Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:25, 20 May 2015 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,393 edits →18 May 2015: decline CU← Previous edit Revision as of 03:21, 21 May 2015 edit undoVanamonde93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,274 edits →Comments by other users: commentNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:
======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>======
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small>
* The evidence seems rather weak here. Aside from the things Bbb23 pointed out below, the times that they edit are somewhat different, and they have no significant page overlap (Just 1 page, 30 days apart). Unsubstantiated allegations of forced conversion are common across the 'pedia, and if we were to start checking the users who remove or revert such, we would be checking a lot of users indeed. ] (]) 03:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)



======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 03:21, 21 May 2015

Xtremedood

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood/Archive.


18 May 2015

– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets


Both are doing the same edits and editing behaviour (blanking any mention of forced conversion especially in Islam in India articles, giving the same "reasons", both have the same userpage, both are new users, both are editing the same articles and same topic.

  • Both have the same editing behaviour and doing the same edits, ie. they are both blanking any information of Forced conversion in articles.
Blanking of forced conversion by Xtremedood :

and there are many more such examples in his edit history.
Blanking of forced conversion by Calm321

  • Both users blank such information giving either no reason at all or the same reason: "Did not see source, no ref, no references".
Calm321 either has no edit summary or says "Did not see source" , "no reference", "i see no ref"
Xtremedood either has no edit summary or says "did not see reference, Did not see source , No references.
  • They edit the same articles (Ibn Arabi) and same topics (Islam in India, Islam and forced conversion,...)
  • They have the same userpage with the words "Hello", and both are new accounts.

Xtremedood has also been reported to ANI and AE several times for disruptive editing and has been blocked for edit warring. @Gorgevito: @Kansas Bear: @FreeatlastChitchat: @Ghatus: @Delibzr:

Calypsomusic (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

  • The evidence seems rather weak here. Aside from the things Bbb23 pointed out below, the times that they edit are somewhat different, and they have no significant page overlap (Just 1 page, 30 days apart). Unsubstantiated allegations of forced conversion are common across the 'pedia, and if we were to start checking the users who remove or revert such, we would be checking a lot of users indeed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I'm declining the CU as I don't see enough evidence to warrant it. First, the alleged master has a fairly extensive history of editing here, whereas the alleged puppet has very little. Second, in this area of the project, there are bound to be editors who challenge forced conversion. Third, having "Hello" on one's userpage is not uncommon. Fourth, the fact that the master has been reported to noticeboards says nothing about any tie-in to the puppet. Finally, I don't find the edit summary evidence very compelling. There are other edit summaries by each editor that don't overlap and that are actually more unusual than the ones highlighted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: