Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Admirenepal/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Admirenepal

Admirenepal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Persistent creation of articles about Manzil Paudarco, Paudarco Manzil, Manzil Poudar, Poudar Manzil and other variations on the name. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All blocked per

WP:DUCK. Reported for the record, and as a base in case he returns. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

08 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Admirenepal was nominated for, "Persistent creation of articles about Manzil Paudarco, Paudarco Manzil, Manzil Poudar, Poudar Manzil and other variations on the name."

Naver.np created the user page User:Manzilnfl with what appears to be a cut and paste move from User:Manzil Poudar. (I'm not certain about that, though, since both the user page and Manzil Poudar were speedy deleted.)

At my suggestion, Manzilnfl marked User:Signedbo and User:Naver.np as alternate accounts. There is no intent to deceive, and none of the usual problems associated with sockpuppetry, as far as I can see. But I stumbled upon the old sock puppet investigation in the process of starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poudar.

Like Admirenepal, Naver.np and Manzilnfl seem to be interested in family names.

The now deleted Poudar, created by Naver.np and edited by Manzilnfl, was also largely about the family names Poudar and Paudarco. Sorry, I can't add diffs, since the article no longer exists. Cnilep (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that User:Blackhu20, a banned sock, uploaded the picture on Manzilnfl's user page.
Cnilep (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I'm not sure I see the need for an SPI here, as none of the accounts' contributions overlap chronologically and the relation of three of them has already been noted. The suspected master isn't blocked so even if this is true it's not a case of block evasion, and there's really nothing we can do now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same userpage as a previously-blocked sock,

WP:DUCK. Sitush (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

And now they've blanked an article without explanation, which is trademark stuff for this person. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • This is just plain disruptive, creating multiple accounts to recreate the same deleted content and similar contentious edits (including unexplained blanking). They're "retiring" accounts, only to instantly create new ones and marking unblocked accounts of theirs as indefinitely blocked. I've blocked three recent(ish) accounts including:
  • If at some point this editor wants to create one account and be responsible for the edits made an unblock can be discussed, but this is not an appropriate use of multiple accounts. @Sitush: Please drop me a note if more of these pop up.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreation of hobbyhorse articles such as

Ancient Nepal, concentration on articles relating to Biharis and Nepal. (Please don't create-protect the recreations - this is a prolific sock and they act as a honeypot). Sitush (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Damn! I meant that this is a sock of Admirenepal (talk · contribs). Can the report be moved? - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
20 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Back again with the same edits to articles such as

WP:DUCK stuff but I'll ping @Ponyo: because they're familiar with this one and there has been a need for CU in the past. Sitush (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Added 202.70.70.59 (talk · contribs). Similar edits, including very recent removal of the CSD template I placed at Poudar. Based in Nepal, always editing Nepalese articles, including the History of ... that has had so many problems from past Admirenepal socks. I know CU won't link but a three-month or so block might be appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

information Note: Adding Ragnisah, whose only contrib since appearing in December is a long Nepal-related piece on their user page, which is rather well written in comparison to most of the stuff we see, though it may have COPYVIO probs if the user (and the page) is allowed to remain. It was cited by SAARC Satellite in one of their edits. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

information Note:@Ponyo: May also be related to the idle investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uck_u which included User:Joan lama and this IP address as well as another in the same block (.42). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Strange, I didn't receive Sitush's ping, however this page is on my watchlist so I caught it regardless. SAARC Satellite (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed and blocked. Ragnisah hasn't edited since 2013, however I've blanked their user page as it does appear to be a copy/paste from elsewhere. With regard to the IP, a clerk/admin will need to review the edits and decide if any action is required there.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AlanM1:: Speaking only to the named accounts in the two SPIs, I think there is a likely possibility that there are two (or more) sock farms running out of the same geolocation. The Uck u socks seem preoccupied with NEWAR and Shrestha while Admirenepal socks have a separate (and fairly distinct) editing pattern. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing case as there is nothing more to be done (IP is stale now). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Tag teaming between Shresthas and Sherpaofsherpas on Maharjan over the usual subjects ([1], [2]), and blanking a big chunk of the article apparently unintentionally as they've been known to do. Could be related to Uck_u instead (or as well). Shrestha was just created after one of the others was blocked yesterday or the day before. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Added User:Baoshr, editing Shresthas. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • It is early days but the initial contributions of these accounts don't look like Admirenepal, unless they're branching out in terms of pet articles. Probably socks of the other master that you mention. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • As noted here by Sitush and by me in the SPI preceding this one, I think this is behaviourally a separate sockmaster. The area that these socks are editing from routes an extremely large amount of traffic through a very small range, so it would not be unusual for more than one sock farm to appear in a check. I think this latest report needs to be closed and reopened under the Uck U SPI.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ponyo:, @Sitush: I agree. After looking closely, I added Sherpaofsherpas, Shresthas, and Baoshr to Uck_u (with Joan lama) with description of the similarities and diffs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 02:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


User page promoting Admire Nepal Travels Pvt. Ltd. JohnCD (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked and tagged per

WP:DUCK. Reported for the record. JohnCD (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

13 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Only made two edits thus far but one was the favourite recreation of Poudar and the other was a typical circular reference inserted at Paudel. Those two are common targets for the master. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Blocked based on the behavioural evidence not a big history with sleepers so no need for a check. Re the redirect they created I can't see a need to delete it since it is just a redirect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Duck. Same poor edits to Maithil- and Nepal-related articles, including changes of titles in "citations" etc (eg: here; interest in the name Poudar/Paudar/other variant spellings, including in their own username. Sitush (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just noticed Maithilicinema (talk · contribs), who also looks like a sock of this contributor. Now blocked but I really do think another sweep might be necessary. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: Thanks for tagging. My last message here was an edit conflict with Ponyo's CU report. I've no idea how the CU tool works. Does it, for example, take account of people who are already blocked? Nonetheless, I'm sure that Maithilicinema was a duck even though it doesn't matter now. As the archives should demonstrate, the antics of the master have been something of a specialist subject of mine recently. That is twice that our edits have crossed, and both times I feel that you've perhaps not fully under the context. :( - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Likely bordering confirmed. I've blocked and G5ed the new articles. Another likely sock is Poudel deep and Navanepal5. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged the likely accounts. Given the nature of the checkuser tool, if Maithilicinema was related it should have shown up in the report. (Much like the likely accounts Ponyo listed below). Mike V • Talk 03:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sitush: Yep, the checkuser tool does catch accounts that are blocked. (Provided that they have make a logged action somewhat recently.) When accounts are checked, it shows all the other accounts that are using the same IP. The checkuser tool also allows a checkuser to look at a wider range, should one's IP change with their service provider. As such, a sleeper check for additional accounts occurs at the same time as a confirmation check. Given the checks that Ponyo performed, if the account was related to these 3 sock accounts I believe it would have shown up in the results. Mike V • Talk 16:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Inserting Manzil Paudar's name and Facebook link: [3] (note that that image was first uploaded by an earlier sock), [4], [5], [6]. Given the number of previous socks, a CU might be a good idea to check for sleepers. bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
31 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Quacking. Similar edits to Maithili- and Madhesi-related articles and subject matter. @Ponyo: you have CU info, I suspect. Sitush (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked. (and another instance where there was no ping received from an SPI page). --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
08 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Here is Manzil Poudar again. The username seems conclusive in itself, but in addition every single edit is to the same set of articles that all previous socks have been concerned with. bonadea contributions talk 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Fixed typo,[7]-[8] Fixed grammar[9]-[10] Bladesmulti (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just included Admirenepal the real master, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Admirenepal. Investigation can be moved to other page once after the case is checked. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using false edit summaries is enough proof. Admirenepal did that before too and these two are doing this on that same page. I am also calling Ponyo, he had seen[11] this before Bladesmulti (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed - Bladesmulti, you provided diffs for user named Dmanzilpoudar, but did not mention him as the suspect. Anyway, you cannot accuse two users of sockpuppetry just because they both fixed typo and grammar errors (not even the same errors). Do you have any stronger evidence? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Bladesmulti, this case will not be checked unless you provide some real evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Per the diffs provided (same edit summaries hiding shitty edits) I'm leaning towards thinking this is really Admirenepal, but instead of endorsing I will ask Ponyo to comment directly; they're familiar enough to decide whether to block and/or check. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brikheshsharma is using the same IP range as Admirenepal, and when you check their edits against these of confirmed sock Umanzilpoudar, it looks extremely likely to me.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case moved to Admirenepal, Brikheshsharma  Blocked and tagged, and I would've blocked the IP as it appears to be the same user but it hasn't been active in 20+days. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

The user name is evidence in itslef - cf the names of confirmed socks at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Admirenepal.The user is also concerned with articles about the Madheshi people, Maithali, etc, just like previous socks have been. bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note Sock blocked and tagged. I don't think a checkuser is needed after all, as I think the accts have all been sequential rather than concurrent. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
26 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

All recent edits... identical to recent by confirmed sockpuppet Officialmanzilpoudar. He even thumbs his nose at us... he barnstarred me twice. All his edits will basically need to be rolled back at this point. Ogress smash! 02:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • @Ogress: Additional information needed. 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10 July 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

User name - Manzil of Nepal - in combination with their first edit to the talk page of one of their favourite pages,

Madhesi people, arguing in favour of the same change that previous socks have made: [13], [14]. The article has been semi protected due to all the sock puppetry, which is presumably the reason why they went to the talk page instead. bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

They use many names of this format: User:Mansilpoudar, User:Manzil Paudar, User:Manzildrewpoudar, User:Manzilnfl, User:Manzilpoudarnepalia, User:Mnzlpoudar are all confirmed Admirenepal sockpuppets. Ogress smash! 16:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 July 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

He's going off on the talk page of Madhesi again... Ogress smash! 01:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Admin action needed - Obvious sock (compare [15] and [16]). IP should be blocked for three days. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked and tagged, Twinkle used a weird tag, I corrected the substed template manually, but if there's a better template that I can't think of, feel free to change. —SpacemanSpiff 11:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Obsession with renaming Madhesi, which he has done (please revert!): he moved

Madhesi people... His name also is Manzil X, which is characteristic. Ogress smash! 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Another Terai-obsessed sock of Admirenepal, used as a proxy to start an article. Ogress smash! 17:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I've blocked the following accounts for confirmed socking:

They're all  Confirmed to each other, and based on technical and behavioural evidence, very likely to be part of the Poojjan ccresta (talk · contribs)/Admirenepal (talk · contribs) sock groups (which became indistinguishable from each other long ago).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

This user's creation of an article about a topic which only Admirenepal and ppoojjan ccresta (spelling?) are obsessed ("Terai") makes it obvious, as does his attempt to rapidly change things and pray no one notices the giant changes. Ogress smash! 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is clearly an IP sock of Admirenepal or ppoojan ccresta as is demonstrated by his obsession with changing Madhes to Terai. Ogress smash! 15:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

QUACK QUACK QUACK "terai, madhesh" QUACK QUACK constant socking Ogress smash! 09:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious quack quack Madhesi Ogress 08:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Additional information needed - @
    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. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 January 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Wikipoll has requested [17] that the same information that was removed by

Madhesi people, be reinserted. The information was removed from the article after it was inserted by another sock of Admirenepal [18]. Wikipoll has made no other edits outside of their userpage. The Wikipoll account was created a few weeks after the most recent sock was blocked.  Looks like a duck to me Majora (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • information Administrator note The userpage edits are a textbook example of trying to get around the autoconfirm restriction. This is really obvious. Blocked. — Earwig talk 03:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to do. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Following from this discussion, this SPI is entirely pro forma as the user has already been blocked for sockpuppetry. Uanfala (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Exact same Nepal POVPUSH as the master and previous socks. Been a while since the last report but the sockpuppeteer has been disrupting with different IPs in the meantime (e.g. Poddar).

Asking for a CU to check for other sleeper accounts and further establish this. Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - case is  Stale and Nepal might be the single worst country to CU in regardless, so this check would be very unlikely to tell you anything just based on the name (I haven't looked at the log or the account, but with the stale accounts plus the geographic area they focus in, I would be extremely hesitant to rely on CU data here.) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked for being disruptive, and they came up in another SPI. Closing this case.
    Courcelles (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Admirenepal/Archive&oldid=1158449305"