Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PAKHIGHWAY/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Both are new accounts, Mfarazbaig registered this January, they have been using same style of writing, edit warring, editing many same articles, sharing same POV, making same insults.


 * Proposed a page move on Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, only Mfarazbaig supported it and would tell PAKHIGHWAY to "make a move" and "Give it a week or so" PAKHIGHWAY would make the page move after a week, but no one except these 2 accounts supported page move.
 * On Template talk:History of Pakistan. PAKHIGHWAY replaced comment of Mfarazbaig by applying same POV, it looks like a botched attempt of socking.
 * ends all edits summaries with a full stop. PAKHIGHWAY, Mfarazbaig
 * threats to "report" people on edit summaries.
 * Alleges people of being blind.
 * Mfarazbaig: "Please use your eyes & the brain", "If the eyes & brain fail, please use Ctrl + F"
 * PAKHIGHWAY: "Maybe you're blind. Take off your nationalist glasses"


 * Doesn't understand difference between Vandalism and WP:NOTVAND.
 * Both made edit request on Kulbhushan Jadhav
 * Both voted keep on a same AFD in matter of hours and didn't even signed comment., significantly edited the article. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * has been blocked per the investigations at Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it time to close this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to let anybody investigating this to know I think it's worth taking a looking the following two banned users: SUPERPAKBROS and Urdulinguist. I think both are also sockpuppets of PAKHIGHWAY and have already been banned. I don't have too much evidence but have good feeling given similar username and the fact PAKHIGHWAY mentioned Urdulinguist on User talk:Ponyo. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CheckUser says they're ❌. Moved to open queue for behavioural evaluation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed per findings at Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility


 * Per this AN thread.Bears semblance to PHighway's last creations that culminated in his T-ban, as noted by Guy.Anyway, this IP is near-certainly a returning user and whilst I'm perfectly aware of our prohibition-policy of not linking IPs with UACs, the sock-master (whoever it is), iff found, ought be blocked even if without public linking to this SPI or without any mentions of the master at this SPI. ~ Winged Blades Godric  11:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see this new AN thread. ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:37, 6 February 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

 * The IP hasn't edited in four days. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New account created only for supporting PAKHIGHWAY and asking protection of Template:History of Pakistan, same request that was also made by PAKHIGHWAY to preserve his pseudohistorical version. Only person to claim "vandalism" on template's talk page.

Pakhighway claimed "it has to be one of the most (if not the most) vandalized template" and Ratatatain claims "This has to be the most vandalized template on Wikipedia", both are nonsensical claims. .

PAKHIGHWAY has often boasted his work on this template elsewhere. Hence his obsession with the template. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * clearly this is PAKHIGHWAY. I also know that this block is not going to be overturned since CU Bbb23 and NeilN support the block, still it is good to clear all doubts. This account canvassed "particular set of editors" because he thought that they agreed with his version per these comments of these editors:, and yes he also thought that because Cabayi made a request to protect a WP:WRONGVERSION and Ritchie333 protected it, that means they agreed with PAKHIGHWAY's pseudohistorical content as well. But nearly all of these editors gave up supporting his version once lengthy discussion and proposal was made, pointing out the extreme faults with the version. Who else would want to wade through heavily edited WP:RFPP to know that Cabayi asked for protection? People care about why the page was protected and how the protection would be removed. Someone who is very obsessed with the template would care enough to remember who asked for protection, and it is even more evident when the requesting user (Cabayi) is totally uninvolved in this whole subject. How come this editor was so quick to analyze that who may have supported PAKHIGHWAY's version? Why he didn't canvassed blocked sock Mfarazbaig who supported that version? Because only PAKHIGHWAY was aware of all that. These are the only two users to spout utter nonsense that this is the "most vandalized" template of Wikipedia, when there has been no vandalism on this template for years. Statement like "when their block is nearly over", doesn't make sense, because PAKHIGHWAY was blocked for a month on 6 February, and today is 24 February, that means 10 days are still left and easily 35% of the block was in place before expiration and even if his block was expiring tomorrow he still can't edit this template because of his recent topic ban. PAKHIGHWAY tried to evade CU and he failed. When PAKHIGHWAY makes extraneous claims like "Facebook claimed I was using multiple accounts", in order to deceive since none of us can verify such fairy tales, there should no reason why we should reconsider the decision. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction I had nothing to do with setting the protection level - I merely responded to a TPE request while it was template protected Template talk:History of Pakistan (a non-controversial fix to presentation) and while there I pointed out in response to PAKHIGHWAY's request for protection that protection was already in place Template talk:History of Pakistan.
 * When I received the sock's request for help, a request from a new user account, asking me to ask for protection (which Ratatatain could easily have done for themself) I had a strong feeling of being played for a cat's paw. A scan through the template's talk page showed the only interested editor unable to make the request for themself was PAKHIGHWAY. Personally I have no doubt at all that PAKHIGHWAY is Ratatatain.
 * The CU's finding that master & sock were using different browsers doesn't seem any hurdle to linking the two accounts - I use two browsers myself (one for wiki, one for everything else). Cabayi (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just assumed the correct meaning of "which you helped protect" to determine your role in this template. Looks like PAKHIGHWAY's gross CIR issues are way bigger than what I thought, given his clear inability to describe what he actually saw. Ratatatain knew that posting a request for protection won't do anything and it would get rejected under a couple of minutes, that's why like a pro-disruptive editor, Ratatatain went on to wage a WP:BATTLE and WP:EDITWAR on the template by canvassing everyone who he assumed will edit war for his version and such unrest would automatically create a reason to protect the template and that has always been the wish of these both accounts. Looks like a well thought but failed plan of PAKHIGHWAY. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I received a request from Ratatatain to get involved at Template talk:History of Pakistan (diff), as did (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff), and  (diff). I was wondering if we were being played as cat's paws then saw that Muboshgu has already called it out as an obvious sock. has already put PAKHIGHWAY on notice that a site ban is the next step. Quack! Cabayi (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Thank you User:Cabayi for opening this. I agree it's a WP:DUCK. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I really think this needs a checkuser investigation. If this does indeed turn out to be PAKHIGHWAY evading their WP:ANI-sanctioned block, the master account will need to be blocked indefinitely. So, we should be as sure as we can here rather than just blocking as a duck. --Yamla (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll note that my reading of the current WP:ANI-endorsed block is that any further violation will result in an indefinite block: "Block shortened to one month with the understanding this is PAKHIGHWAY's last chance before an indef." I understand that to mean an automatic WP:CBAN, though this was not explicitly spelled out. --Yamla (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for raising a valid concern. I was quite perplexed myself. When I saw the message on my talk page this morning, I did not get the "feel" of it being PAKHIGHWAY. There are several dozen pro-Pakistan editors that hover around Wikipedia without registering accounts for whatever reason. Any one of them could have given these alerts, given that the template in question of emotive interest to pretty much all of them. If there isn't a clear CU connection with PAKHIGHWAY, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is not even here to defend himself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea why someone would shoot himself in the foot in such a ridiculous way, with just a few days left on his block. It just isn't credible. All I can tell from the sidelines is that there is clearly bad blood between several editors of PAKHIGHWAY's topic area (India-Pakistan-Afghanistan). There are several users in this topic area that would just love to get rid of each other (i.e. "one less nuisance"). - LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that Ratatatain must be someones sock -- just probably not PAKHIGHWAY. This requires more attention on another venue in my opinion. IF it turns out to be PAKHIGHWAY, the key should be thrown into a deep well. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked. Neil N  talk to me 17:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If I had never checked PAKHIGHWAY before and were looking at these two accounts fresh, I would say the two are between and  because the user agents are completely different. What's remarkable, though, is in late 2016 PAKHIGHWAY was editing from one country, and now they are editing from another country on another continent and in the same geographical area as Ratatatain. The two accounts are also using the same ISP, although the IP ranges are different.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the master indefinitely. --Neil N  talk to me 17:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks a little odd to me. The user creates a sock and then posts messages on various user talk pages? That's not sock like behavior. Unless the CU is compelling, this may need rethinking. --regentspark (comment) 23:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interested to hear more opinions on this. Possibly a joe job. Sro23 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I'm uncertain. Arguing in favour of this being a sockpuppet is the overlap in styles and concerns matched with an apparently close geographic proximity. I mean, I couldn't frame PAKHIGHWAY in this manner, as I have no idea where they are located. Literally, not even what timezone they are in. Combine this with PAKHIGHWAY suddenly becoming active after the block was extended. On the other hand, PAKHIGHWAY could just be reading Wikipedia and not editing. That would be entirely appropriate. And the overlap in styles and concerns isn't complete. There are significant differences here. I'm not sure how it can be a joe job, but I'm also not convinced it is PAKHIGHWAY. On balance, I'd like another checkuser to weigh in, as this is apparently a difficult case. I have great trust in Bbb23 but it sounds like this isn't a straight-forward case. --Yamla (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The main reason I'm thinking this could be a joe job has to do with the timing. Why would PAKHIGHWAY create a sock now, when their block is nearly over? Doesn't really make sense. Sro23 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because PAKHIGHWAY has no sense of proportion. It has to be THEIR way, and it has to be NOW. To PAKHIGHWAY ten days is a lifetime away. Cabayi (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "What's remarkable, though, is in late 2016 PAKHIGHWAY was editing from one country, and now they are editing from another country on another continent and in the same geographical area as Ratatatain." Any reasonable explanation for this? --Neil N  talk to me 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do see that is remarkable and I will defer to Bbb23 on this. But, if it is socking, then the editor must be a complete idiot. To come back and post a "disruptive editing" message on that particular set of editors (who are often at loggerheads with each other) makes no sense. (Of course, they could also be randomly trolling.) --regentspark (comment) 01:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In my opinion, this type of canvassing is nothing out of the ordinary, I see socks do it all the time. Ratatatain is clearly a sock of someone, but I don't think PAKHIGHWAY. Sro23 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone else agree with Sro23? If so, I will restore the original block. --Neil N  talk to me 01:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the block should remain.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We're done here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not the first person to make inaccurate statements about the history here. There was a lot more time left on the master's one-month block than "just a few days". He was blocked on February 6 for one month. Ratatatain's edits were all on February 23. There were 13 days left on the master's block, almost half of the original block. Additionally, being stupid or an idiot is not a defense to socking. I see lots of socks doing things that are so obviously stupid it beggars belief.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This new account was created on 18 May 2018, right after PAKHIGHWAY's unblock appeal was rejected. Since PAKHIGHWAY made unblock appeals on UTRS as recently as 16 May, I'm requesting CU assuming that the master is not stale.

Overlap is too big between the PAKHIGHWAY and HudairaViki, including on many uncommon pages as the Editor Interaction Analyser shows. HudairaViki turned up yesterday on Point 5353, an obscure article created by master, and pushed the conspiracy theory that the mountain lies on Indian territory, same as PAKHIGHWAY, who was obsessed with pushing this conspiracy theory.

Further evidence:


 * PAKHIGHWAY: "Updated information. Moving radio stations to List of radio stations in Pakistan "
 * HudairaViki: "Updated description. No need for schools."
 * PAKHIGHWAY: "Fixed Urdu translation"
 * HudairaViki: "Urdu translation fixed for "line"
 * "Urdu fixed"
 * PAKHIGHWAY: "Fixing abbreviations as per Pakistani subnational abbreviations"
 * HudairaViki: "Fixed template as per Abbreviations of administrative units of Pakistan"
 * PAKHIGHWAY: "Corrected name and replaced transliteration with proper actual TRANSLATION."
 * "Replacing silly transliteration with proper Urdu translation"
 * HudairaViki: "Replacing transliteration with translation."


 * Creates articles talk pages with /
 * Argues that "KPK is not an official term" for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but "KP" is:
 * PAKHIGHWAY: "KPK is not an official term. It's a term used by people who don't know any better. See Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa."
 * HudairaViki: " KPK is not an official term. This is a mythical term created by the media and social media. Khyber Pakthunkhwa = Two words = Two letters = KP "
 * See also:


 * Moves pages saying that the new title is the "actual name":
 * Redirects pages saying there was a spelling mistake in the title: Spelling mistake. Station name is KHADRO. Redirecting. vs Spelling error. Moving to Rawalpindi Municipal Corporation
 * Redirects/moves pages saying that the article title used the spelling different from the "official" spelling: Spelling of Kuhi Taftan varies...officially named as "KOH E TAFTAN" station. vs Spelling according to the official website capitalized Mall not mall.
 * Redirects/moves pages saying that the article subject name was "officially renamed" to new name:
 * Spends an exorbitant amount of time on adding/fixing "Urdu translations":
 * Opens talk page sections saying: Ridiculous nonsense! vs Nonsense Edits
 * Removes content from articles by calling it "nonsense":
 * Spells "Wagah" (common-name) as "Wagha", gives the reason that the "official Government of Punjab's document" spells it as Wagha.
 * Says that Wagah is "located in Pakistan" and not on the border:

Sock puppetry seems to be too obvious here. My Lord (talk) 15:25, 30 June 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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Started editing same pages after HudairaViki got blocked. Editing from mobile now.

Editing "History" of a page that HudairaViki and PAKHIGHWAY edited. Focused on changing nastaliq scripts. My Lord (talk) 11:48, 1 July 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

 * ❌ -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Account is being used only for restoring edits of PAKHIGHWAY or his confirmed socks.

See:
 * and.
 * and
 * and D4iNa4 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you still make a check if that's possible?
 * See:-
 * and
 * Both made same edit e.g. "(, Sarak-e-Hall)"
 * Removed same thing on Abbreviations of administrative units of Pakistan. and D4iNa4 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 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

 * - This case is . Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I do what people ask me to do. ✅ + . Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created after last sock reported to this SPI was blocked.

Similarity includes creation of Pakistani administration related articles. Heavy interest in History of Pakistan.  M L talk 13:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If CU says inconclusive then there is still a case of socking. This is not a new user and he is engaging in gross POV pushing.

This account was created barely 1 month after the previous sock was blocked.

Accounts use same edit summaries such as "Fixed template".

PAKHIGHWAY had mentioned "Category:Balochi-language surnames" on Buzdar (tribe) as category, and DdBbCc22 mentions Balochi language and Baloch people on infobox instead.

These accounts share similar expertise in Districts of Pakistan.

These accounts also correct Urdu scripts around.

Prefers creating false balance for "Urdu" language over "Hindi" language.

His modus operandi has been to rehaul History of Pakistan by modifying content in very large lengths.

He is the only person so far who likes to refer pre-Independent Pakistan as "Indus Valley", despite "Indus Valley" is not a synonym for Pakistan. Here are examples where he did this:-
 * "Besides Achaemenid presence in Indus Valley" (DdBbCc22)
 * "encompasses the history of the Indus Valley region" ..  "contributed to the rich cultural diversity of the Indus Valley"  (PAKHIGHWAY)

 M L talk 13:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The evidence presented does not seem to conclusively support the sock-puppetry claims. In view of the inconclusive CU evidence, we ought to AGF that this's a new user. Also, the editing overlap is on an article that is not fringe in any manner; so nothing much from that aspect either.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Behavioral evidence from the editor compare report looks strong. --regentspark (comment) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any compelling evidence that these are socks. There's subject matter overlap, yes, but there are some notable differences between DdBbCc22's editing activity and any of the recent socks. As a random admin without any special subject matter knowledge about the Pakistani government, I don't see the similarity. ST47 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing enough to block here. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Truthwins018 (created 16 May 2020) and PAKHIGHWAY share a number of same interests. Both have similarly updated Overseas Pakistani, and Tourism in Pakistan. Refers unfavorable content as "childish".

Since you made the last check you can probably check this time as well. It could be also worthwhile to check if Sockpuppet investigations/Identityanddifference has connection to this sockfarm. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * They are most likely same person given same propaganda pushing at Kargil war where master was concerned over "Biased article not reflecting the ground realities" and suspected sock is providing "unbiased mentioning". This sockfarm has more than one SPI and not just this one. Orientls (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Knowing that the suspected sock has only 53 edits and registered on 16 May, I would say the mentioned similarities are enough for conducting a CU at least. Orientls (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From today: "Nationalism is not allowed on wikipedia", "nationalism is not welcomed". Major edits on Point 5353, which is edited by barely a few editors is also another give-away. PAKHIGHWAY was the creator of this article. Orientls (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
<span style="color:;"> 
 * - I don't see enough similarity in the edits cited to make me think sock.  India-Pakistan relations is a highly popular topic, and these edits were several years apart. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * perhaps I'm just not sensitive to the nuances here, but I'm afraid I'm still not seeing anything beyond two users editing in a highly contentious area and labeling each other's edits as biased. I recognize that there are previous socks, but perhaps you could help me out and provide some additional diffs which make the socking more obvious.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Yeah, I saw the Point 5353 edit earlier this morning, but hadn't noticed the tie-in with PAKHIGHWAY being the original author.  Thanks for pointing that out.  That's enough to justify the CU. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - sorry, this case is stale by more than a year. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest uw-agf-sock and see how things unfold. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yep, go for. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Truthwins018 warned, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)