Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray: 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 19:41, 11 August 2018 editRenamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs)68,802 editsm →Comments by DBigXray: brackets← Previous edit Revision as of 20:15, 11 August 2018 edit undoAbecedare (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators33,231 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: cmtNext edit →
Line 44: Line 44:
* Noting for the record ] brought to my talkpage after this SPI was filed, and my . ] (]) 15:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC) * Noting for the record ] brought to my talkpage after this SPI was filed, and my . ] (]) 15:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
*I have to say I do not find the behavioral evidence convincing enough for a block outright; there's similar patterns of voting and reverting between accounts cleared of sockpuppetry. It doesn't necessarily show anything more than shared interests and a similar point of view on a certain subject. That said, I have occasionally found the edits from the Accesscrawl account suspicious; reverts to articles not previously edited are not standard. I am also slightly concerned by the at AfD. I do not think it would hurt to run a CU here, even if its only effect is to draw a line under this. ] (]) 18:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC) *I have to say I do not find the behavioral evidence convincing enough for a block outright; there's similar patterns of voting and reverting between accounts cleared of sockpuppetry. It doesn't necessarily show anything more than shared interests and a similar point of view on a certain subject. That said, I have occasionally found the edits from the Accesscrawl account suspicious; reverts to articles not previously edited are not standard. I am also slightly concerned by the at AfD. I do not think it would hurt to run a CU here, even if its only effect is to draw a line under this. ] (]) 18:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
* My reading of the evidence largely matches Vanamonde's. The overlap is incidental in article-space and even , given that the two users have participated in and AFDs in last three months, the overlap on 10 AFDS can be chalked up to overlap in interest or, at worst, editors keeping an eye on each-other's edits (fwiw 7 of the 10 overlapping AFDs were routine, and ] ] ] can there even be any suspicion of clique based voting; arguably non-ideal but not rising to the level of sock/meat-puppetry for the accounts being discussed). Finally, DBX's looks suspicious but has ].
:TLDR: I don't find the evidence sufficient to establish sockpuppetry, but am leaving the case open for now in case another admin would like to review it, or CU would want to run a check to make sure.
:Additionally, my inclination is to block ] at the close of this SPI since IMO it is quite evident that the account is being use as a proxy to file/back-up complaints against editors perceived to be on the "other side" of the Indian-Pakistan topic area (see ], ], ] in addition to this SPI). There is clear difference in the language used in these complaints and that in the other (mostly minor) edits by the user; they have little other recent activity on enwiki; irrespective of the validity of the individual complaints, such battleground conduct needs to be discouraged. I'd welcome input from other admins regarding my conclusion about proxy-editing and proposed action. ] (]) 20:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 20:15, 11 August 2018

DBigXray

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

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



11 August 2018

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets


a) It is interesting to note that DBigXray reverted an IP edit on 6 July 2018 without ever having edited the Human rights abuses in Kashmir article before. On 19 July, on the same article Accesscrawl reverts five edits by an IP in one go using a mobile device, which is strange considering he never edited the article before. Also someone must have fed Accesscrawl 1,118 bytes to re-add because I don’t think they used Rollbacker and were using mobile device. When Accesscrawl was reverted DBigXray came to rescue and restore the edit. DBX may claim they were alerted by Twinkle but surprisingly the (TW) in their edit summaries is not wiki-linked which means they type it themselves.
b) When DBX was reverted on 28 July, AC came to restore it.
c) On 2 August, AC makes a revert. When AC is reverted, DBX restores it. 21 mins later DBX self-reverts with “Slef revert as i didnt see there was already a revert same day” as edit summary. This is a slip up confession, because DBX hadn’t made a revert there that day, only AC had. This slip up confession was prompted by his recent WP:1RR violation on the article for which he had been warned and where AC tried to save DBX. DBX is now aware of the grave mistake they made and will likely make up a story.
d) DBX expresses their intention to report Son of Kolachi on AN3. While, AC reports the user.
e) Both AC and DBX attempt to get SoK blocked at SPI. :f) Both AC (which was registered in Nov 2017) and DBX also edit hi.wikipedia.org and commons.wikimedia.org. :g) Both always vote the same way at AfDs, often using the same rationale. ::i. DBX: Keep & AC: Keep ::ii. DBX: …recommending delete per WP:NOTNEWS & AC: …are exactly WP:NOTNEWS ::iii. DBX: Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS … lacks WP:LASTING coverage. & AC: Delete - Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS ::iv. DBX: Delete & AC: Delete ::v. DBX: Keep Passes WP:GNG & AC: Keep Passes WP:GNG ::vi. DBX: Delete & AC: Delete ::vii. DBX: Keep …as far as WP:GNG is concerned, & AC: Keep Passes WP:GNG : h) Both DBX and AC Oppose on same RfC.
The mobile edits by AC is a deliberate attempt of escaping CheckUser. Considering the overwhelming behavioral evidence, either AC is DBX’s WP:SOCK or they are engaged in WP:TAGTEAM and should be blocked per WP:MEAT. مھتاب احمد (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Comments by DBigXray

The above report is only created with mal intentions of smear campaign and harassment of editors in good standing. I wont even waste my time reading all those difs, but if any admin needs any clarification, they can ping me or email me.

  • Thanks Lorskating for the ping and the detailed explanation. I was wondering who this user مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs) ("Urdu_ID" henceforth) is and what is really his beef with me. I recall no interaction "ever" with this editor. And hence no reason to assume bad faith on either his side or mine. That he has filed an entirely bogus SPI against me is quite shocking to be frank. The loads of garbage being presented as evidence is frankly nothing more than wishful thinking. I dont even know who AccessCrawl is and why he is being clubbed with me. Urdu_ID and his handler seem or (trying to be) unaware of WP:RCP. I have seen AccessCrawl responding to some of the AfDs that I have participated. AccessCrawl seems to be regular at AfDs. Calling AccessCrawl's AfD contribution as Meat puppetry, is nothing more than Horseshit. The Comment on Twinkle is clearly laughable and I would leave it at that.
  • I digged deeper in the UrduIDs contribution and found that UrduID has filed several SPIs all without no interaction with the users he alleged, on SPI. He is a clear case of WP:CIR for his poor English and bad comments, The ANI thread where he got topic banned from AfD reveals more possible collusion.
  • Due to UrduID's rather obvious poor english, It is quite clear to me that his account is being used by others to copy paste at ANI and SPI.
  • Filing bad faith bogus SPI reports on behalf of topic banned users, as a part of SMEAR CAMPAIGN clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. I expect an Indef block on this UrduID for repeating this again and again.
  • Now regarding the question of who is behind Urdu ID, I am not sure, So I can only speculate. I am not aware of SherriffInTown and never had any interaction with him either. But what I clearly know is the first SPI against me was filed by a User:TopGun who was also into habit of filing spurious SPI cases against editors who had content dispute with him with an intention to malign the other editor. (To me it seems TopGun changed his city/location and came back as SherrifInTown and now filing SPIs via UrduID.)
  • I hope the admins will take a strong note of this and roll back the "bad faith SPI filling" clearly filed to malign editors in good standing--DBigXray 14:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Vanamond:"I am also slightly concerned by the high overlap at AfD." What kind of nonsensical and malicious comment is that ? Statistically speaking any article at AfD has more than 50% chance of being deleted. So statistically there is always a more than 50% chance of 2 editors !voting in a same way.
  • Amusingly enough MySelf and Vanamonde (Editor Interaction tool) both also have a astonishingly high overlap of (Match of 100%, yes thats true) at AfD !Votes which is now "extremely concerning" to me, I guess some one should start an SPI at our name as well. I hope you do understand the stupidity of the ill-conceived argument you are making here. Such nonsense is expected from a troll/socker above, but certainly not from an Admin ( who is commenting in the Admin section). Which leads me to think, are you WP:INVOLVED here ? If so you should not be commenting from the Admin section in the first place. --DBigXray 19:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


  • @Vanamonde93: I have voted on many more AfDs of same subjects where Dbig Xray has not participated. This SPI is a "smear campaign" as already described above and needs to be treated like that. You are WP:INVOLVED and should better move your comments up here because that particular section where you have posted your comments belongs only to uninvolved admins and clerks and you are not one. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Noting for the record the related complaints/defense brought to my talkpage after this SPI was filed, and my advice to the editors. Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say I do not find the behavioral evidence convincing enough for a block outright; there's similar patterns of voting and reverting between accounts cleared of sockpuppetry. It doesn't necessarily show anything more than shared interests and a similar point of view on a certain subject. That said, I have occasionally found the edits from the Accesscrawl account suspicious; reverts to articles not previously edited are not standard. I am also slightly concerned by the high overlap at AfD. I do not think it would hurt to run a CU here, even if its only effect is to draw a line under this. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My reading of the evidence largely matches Vanamonde's. The overlap is incidental in article-space and even at AFD's, given that the two users have participated in 127 and 40+ AFDs in last three months, the overlap on 10 AFDS can be chalked up to overlap in interest or, at worst, editors keeping an eye on each-other's edits (fwiw 7 of the 10 overlapping AFDs were routine, and only in three can there even be any suspicion of clique based voting; arguably non-ideal but not rising to the level of sock/meat-puppetry for the accounts being discussed). Finally, DBX's self-revert looks suspicious but has possible innocent explanations.
TLDR: I don't find the evidence sufficient to establish sockpuppetry, but am leaving the case open for now in case another admin would like to review it, or CU would want to run a check to make sure.
Additionally, my inclination is to block User:مھتاب احمد at the close of this SPI since IMO it is quite evident that the account is being use as a proxy to file/back-up complaints against editors perceived to be on the "other side" of the Indian-Pakistan topic area (see 1, 2, 3 in addition to this SPI). There is clear difference in the language used in these complaints and that in the other (mostly minor) edits by the user; they have little other recent activity on enwiki; irrespective of the validity of the individual complaints, such battleground conduct needs to be discouraged. I'd welcome input from other admins regarding my conclusion about proxy-editing and proposed action. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Categories: