Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrGreen1163/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
These acounts are all newly created SPAs that have shown the same nationalistic urge or predisposition of embroidering relatively lesser known or outright obscure India-Pakistan war articles with claims of Pakistani military victory, whether that being the case or not. Edits of the same type have in fact been made on articles created and contributed by these suspected socks.
 * Nitty-gritty:


 * 1) MrGreen1163 and LeUnOis have claimed "Pakistani victory" on Tanai incident.
 * 2) Both MrGreen1163 and LeUnOis claimed "Pakistani victory" at both Operation Desert Hawk and the attendant Talk:Operation Desert Hawk.
 * 3) Propolar, with 4 edits hitherto, appears on Operation Desert Hawk to restore the bogus claim of a Pakistani victory, which had been inserted and edit warred for by Mr. Green to maintain inclusion.
 * 4) Within 24 hour of the creation of Battle of Hussainiwala by MrGreen1163, we see that Mudakazal and Propolar (~15 and 2 edits hitherto respectively) turn up to edit it.
 * 5) MrGreen1163 and Rahim231 adorn the infobox of Mianwali air base attack with a Pakistani victory result and other adornments.
 * 6) Rahim231 created Operation Datta Khel and inserted a see also link therof on Siege of Skardu. Mudakazal does the same.
 * 7) LeUnOis claimed "Pakistani Victory" on Datta Khel incident. MrGreen1163 and Rahim231 did the same.
 * 8) Mudakazal, MrGreen1163, and LeUnOis are also active on Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress.
 * 9) Operation Datta Khel was created by Rahim231, but it was wikilinked by Mudakazal elsewhere.
 * 10) Likewise, Battle of Hussainiwala was created by MrGreen1163, but it was wikilinked by Mudakazal elsewhere.
 * 11) Both Mudakazal and LeUnOis showed a fatuous and peculiar obsession with addinging absurd clarifications at the result of Defence of Kamalpur's infobox to detract from the notion of an Indian victory.
 * 12) VirtualVagabond created the article 1950 Afghan invasion of Pakistan the other day, and within a couple days, we see Rahim231 make an appearance and begin editing the article. And Rahim231 remains the only other major contributor to the article as of 18:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) Both VirtualVagabond and MrGreen1163 are claiming a Pakistani upper hand at 2023 Chitral cross-border attacks.
 * 14) VirtualVagabond and MrGreen1163 are both arguing thier points strongly on Battle of Hussainiwala as to why the article should state a result of "Pakistani victory".

These nationalistic edits across a small set of obscure articles, even created by themselves, exuding a fatuous desire of highlighting imagined Pakistani victories and thier wacky quibbles with expressed ideas of Indian victory point to a handiwork of a juvenile mind. And all of these socks capitalize "Pakistani Victory" (as above diffs show) even though we do not capitalize the second word in English. Requesting a CU to unmask them for us. Regards, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added VirtualVagabond in the list of the probable sock accounts. #12-14 enumerate the evidence suggesting strongly that he is another of these newly created but sophistically editing sock. Would appreciate if this is looked into at the earliest. Regards, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've added WikiHence in the list. He has changed the result parameter of Operation Dwarka just like LeUnOis has. Similarly, he complains about a deleted "North Rajasthan, which was a Pakistani victory article" on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 while MrGreen1163 complained about "Rajasthan Front (Pakistani victory) was deleted".

I have also added 2400:adc1:400::/40 because this range is clearly being abused by this sockfarm.
 * IP is edit warring to add "Pakistani victory" on Battle of Hussainiwala, so is MrGreen1163.
 * IP canvassed Fowler&Fowler on his talk page to join Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, so did MrGreen1163.
 * Claiming "Pakistani victory" on Operation Desert Hawk, so did MrGreen1163.
 * IP is disputing results on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, by citing unrelated "Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965", so is MrGreen1163.
 * IP is asking blanket reversion on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, so is Mrgreen1163. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:ANI, Capitals00. The talk page on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 had the original debate on the outcome of the 1948 war as well as the 1965 war in which there was consensus favoring the ceasefire agreements. That is not "unrelated". MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that 7 editors had to revert the edit of an Indian victory in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 says enough about the issue of having consensus. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I’m not sure why I’m involved in this, as it seems every account here is relatively new and made like 2-3 months ago, and have been editing in unison with each other. But as per your claims of some of these accounts editing in articles that I've edited, lets see. For the Tanai Incident, I didn’t even radically change the result to a Pakistani victory, it stated a Pakistani victory before I even touched the page. I just changed the grammar from "Pakistan Army victory” to “Pakistani victory", I don’t see the nationalistic bias there when it stated a result in favor of Pakistan that I didn’t even challenge just fixed the grammar of. Next you brought up the Battle of Hussainiwala, stating me and another user argued for a Pakistani victory. The user who challenged this result, Aman Kumar Goel (I believe thats his name), stated that the sources provided didn’t explicitly mention the word "victory" when stating Pakistan achieved its objectives in capturing the village. I then provided an explicit mention of the word victory in a source, in which he called it unreliable. I didn’t want to edit war so I just left it as that, since Pakistan’s capture of Hussainiwala was still mentioned in the result. I invite you to read the article if you challenge that. Those are the two articles you brought up that me and these suspected users edited in. Now as for these being "sockpuppets" for me to promote nationalistic bias, these were created like 3 months ago. I didn’t even started editing Wikipedia a lot until about 1 month ago. 3 months ago and before that I was only reading Wikipedia. These accounts also started editing off the bat, I didn’t. Why would I start editing a lot on alternate accounts instead of my own? Another note to add, I believe that Wikipedia Administrators can view IP addresses (I may be wrong), and if they do, they will probably see that my IP address is vastly different from these other accounts. Now with the unison in editing and the fact these accounts are new, they probably are connected due to their incredibly similar edits. I would investigate if these are linked to one single account or possibly a banned account. But you can verify our IP addresses to find I don’t have relations to these. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGreen1163 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * On an adding note (details I forgot to include), as per Operation Desert Hawk, the claim "Pakistani victory" was based off the agreed scholarly consensus of Pakistan's military success in the Rann of Kutch, but you argued that Pakistan went to the negotiating table and withdraw, thus stating the result as a ceasefire, which I agreed with, and as per MOS:MIL, I would later add "See aftermath" to bring up Pakistan's military successes before their withdrawal in April, and thus leading to a ceasefire, but also to bring up India's valor, etc (which I haven't gotten to yet), so why would I act in bad faith and also contradict myself..? As for the 2023 Chitral cross-border attacks, all I did was add a citation and reworded it slightly, but still maintaining the overall assessment agreed by neutral sources. You also brought up the Mianwali air base attack. I literally removed an extra letter in the word "successful". As for Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress, all I did was just link it to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and add an image. Finally, as for "nationalistic bias", notice how I bring up cited material in some of these scenarios that I bring up "Pakistani victory", and if it is not reliable as per RS, I delete the sources as shown in my talk page when users bring to my attention sources that are not fully reliable. As if I promote a sense of mass bias against results in favor of India, this is also untrue. I have literally added citations to results that state Indian victory to back that assessment (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Asal_Uttar&oldid=1185967900). It seems you are just pulling up edits that I have made on an article that these other accounts have made to call it "nitty-gritty" without even looking at what I edited. Your argument here seems more bad faith than productive or substantial due to our disagreements on some issues to which I thought we came to a consensus (in reference to Operation Desert Hawk). MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm tired of telling editors in this contentious topic area that SPI is not to be used as a substitute for dispute resolution, and warning you not to file flimsy blanket investigations against groups of your political opponents. It has not escaped our attention that these "throw mud at the wall and see what sticks" requests have increased in frequency since Aman.kumar.goel was blocked, and that Aman.kumar.goel also requested an investigation involving MrGreen1163 which turned up nothing, and so I'm going to remind you only once that meatpuppetry is not allowed, nor is editing at the direction of a blocked or banned editor.
 * If there is a legitimate case for sockpuppetry then somebody not involved in the dispute will file a request. Closing with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Post-archiving, both reporters requested (Special:Permalink/1194769637) that I revisit my comments here. The timeline of this request and the public accounting of Aman.kumar.goel's block do not serve as evidence of collusion, and it was inappropriate of me to have suggested that they did, so I have struck that part of my comment. In light of that it was also not reasonable to warn the reporters as I did; consider my explicit warning retracted.
 * However, I stand by my general concern of SPI being used as a substitute for dispute resolution in topics of longstanding geopolitical conflict with deep nationalist tendencies on all sides. I explained in more detail in the discussion linked above why many editors expressing similar points of view in these topics is not, in and of itself, evidence of sockpuppetry. Neither are previous confirmed reports of sockpuppetry sufficient rationale for checkuser - we are not permitted to perform "fishing" checks, nor does policy permit checking all new accounts in a topic area because of past sockpuppet activity. It is up to the filer to explain how the evidence they provide indicates sockpuppetry; clerks will not build a case for you. The presence of many editors disagreeing with your position is not evidence of sockpuppetry, in the same way as it is not evidence of sockpuppetry that other editors agree with you. In the past I've called this the "fish interested in oceans" argument: when it can be expected that many editors will hold a particular point of view (even if that view would not comply with NPOV), it is not evidence of sockpuppetry that many editors do. I've also called it the "Indian editors interested in cricket" argument (not intending to be racist: I was referring to a past report based on many self-identifying Indian editors making changes across a broad range of cricket articles) but it's not really an appropriate framing considering the context of this particular report, and I commit to not using it in the future.
 * In this report, the filers have meticulously and in good faith compiled evidence they say demonstrates sockpuppetry: common edits to an infobox parameter, a series of other articles that several of the accounts have edited, and that one is already blocked as a sockpuppet (a second has been blocked since this was archived, as a result of a separate investigation).
 * The parameter edits are not sufficiently substantive to be evidence of sockpuppetry, it's an expected edit for someone holding a POV which can reasonably be expected to be common. Or as I framed this on my talk page: it's no more evidence of sockpuppetry than the waves of accounts recently assembling to support "Indian victory" in a range of Indo-Pakistan conflict articles are evidence of sockpuppetry, which includes both of the filers.
 * Edits to many pages in common within a broad topic, in this case Pakistani military history, can be reasonably explained as many editors interested in that topic in good faith. To be evidence of sockpuppetry, the filers would need to show substantive similarities in the content changed between edits from different accounts, and they have not done so here.
 * The presence of confirmed sockpuppets in the reported accounts would be good supporting evidence, if there was other evidence of editing commonalities. But the existence of past sockpuppets cannot in and of itself be used as rationale to accuse all editors interested in a broad topic of sockpuppetry, and allegations of sockpuppetry without evidence can be construed as personal attacks. I am not suggesting that this was the filers' intent.
 * This report remains closed. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)