Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TripWire (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 25 April 2018 (→Comments by other users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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)

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