Hukinear registered on 30 April and Freak'n on 16 May. Per their contribution histories, both edit similar material, mostly connected to Rajput-based issues. Both use edit summary statements that suggest prior experience. Both also have an idiosyncratic manner of blanking their user and talk pages as almost their first edits. Freak'n in particular is displaying tendentious behaviour similar to the banned User:Mrpontiac1, as in this thread, while the IP displays similar behaviour at Dhoni (clan) (an article recently created by Freak'n) and has blanked Hukinear's page. In my experience, they appear to appear around the same time of day, although I haven't checked this out fully.

CU requested because of the possible Mrpontiac1 connection. I realise that CU cannot connect IPs to usernames, btw. Sitush (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2012 (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]

information Administrator note 90.182.143.162 blocked as an open proxy. Elockid (Talk) 14:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following are  Confirmed as Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs):

ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk · contribs) is  Possible technically but I would say  Unlikely/Red X Unrelated to the above and does not seem to be related to anyone I can think of at the moment.

Could a clerk please merged this case to Mrpontiac1's case please? Thanks in advance. Elockid (Talk) 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


the recent edits of user qwersome are identical to the edits of banned user raghu-holkar, a confirmed sock of mrpointiac1 diff1, diff2 and just like other socks of mrpointiac1, qwersome makes several meaningless additions in order to gain edits. he does this to get access to semi-protected pages diff3  altetendekrabbe  14:07, 15 June 2012 (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 as well as the OPs they're editing from. Elockid (Talk) 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Did the old sleeper 10 edit autoconfirmed thing to make a page move just like the CU blocked User:Haryana-shakti. Blocked as an obvious duck. Perhaps there are more sleepers hiding? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

With the huge amount of overlap, it's a little difficult to be exactly sure between, ML, Sridharbabu and Mrpontiac1, but these two appear to be MrPointiac. Elockid could perhaps confirm on that. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After looking some more after I filed this report, I did notice that there were other socks involved. I had just picked the most recent sock to edit the page and with Haryana-shakti not tagged, I couldn't tell whose sock this is. But it is obviously somebody's sock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

This is actually Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs) editing through proxies. I found one other account, Tutdefiged (talk · contribs). Elockid (Talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

03 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

AtulyaGarima and the IP seem to be WP:SPAs at best, but the likelihood of sockpuppetry seemed too high for me to not request an investigation. Here are the facts of the case as I understand them: an article, Rajput resistance to Muslim invasions has been repeatedly deleted and salted per G5. Hrubed created an article called Rajput resistance and started an RM to move it to the salted title. Three editors subsequently voiced support for proposal. Of the three, I've seen Hillcrest98 around elsewhere and have no reason to suspect him in this case. But AtulyaGarima's only contributions are to this RM and his own user page. The same can be said about Hrubed. The IP has three other edits. I wouldn't be surprised if CheckUser found the IP to match that of Hrubed and AtulyaGarima. This could all be a misunderstanding and a coincidence, and I'll give my apologies to all involved if so, but  Looks like a duck to me. BDD (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (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 are  Confirmed matches Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs). Could a clerk please merge this case with Mrpontiac's? I've blocked the IP as an open proxy. Elockid (Talk) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Shahdaan Khan has been editing disruptively, edit-warring to push a pro-Indian, anti-pakistani point of view, and has been blocked twice. He/she attempts to suppress content not consistent with his/her point of view in connection with his/her point of view. The point of view is certainly similar to that of Mrpontiac1 and socks, and there do seem to be some other similarities. This report is a result of contact on my talk page, and I reproduce the content of the relevant talk page here:

Start of talk page copy.
This guy (User:Shahdaan Khan) is without doubt the sockmaster User:ABDEVILLIERS0007 (User:Mrpontiac1) who has been mass socking since at least 2009,[39] and keeps creating new accounts just to vandalise pages. He is Hindu but creates Pakistani Muslim names and he should be indef blocked. Thanks.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what makes you believe this is the same person? If you can give really convincing evidence then I will block the account indefinitely. If you can give evidence which is reasonably suggestive but not conclusive then I will take this to a sockpuppet investigation and request a checkuser. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Notice the capital letters in the edit summaries and name [40] [41] . Another person suggested he is ABDEVILLIERS0007 [42]. On Afghanistan, confirmed sockpuppets of Mrpontiac1 constantly showed up to edit the same 1747-1818 Afghan-Sikh war stuff, defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs. Notice the google book link starts with "books.google.co.in" which suggests he's in India.[43] User:Theman244, who is also socking (i.e. User:Thejatt, User:Desijatt1), defaming Afghans and glorifying Sikhs, copy-pastes links with "books.google.co.in" [44] the same way as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Mrpontiac1, and the dozens of Mrpontiac1's confirmed socks.
Further, these confirmed socks of Mrpontiac1 have very similar names as ABDEVILLIERS0007, Desijatt1, Shahdaan Khan. (i.e. User:Desijattt [45] and User:ASHOKBINDUSARA). Shahdaan Khan is obviously a Muslim name (particularly Pakistani) but the operator is a Sikh/Hindu based on his edits and location, and he used many other sockpuppet names to try to pass as a Pakistani Muslim editor. [46] The bottom line is User:Shahdaan Khan and User:Theman244 are new undetected sockpuppets of the notorious sockmaster Mrpontiac1 and I think they should both be indef blocked.--39.41.82.47 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
End of talk page copy.

In addition, User:Darkness Shines thinks there is reason to think this is a sockpuppet account, as seen from this edit. I do not know what reasons Darkness Shines has, but i will invite him/her to comment here. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ABDEVILLIERS alright. I'm not sure if Elockid linked him to MrP though, there's been a lot of OP editing, and I'm not going to say any more on wiki per beans. But Elockid should be able to confirm this one way or the other, we've had to block quite a lot recently. —SpacemanSpiff 15:36, 16 October 2012 (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]

Shahdaan Khan and Theman244 are Red X Unrelated to Mrpontiac1. Shahdaan Khan is technically  Unlikely/Red X Unrelated to ABDEVILLIERS0007. The gap in editing may suggest otherwise. I am confident is saying now that ABDEVILLIERS0007 is Red X Unrelated to Mrpontiac1 (see my previous statement in the archives). Also, none of the accounts appear to be related to another.

Just as an FYI, the last Mrpontiac1 sock to surface is Soulsdone3 (talk · contribs). Elockid (Talk) 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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]

Adding for reference. No further action necessary. Elockid (Talk) 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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 (added for reference). @CheckUsers: please contact me for more information if you are handling this case. Elockid (Talk) 14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 June 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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]

Sock farm blocked. Adding for reference. Elockid (Talk) 16:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Just noting that this IP user has identified himself as dbkasar [47]. The IP appears to be a proxy server and probably nothing needs to be done. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (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]
More