Doremon9087 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Doremon9087 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• Both of the accounts were made within a gap of mere three days in September 2019: [1] & [2]. But the Doremon9087 became inactive after making just two edits, while the Pandit9087108 kept on editing till it got blocked on 19 November 2019. And after four days of that block, Doremon9087's inactive account became active. Note that both usernames contain the same number (9087): Pandit9087108 & Doremon9087.

• In October 2019, Pandit9087108 added Lakhmi Chand's surname as "Kaushik" & his caste as "Gaur Brahmin" with this edit. The UGC provided by them doesn't mention any of those details. In March 2020, Doremon9087 added the exact same details with the exact same fake source & formatting.

• Pandit9087108 removed a particular portion of a sentence from Dayachand Mayna in October 2019 with this edit. And Doremon9087 removed the exact same portion in March 2020 with this edit.

• They both mistype citation as "cition": see this edit of Pandit9087108 & this edit summary of Doremon9087.

• Pandit9087108 was a disruptive SPA focussed on promoting Brahmins in general & Mohyal Brahmins in particular. And Doremon9087 is doing exactly the same thing. The only other thing Pandit9087108 used to do was to blank Jat-related details from articles, e.g. see here & here. And Doremon9087 does the same thing, e.g. see this & this edit. In fact, there are many other examples of such blankings by both of them.

In short, they seem WP:DUCK to me. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC) (fixed a detail) NitinMlk (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pandit9087108 added a particular demographic stat regarding Brahmins while simultaneously blanking Jat-related stats in Western Uttar Pradesh. One month later, Doremon9087 performed the same edit.

• Pandit9087108 blanked a particular stat of Jats along with sources, and Doremon9087 performed the same edit two months later.

• Pandit9087108 added unsourced caste in Shankar Roychowdhury, and Doremon9087 reinstated the same unsourced detail one month later.

• Missing punctuation, indentation, sign, and using a spacing of two lines while responding to a talk page comment: e.g. Pandit9087108 & Doremon9087

• Both editors use Visual editor.

So, practically everything of Pandit9087108 – who could make just 35 edits before getting blocked – matches with Doremon9087. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems like the same person looking at the caste POV push. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me  Blocked and tagged Close. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Orion801 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duck based on edits. Bnt. Close. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Amit89009 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Looks like a duck to me based on behavioural evidence.  Blocked and tagged. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pandit9087108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All telltale signs of the master & previous socks:

1. Domnik9087 mistype citation as "cition", just like the master & a previous sock used to do: compare their this edit summary with this edit summary of Doremon9087 and this edit of Pandit9087108.
2. their username contains the same number: compare username of Domnik9087 with that of the master and a previous sock, i.e. Doremon9087 and Pandit9087108
3. Doremon9087 added a highly POV charged claim regarding Brahmins in March this year: [3]. And now the suspected sock has added the same claim with the same citations, along with making it more POV charged: [4]. And of course, they didn't forget to remove the mention of Jats from the article, just like the master & other socks used to do.
4. Doremon9087 added claims in a list with this edit, and now the suspected sock is edit-warring to reinstate them: [5] & [6].
5. Doremon9087 added a claim by misrepresenting a source with this edit in December last year. And now the suspect has fixed that claim: [7]

PS: This disruptive editor is turning into a prolific sock master, so a CU is needed to check their sleeper accounts. NitinMlk (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RoySmith, just to be clear, Doremon9087 is the oldest account – see here for details. Initially, they became inactive after making just two edits. And they became active again after their sock Pandit9087108 got blocked. So this SPI can be moved to Doremon9087, as they are the sock master. And all but one of the accounts can be CU blocked then. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, now the accounts need to be retagged accordingly: Doremon9087 is the master; Pandit9087108 is a suspected sock-cum-disruptive editor; and the rest – viz. Orion801, Amit89009, & Domnik9087 – are CheckUser blocks. So their user pages and block logs should reflect that. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by RoySmith as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case (including admin actions against suspected socks) without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

• @Callanecc: probably enough here to block, certainly enough to endorse for CU. Use of "cition" in edit summaries and 9087 in the usernames. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other, the master is  Stale so  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation for the connection to the master::
  • Doremon9087 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Orion801 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Amit89009 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Domnik9087 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, The evidence tying these back to the master is pretty much the same as went into endorsing the CU request. The use of "cition" by several of the socks here an by the master, and the motif of 9087 in user names. Did you intend to block Domnik9087? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, yeah go for. I'm happy with the connection to the master. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked and tagged Dominik9087. The other socks are already variously tagged as suspected or proven; I've left them as they were. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Callanecc and Dreamy Jazz: NitinMlk is correct, when Doremon9087 was blocked, they became the oldest sock. Shall I go ahead and rename this? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  RoySmith, yes please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Callanecc, Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  RoySmith, looks good. You'll need to change the userpage tags so that they point to the right master account too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Everybody re-tagged. I think this is finally ready to ship off to archive land :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiin108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As usual, all telltale signs of the master & previous socks:

• Kiin108 mistype citation as "cition": compare this and this edit summary of the suspected sock with this and this edit summary of a previous sock and the master.

• Master added a couple of files, along with other details, with this edit in April 2020. Those files were removed by a user with this edit, as at least one of the files is a misrepresentation. And Kiin108 reverted that edit.

• At Western Uttar Pradesh article, both master and a previous sock have added those stats multiple times which showed Brahmins and Tyagis as the biggest group there, e.g. [8] & [9]. And the suspect has edited the article in the same vein, e.g. [10].

• The master added an entry by misrepresenting a source with this edit. That entry was rightly removed with this edit. The suspect has restored that entry with the same citation, along with restoring other unsourced or poorly-sourced details: [11].

• And just like the master and previous socks, they are blanking Jat-related details from articles, e.g. [12], [13], [14], etc.

In short, it sounds like a duck to me. Pinging Dreamy Jazz, as they quickly and accurately recognise Doremon9087's socks. NitinMlk (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Agree that it is a duck.  Blocked and tagged. Close. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ar1a1yan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• The sockmaster has a weird habit of writing "citation" as "cition", e.g. compare this edit of the suspected sock with this/this edit summary and this edit of the sockmaster and the confirmed socks.

• The master added a Kashmir Brahmin-related claim with a particular source: [15]. The suspect added the same claim using the same source: [16].

• The master added Brahmin in a list with this edit. The suspect readded the same detail in the same list with the same source: [17].

• The master cited this source for a Brahmin-related caste claim at Banda Singh Bahadur with this edit. The suspect added the same source for a Brahmin-related caste claim with this edit.

• The master added Gaur Brahmin claim with this edit. It got reverted for being poorly sourced. So the suspect added the same claim with a reliable source.

• The master blanked the content that showed Jats' population larger at Harit Pradesh. The suspect did the same thing: [18].

• The sentences as well as the sources that were added by the master in this and this edit were reinstated by the suspect with this edit.

• The sock master has a peculiar interest in proving that Brahmins are the largest group of Western Uttar Pradesh and that the Jats are much smaller in number. The sock master had added content that showed a higher population of Brahmins and blanked the content that showed a higher population of Jats: see [19], [20], & [21]. Now the suspect is editing in the same vein and trying to prove that the population of Jats is small: see [22] & [23].

• List of Brahmin dynasties and states remains one of the primary targets of Doremon9087's socks. And this suspect is no different, e.g. in their one of the very first edits on this project, they restored the badly sourced or OR-based content of Doremon9087, which the master added with edits like this one and this one. Note that another sock was also edit warring and restoring the master's content before the above suspect: see here & here.

• With this edit at Hemu's Samadhi Sthal, they restored the master's (and others') content, which did not even belong to that page. NitinMlk (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by Jack Frost as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

• Previous accounts are stale, I would ask whether there's anything in the archive however I'm comfortable that the listed account overall looks like a duck based on the information provided, my own review of the accounts and the archive, and a look at the edit summaries.  Awaiting administrative action - Please block the sock indefinitely. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (Non-administrator action) welcomes you back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks 'zin! It's good to be back in the land of the interwebs. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinitely blocked and tagged as suspected. Closing case. --Trialpears (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Marx lenin2.0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

As usual, there are all telltale signs of the master & previous socks:

• One of the previous socks added Mohyal Brahmin claim in Vijay Rattan Choudhry using a WP:UGC: [24]. Now the suspect has added the same claim using the same unreliable source: [25]. Even the citation is formatted in exactly the same way.

• The sockmaster deleted an anti-Brahmin bit from Dayachand Mayna: [26]. The suspect did the same thing: [27]

• The sockmaster added a POV about Brahmin being the oldest martial classes with this edit: [28]. A confirmed sock expanded that claim further: [29]. And now the suspect has again added that claim in the article: [30]

• When the sockmaster failed in their attempt to add Brahmin-origin claim in Hemu, they added that claim and many other unsourced claims in Hemu's Samadhi Sthal: [31]. After the sockmaster got blacked and their additions reverted, a previous sock readded those claims: [32]. And after that sock got blocked, the suspect reinstated those claims: [33]

• A previous sock added "largest village of Brahmins" claim in Tilpat with an unreliable British Raj source: [34]. Now the suspect has again added that claim with the same unreliable source: [35].

• A previous sock (User:Ar1a1yan) created an article which got deleted: [36]. They added the following claim in it: "The Adi Gaurs practice agriculture and till the soil with their own hands ...". Now the suspect has added the same claim with this edit: [37].

• The sockmaster cited a local Hindi news article to add Brahmin's 17% population claim in Western UP: [38]. Now the suspect has added the same source and the same population claim about Western UP Brahmins: see the very last point added in this edit. Note that the suspect replaced the previous URL with a new one, as the article is no longer there.

They seem WP:DUCK, but a CheckUser is needed for sleeper accounts. That will also help in nuking (per WP:G5) their newly created pages/drafts which are as usual full of original research, poor sources, and misrepresentations. NitinMlk (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Previous socks and the master are  Stale for comparison. However, comparing historical CheckUser logs suggests that these users are in the same large country. As such this should be evaluated based on behaviour.
• A check for other accounts on the IPs used didn't turn up any other accounts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• After reviewing the behavioural evidence, I have blocked and tagged the account as suspected. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Singha90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Editminister (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Oxfordx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vikas Bhat90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Videh raj (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• An9ja0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Same editing pattern as Marx lenin2.0, mostly same articles revolving around the Brahmin caste, similar activity times, device types and edit summaries. If that's not quacking, then what is it?

Requesting CU, because this is an old account, some of them are all relatively old accounts. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm quite sure this is from the same sockfarm. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sockfarm Prince Of Roblox is also known for their POV and unsourced additions in the same editing area. Perhaps some of the possible sock accounts are related to them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the Prince of Roblox farm focus on Kashmir, local surnames, regional cuisine and other such stuff which they try to present as exclusively "Indian" as opposed to local or characteristic of the wider Indian subcontinent, as they quote various websites.

Whereas Doremon9087 focuses on Brahmins, caste system and what they call "Aryan heritage", and seems to be able to pull references from (usually outdated) academic publications.

I wouldn't link the two based on editing pattern alone. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Of Roblox's edits are more Punjabi Brahmin, largely Mohyal, focused; introducing clan names, dateformat modification in those articles. A lot of 'large edits' here were done by them, both using socks and IPs, and has a fixation with the Dutt clan of Bollywood. And by extension they moved to articles of other Brahmins and Hindu groups and people, and to historical articles pertaining to these, with a strong India bias as you've said. Doraemon on the other hand has a Brhamin only focus as you've said, but their primary target area seems to be brahmins of Haryana-Delhi. They have tried to create multiple articles related to Haryana brahmins under various socks. This was probably one of their most important targets. Since I've encountered both in the past, there is some commonality, especially when it comes to brahmin related articles. Anyway, CU report will clear it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Additional information needed – as someone unfamiliar with the topic area, I don't really hear the quacking: "Similar activity times" gets us to "possibly in the same country", mobile edits are exceedingly common (especially on India-related pages), and I'm not seeing the summary thing at a glance: Marx lenin2.0 frequently wrote fairly lengthy summaries, whereas e.g. Singha90 or Editminister only use them infrequently. I'm not saying the case has no merit, but it's not the sort of thing I'm comfortable checking without specific, documented evidence. Please provide diffs for all accounts (see the guidance at WP:GOODSPI for pointers). Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional requested information not supplied after 2 weeks. I also don't see anything to make me think this bunch of accounts are the same person, so closing. Reopen if able to supply more specific evidence (i.e. diffs). RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lotus109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HaryanasBrahmins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Possible sock considering the edit area (Gaur Brahmins) the similar kind of bloating which are mostly unreliably sourced [39] [40] [41] Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk's about User:Sitush having "more as an editor" here in Wikipedia [42]. Also "knows" about edit warring. How'd a newcomer user know all that? Obvious sock - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of someone well acquainted with the ways of Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knows too much for a newcomer. Pinging @NitinMlk: - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has an unusually extensive knowledge for a newcomer. Brother, as I've previously stated, it appears that NitinMlk is your alternate account, which you confirmed by associating with this account. You mentioned that this account seems to have too much information for a newcomer, which can be readily found online, something I'm aware of. Why the concern about me knowing more? Is it because you're engaging in vandalism on Indian pages using your alternate account? Lotus109 (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite easy to read basic Wikipedia rules brother as there are many courses on Udemy. Plus I always check the user page Sitush already mentioned his achievements in his page with signs I checked all the signs & find out the meaning. I just know he is some senior editor. But you are some thing fishy one as I saw your edit history you are vandalizing & adding random sources in Jat pages with your alter account i.e NitinMlk Lotus109 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus109 should comment in the section below. Anyway, admins please the pattern [43]. A confirmed sock had to complain about me on User:utcursch's talk page, similarly here. Also note another commonality - "Nitin" (mentioned here) - who directed me to another SP "User:Pandit9087108"[44]. Seems to be the reason why the SP is targetting us both. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brother I don't know what socket - plug you are talking about. I am just saying Nitin is your alt account I check you contribution when Niting edit something after him you edit the same article with your account with a gap like this . Plus another thing you just blaming me that I found out your fault. I don't know what you taking about. But I have right to defend myself , you can not do that to any user by randomly saying he is wrong & adding some random articles by given pattern & proof. Lotus109 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added another. A new user for some reason comments a suspected socks talk page and regurgitates the very same thing [45] about me and Nitinmlk. Also, playing a little GHBH. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are blaming me without reading properly see. I already cleared that user that don't know what he is talking about. Lotus109 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! I am a new user, but I had an account during my college years. Unfortunately, I don't remember my password and username. I am familiar with the basic rules of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure why my recent edits are connected to this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doremon9087.

Sitush informed me not to add poor sources, but I have never added any sources. However, this user @flyn... initiated this investigation without resolving it on my talk page. Although I included what I believed to be appropriate links, I am uncertain whether they are considered valid or not. comment added by Lotus109 (talk) 21:02, 8 October

• Blocked and tagged Lotus109. Not enough edits for me to evaluate HaryanasBrahmins. Leaving CU request. Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk endorsed. MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Group 1 are  Confirmed to Lotus109 and have also been editing logged out:
  • Lotus109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Pitahma (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Maevel101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Group 2 are  Technically indistinguishable from HaryanasBrahmins;  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation:
  • HaryanasBrahmins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Alteditore (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The two groups are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely): they are editing on at least one of the same networks from reasonably close to the same city, but are using different devices. I am blocking group 1 without tags, and will leave open for a clerk to review the second group. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Jai Bhagauti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is confirmed to Ivanvector's Group 1 above.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged Group 1, and warned Group 2. Closing. MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Singha90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hemraj108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Same topic area (Gaur Brahmins) related. Created a new article Gaur Brahmin Gotras [46]. Recently restored some of the content on 'Martial race' as well as notable Gaur Brahmins [47] as Hemraj108, as well as IP socks [48] [49] that were removed by User:Sitush here here, which were added by confirmed socks [50]. Adding blocked user Singha90 also since they also added similar content. Interaction [51] Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Hemraj108 is  Confirmed to the Lotus109 batch of socks in the archive - blocked an tagged. Singha90 is already blokced and is nearly stale, but what information is available indicates a possible connection - same general location, different ranges. Tagging them as suspected, closing. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dinkar 108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: originally filed under this user)

• Ajju109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Dinkar 108 has been edit warring on pages about Hindu topics, such as Brahmin. His suspected sock, Ajju109, has been doing the same and has a similar tone in writing. Requesting CheckUser. CanonNi (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi ! all the users , First I am edit warring any of the Hindu Pages. I am just stopping the vandalizing of the caste related pages from the user @Mahsiya he is using dozen account for a same purpose and was already blocked by the admins previously. Before your investigation I already add all his sock puppets for investigation. Here is the [link] and I already provided my evidences. Another thing I just reverted his vandalized edits with proper summary why I am removing them and reverted them to the proper and stable version. Same thing I wrote on my talk by replying you that , please read my summary and the user is pushing two accounts vice versa but without checking my reply or seeing the summary or sources you warned me that I will be blocked so I stopped editing their. And now that account you mentioned Ajju109 , I am not using that may be the same using that account to blame by reverting all his edits as in my all edits I provide a small or good summary. And in all my edits till now I just reverted the vandalized edits I never indulge with anyone in edit war I just check the sources added in the articles and match with matter written in the article if they match then ok if not then I removed them that's. If anyone does'not believe me then I am ready for the checkuser. Though kindly please check my sockpuppet investigation case too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinkar 108 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Also, if possible, could you temporarily protect the pages with ongoing edit wars? CanonNi (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar 108 is blocked on hi.wiki as a sock of Stoickik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Ajju109 has not edited at hi.wiki. Also there may be some connection to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doremon9087. I believe the CU request is a good one to sort this out.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @CanonNi: Sorry, but if you wish to have articles protected because of edit-warring, you'll need to file a report at WP:ANEW or WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I also want to reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy murrey, which was filed by Dinkar 108. Andy murrey attempted to add a report here that was malformed and mostly duplicative. I reverted it, although he may comment here if he wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The following are  Confirmed socks of Doremon9087:

• Dinkar 108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stoickik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ajju109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anosurfer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

•  Blocked and tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thugguy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Similar editing area and 'Gaur' brahmin POV in articles. Revision by a confirmed sock, revision by the new suspected sock. Also note this 'Guar' related POV. Interaction [52]. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed, also Prominister (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Requesting locks. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Somraspa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sindhdhar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Popatpapa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Doug Weller talk 07:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed Doug Weller talk 07:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• re-tagging Vanjagenije (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Picnerflanker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Awadesh Singh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Deeranga (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Latinpapa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anujkelkar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Doug Weller talk 08:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

These are all CU confirmed. I also can confirm that User:Prominister matches them, and they were blocked as part of an SPI on a different sockmaster. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doremon9087/Archive by User:Girth Summit who also blocked User:Thugguy who is also confirmed to the above. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk assistance requested: - I've taken a look - this is a behavioural match for the Doremon9087 case, as well as a technical one. Also Roundgipsy. Please could a clerk merge this case into that one, and retag accordingly. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that I've blocked Arajnvalley (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as  Confirmed to the accounts listed above.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Tagging and closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]