Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:59, 12 May 2018

Liborbital

Liborbital (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/Liborbital/Archive.

23 April 2018

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• Uncle Sargam (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.

@Berean Hunter and Smartse: This account came out of nowhere to engage in edit war on Insurgency in Balochistan. It looks like a sock of Mfarazbaig.

Same style of adding sources.

Obsessing over Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items concerning sports and also articles about incidents in India, and then trying to get these incidents-related articles passed on Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates. Capitals00 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Has shown his opposition against "T20" cricket on WP:ITN, like Mfarazbaig.

• Uncle Sargam: "ref added"
• RetroHunk: "ref fix"
• "cleanup"
• "no source"

• Uncle_Sargam: "seek consensus on talk page before blanket removal"

Mfarazbaig's sock Albert Dawkins: "get consensus before addition"

Similar votes in WP:ITN/C:

• Support as a updater. It received global news coverage. --Uncle Sargam (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem, its a 'first world problem'. Not significant enough to receiving global coverage. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Major development covered by the global media houses. Albert Dawkins(talk)

File complaint against multiple editors in ANI after failing to get his version accepted. Capitals00 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• "A significant no. of deaths and the incident received global news coverage. Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)"

"Support as a updater. It received global news coverage. --Uncle Sargam (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)"

Clear WP:DUCK. Capitals00 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Posts Google books links as "google.com.pk/", summaries as "update".

The SPI has already become stale and the disruption continues. @Ponyo, Doc James, and MER-C: any of you are still active on this SPI? Capitals00 (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• Yeah, it's him.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. MBlaze Lightning 09:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, for the record, Berean Hunter ran a check on Mfarazbaig on 5 March, so I don't think this could be stale. In any case, this is pretty much an open-and-shut case. Not long ago, Mfarazbaig had reported Capitals00, me, D4iNa4 and Adamgerber80 at WP:ANI for reverting his edits on 2018 Sukma attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), an article that he created, via an IP address, 58.27.134.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), alleging that we were acting in "collusion". Now this new sock filed a frivolous complaint at WP:ANI against Capitals00, me and Raymond3023 for "edit warring" on Insurgency in Balochistan, saying "These editors seem to gang up and censor anything they dont like by reverting contributions made by others. There definitely is a pattern that seems fishy."

Also note that Uncle Sargam puts two dashes in a row (--) before signing his comment, just like the master and past confirmed socks. MBlaze Lightning 02:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can point out many editors who insert two dashes before their signatures. Just one look at my recent interactions reveal that Bbb23 and NadirAli insert two dashes before their signatures and there are many many other editors who do that. That is again the type of evidence, I call trivial. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Arent the two dashes inserted by default?? Unless you force a hyphen or something else in your signature, the default signature carries two dashes.—TripWire 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is a very poor evidence. Trivial things presented as evidence here. "This account came out of nowhere to engage in edit war on Insurgency in Balochistan" as Librobital is the only one in the world who engaged in an edit war on that page, that page is infested with edit-warriors. Totally different styles of adding the source presented as "Same style of adding the sources", Uncle Sargam is adding the source under "Further reading" while Libro is adding it inside the main article content whereas Libro’s source is named while Sargam’s source is not otherwise everyone adds sources the same way. Other pieces of evidence are very trivial as well for example interest in "In the news", "sports" and "India" topics. There is nothing outstanding in the evidence to convict Sargam. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• The editor does not seem as a somebody who just started editing on Misplaced Pages. They are very well versed with Misplaced Pages policies and the WP:ANI. This can be further cemented by the use creating a new template Template:Liaquat Ali Khan. IMO, there could be two reasons somebody who is well versed with Misplaced Pages might be editing from a recently created account. It could be a fresh start in which case the user should come clean (in private) with the admins and clear up this confusion. Or they might be evading a past Topic ban (on India Pakistan Articles) or a block. This is not new and has been noticed across many SPI's. I am inclined to believe that this is a sock of Mfarazbaig since there are some uncanny similarities. Both of these editors have strong interest in unrest in India , and on expanding these articles. On pushing/opposing articles in the Wiki news candidates ,. In addition is their interest in Pakistani sports here , , . To further sum this is they are already involved in edit war with other editors with whom they have had a similar situation in the past. 128.220.159.7 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• The sudden parachuting of this IP (128.220.159.7) here, solidifies my hunch that there is something fishy as I mentioned it on WP:ANI. I ask the admins to investigate this IP's connection with Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning & Raymond3023. As far as how I was able to create Template:Liaquat Ali Khan is concerned, I simply copy-pasted Template:Muhammad Ali Jinnah, replaced the parameters and took a bit of inspiration from Template:Abraham Lincoln. Is the IP really suggesting that one needs to know some sort of coding to edit Misplaced Pages? --Uncle Sargam (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Rebuttal to latest evidence presented by the filer:

1. Summary terms such as “ref added”, “ref fix”, “cleanup” and “no source” are universal terms and used by many editors
2. The other evidence regarding asking for consensus is trivial as well, I ask for the consensus all the time and many other editors do as well
3. Votes presented as similar are not similar at all, they are for completely different pages with different topics so there are two differentiating factors in there, one being a different page, second being different topic, for example, here are the links given by filer as evidence (I just added the page titles for clarity): Uncle Sargam (April 2018 caste protests in India), Mfarazbaig (Monarch Airlines)
4. Filing complaints on ANI is not a smoking gun either, done by many, as a matter of fact, there are 10-20 complaints open at ANI every day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Capitals00 filed for this investigation on 23rd April. He then posted some more cherry picked examples on 26th April, then on 27th April and now on 10th May. He continues to stalk my edits. Is this kind of behavior normal on Wiki? Do you plan to let this investigation be open for all eternity? If I have to debunk this allegation to get this investigation to close then so be it.

(a) "Same style of adding sources." - I see that Mfarazbaig would even put square brackets within refs to link news sources which I don't. e.g.

(b) "Obsessing over Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items concerning sports and also articles about incidents in India" - According to filer I have an obsession over ITNR concerning sports but I don't see myself commenting on a Suggestion to add: Other multi-national Olympic-style sporting events, which was up there during the same time. And the suggestion of me having obsession over "incidents in India" is trivial. It seems the filer is going to accuse anyone editing articles about "incidents in India".

(c) "Has shown his opposition against "T20" cricket on WP:ITN" - This accusation is as dumb as it gets. Fact is I opposed the Proposed Addition: Domestic Football Leagues.

(d) "cleanup" - My edit summary was cleanup while Mfarazbaig's was Cleanup. with a capital C and a full stop.

(e) "no source" - My summary is no source. Mfarazbaig's is WP:OR, no source. Again the usage of full stop.

This investigation was filed on lies and deceit. And if any admin is taking any of this seriously, tag me here so I can debunk the rest. --Uncle Sargam (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• This case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• @MBlaze Lightning: First, Berean did not run a check against Mfarazbaig (talk · contribs · count) in March 2018. Second, Mfarazbaig is stale. Third, I can't tell what accounts Berean is talking about in the link you provided because no names are used, and I'm not going to dig to figure it out because it's irrelevant. That said, I assume that Berean checked the CU logs for Mfarazbaig, which can be done by any CheckUser of any account that's been checked before.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

28 April 2018

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 39.50.153.93 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 39.50.163.13 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

Adding these to the archive. I was notified of this at WT:ITN with this edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases declined for checkuser by CU
• SPI cases awaiting archive