Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray/Archive

20 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Reported + Diff for personal attack at AVI:

Same slur used by the user as the IP later comes back to abuse in above links:

Edit war on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:

The editwar is on exact same content on which I had an inconclusive DRN with the user dbigxray:

(And now user comes back to continue the content dispute on the talk after IP's done with it: )

This is when I previously recognized this IP being used by this user when he forgot to log in (compare both edits by user and IP).

I have previously reported this user for wiki hounding and canvassing on to administrator and ANI (see the secion on wikihounding in archive)

Fake admin poser:

Other previous (after ANI warning) hounding by the same user (more details in discussion):

User and IP both agree on using the same IP. lTopGunl (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP has also been making personal attacks on my talk page (see last two sections on my talk) after I reported him for editwarring on AVI. I've had long time disputes with the sockmaster and previously seen him editing under his account and IP making the same edits (as provided in the evidence). One of the disputes was on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which ended up to be inconclusive on DRN and the IP shows up now reverting the exact same changes giving similar approach edit summaries, editwarring, and making personal attacks. I previously reported him at ANI for wikihounding & wikistalking for which we were told to stay away from each other (and I haven't posted on his talk page since though we still got involved in previously on going disputes). The IP claims (comments on my talk page) that he is a student of the same university as the sockmaster and denies being him and his abusive tone suddenly disappears when I bring up evidence of sockpuppetry. The sockmaster still has hounding habits: started opposing here while I was debating with other editors (with him not being a contributor or watcher of the article very much seemingly). Here's another instance he followed up my contributions to remove the whole sentence to which I added missing citation ensuing a useless debate ending up against him. User on numerous occasions has had no regard for WP:POINT & WP:HEAR. And interestingly the sockmaster seems very much ripe for his current actions since he has been pretending to be an admin and threatening people around recently! 

Another thing that I just noticed and actually belongs to the evidence section is that the IP and the sockmaster have used exactly same racist slur to address me (and probably since I warned the sockmaster not to use the slur which is listed on wikipedia as offensive he came back with an IP to do the same):. WP:DUCK. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is funny how the user poses as admin to other users and later defends it with lame excuses (further diffs of him attacking me on deleting uninvolved comments from my own talk page and lying about policies from the ANI report provided in the evidence), I've already pointed out that I have been in so many content disputes with this user which he is now trying to re-frame in the defense section. With the kind of language the IP used, the institute doesn't really look 'reputable'. What IP & the user do agree is that they are from the same institute and using the same IP, so confirming a checkuser themselves which should also be taken as evidence. Although both deny being each other, the WP:DUCK tells entirely different story. About his allegation of hiding the response, it can be seen that he struck the slur and instead replaced with a WP:SHOUT. And later used the IP to abuse. I've not made sockpuppet allegations on anyone ever although I might have referred to them being investigated in whatever context which is not a lie and another debate. Whatever content POV the sockmaster being investigated has here are the same of the IP. The only thing clearer than this would be him editing under a sock named DBigXray_reloaded. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * 1) I would link to bring to the notice of Concerned Administrators that this IP belongs to a Reputed Educational Institute. Being a Shared IP Its completely wrong to held me responsible for all the edits that are done from this IP. I hope Wiki has sufficient rules to handle such Baseless Sockpuppet investigations requests
 * 2) the response from the other editor using this IP is already at and can be looked at here and
 * 3) The Accuser has a Motto of Inserting Pakistani POV in Wiki articles (and can be clearly seen in his edits) and is often met by resistance from my side when he tries to disrupt india related articles under my watchlist. To get me out of his way he has desperately tried all attempts of getting me blocked by all possible means and failed in each and every attempt in getting me blocked. Now since all previous attempts have failed he is now trying to get me blocked on sockpuppet.
 * 4) Also its not easy for a Pakistani POV Pusher to go un noticed on wikipedia. And when the other editors complain of his behavious he prefers calling all them Sockpuppets, proofs here . and  it seems that the he has found blaming for Sockpuppetry a best remedy for getting through content disputes arising because of his disruptive edits on wikipedia
 * 5) its imp to note that my name prominently figures in his edits on other editors talk pages      (clealy smells grudge and malice against me isnt it ?)
 * 6) now that an investigation has been requested by the user. all my comments on talk pages of articles will be replied with his comment that my comments are worthless as I am Under Investigation. he has already done it in past with User:Swift&silent and inspite of the fact that the User:Swift&silent was cleared of this baseless allegation, he deems it fit to still call him sockpuppet in his recent comments. And by doing this investigation he hopes that he can do the same to me, in telling the other editors to ignore my comments.
 * 7) Since when did warning a proven VANDAL for Vandalism started being called as threatening people around ?? just another Pathetic attempt to get support for getting me blocked. about the allegation of posing as an admin. I was new to wikipedia and was just trying to discourage a vandal only account  from vandalizing wikipedia. later on i learnt that there are templates to warn them so started using them. Besides i would like to inform that the account of of the user whom i tried warning was later on blocked indefinitely for being a Vandalism only Account.
 * 8) I had used the word as a short of PAKISTANI POV and had corrected it at once but he has deliberately hidden my response in his link it seems to me another pathetic attempt to garner support by using it a racist comment.
 * 9) he tries to use the excuses of content dispute of wiki articles in his above allegation to get me banned for Sockpuppetry. to me it seems another desperate attempt to get me blocked after he failed at ANI, AIV etc etc (lost the count and names). I am not going to give any defence for content dispute here as this is not the right place for content dispute.
 * 10) Now as far as i know there are policies that a person who calls for a ban is also scrutinized hence I would request the administrators to also look into the account of lTopGunl (talk) for blatantly pushing pakistani POV on wiki articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBigXray (talk • contribs) 13:26, November 20, 2011‎

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CheckUser declined - per the privacy policy, CheckUsers will not publicly link accounts to IP addresses. WilliamH (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's some overlap that makes me curious, but I'm not wholly convinced. Further, given that this report is questionable due to a longstanding edit war between two editors (DBigXRay and Hassanhn5, I'm closing with no action taken for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

25 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This was an idle article never edited by any of the mentioned IPs. I nominated it for deletion today as it did not have any RS, the creator acknowledged to be a school alumni at help desk. Later after some debate, these IPs show up reiterating creator's views. They are either meat-puppets or sock puppets per WP:DUCK. Also note the alternating editing by the user and these IPs at around the same time. He also notified all editors who ever edited that page, don't think that is usually done, only major contributors and creator are notified - won't that be canvassing in addition to this? (I could be wrong on this specific point). . lTopGunl (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (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 user TOpgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the artcle for deletiion.

the 3 IPS above
 * 1) 125.63.115.13 seems to be some alumni 	feel free to check
 * 2) 122.252.231.7 seems to be some alumni 	feel free to check
 * 3) 180.149.53.194 is my IP(my Educational Institute's IP Public and dynamic IPs) when i forgot to login, i noticed it and at the next moment logged in and signed

this is nothing but a case of constant malice against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past
 * another point to be noted is the editor TopGun had tried almost all possible ways of getting me blocked and falied miserably in each and every attempt. perhaps these Cases against me are to deface my comments or mislead admins from his own wrong doings, I can give the evidence off all accusations in past if need be -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The link for earlier failed SP case against me by TopGun another example of |assuming BAD faith

Comments by TopGun
This was not a hounding incident, as the DBigXray himself states this was after a helpdesk reply (where I regularly edit), hounding is done from contributions list. I simply nominated article based on its own merits. The 'alumni' however seem to be meat puppets at very best. Any previous disputes I've had with this editor are long idle and this should be treated independently own its own merits. -- lTopGunl (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The related discussion has now been closed resulting in a keep which the suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets were supporting and by enlisting of all who edited the article. -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Or meatpuppetry, who knows. All the IPs geolocate to India - but very different parts. The disruption isn't enough to block, so as far as the AFD goes, just mark the IPs as SPA. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * 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 ("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-- D Big X ray  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 Match of 100%, (yes thats true) at AfD !Votes because of which "I am also extremely concerned by the complete 100% overlap of Vanamond+DBX's AfD.", I guess some one should start an SPI at our name as well, a CU between us will also do no harm, Who knows, may be both Vanamond and myself are having the same geolocation, that will further help proving this case of Meat between us. 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. -- D Big X ray  19:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, what about the WP:BOOMERANG block on the Filer per WP:NOTHERE, described above, and suggested by Abe. -- D Big X ray  22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification of your old comment and your belief that this case was bogus. TBH, I have no problem with CU. I was actually shocked to see that you were accepting above stupid mix of Afd votes as an evidence and your " AfD concern". As Abecedare already reported below AfD !votes are far below acceptable threshold. It is quite reasonable to expect 2 AfD regulars following "India related AfDs" to overlap. I even gave "DBX+VNM 100% AfD overlap" example above to show the fallacy of such an argument at SPI. It is expected from Admins to be responsible and careful while making such observations, this is the only reason for my comment above. Nothing more. Since the filer Urdu_ID is already blocked I have nothing more to state or request here. I thank all the 3 admins for reviewing the report and satisfactorily closing it. cheers-- D Big X ray  23:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * You misunderstand. The concern is not over !votes matching, but over unexpectedly high participation in the same AfDs. There are several possible reasons for this, of which the possibility that Accesscrawl is your sock is only one. I for one do not believe that to be the case (and I said as much above); but the threshold for running a CU is much lower than than the threshold for blocking someone for socking. Also; an editor who has not indulged in sockpuppetry actually benefits somewhat from having a CU run on them, as it limits further frivolous SPIs; which is what I meant by "draw[ing] a line under this". Given that our previous interactions have largely been positive, I'm rather surprised that you are attributing my comment to malice rather than a desire for due diligence. Vanamonde (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please examine the definition of involvement more carefully; our interactions have been of an administrative nature, or have involved overlap on deletion discussions; we have not been involved in a dispute, nor even overlapped on matters of substance when editing the same article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:19, 12 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)
 * As proposed above, I have blocked User:مھتاب احمد for proxy-editing and battleground conduct. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Closing. I don't think a CU is justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)