Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Faizan

Faizan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
06 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious name  Looks like a duck to me, but also recreated an article deleted twice via AFD with significant socking occurring, where puppeteer was one of the few keep !votes

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilal_Khan Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilal_Khan_(singer) (significant socking)

puppet is already ifdeffed for other reasons, but could use a perma block as a sock.

Based on the socking behavior at the AFD and then the recreate, suspect that this "pupeteer" may be puppet of prolific puppeteer Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sabeeel43/Archive but that might require CU to verify. That puppeteer was fond of sleepers.

Also, based on less evidence but gut feeling of historical interactions, I think User talk:Mar4d might be involved as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

It;s ridiculous, I am innocent. This is not fair, I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia, and am being held for sp? Do Check User' and it will prove my innocence. Faizan 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I so mad that if I do SP, I'll do it with a common name? I request admins speedy close this case. Faizan 07:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, 86.151.237.220 this IP is suspected to be a sock of User:Faizan. The IP is constantly assisting User:Faizan in edit warring in several articles ((Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Stranded Pakistanis, Anti-Bihari sentiment)) and trying to trap other editors who are against Faizan in a dispute. I'm requesting a check user here.--Zayeem (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser won't reveal the IP identity of any editor, so there won't be any check in this case. But thank you for notifying us of this issue. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaeem: Do not simply accuse two editors for being the same just because of similarity of interest. They live in distant places (UK and UAE) and are not the same person, as far as I know.—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 16:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely ludicrous. I will surely get this through MfD. It was the same user who opened these crappy SPI investigations, and he went to another's talk here. And in response this was proposed. Faizan 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I did not propose anything except a procedural change of venue. kmzayeem posted here on his own initiative with an additional accusation/suspicion of puppetry by Faizan. As this investigation appears to be going to be closed without action, I suggested that he create a separate case if he wanted any action/investigation taken. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said the same. No clarification yielded. Faizan 14:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

information Administrator note Faizanali.007 has already been blocked indefinitely in May for adding copyvios. That said, they do have common interests [1], but I'm not sure that this is socking. Faizan seems to be a common name in Pakistan. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the creation date of the Bilal Khan article you deleted today? I can't see it any longer, but part of my original suspicion was the quick recreation, shortly after the previous AFD. (And where the previous-previous AFD had been heavily socked). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bilal Khan (Pakistani Singer) was created on 14 May 2013 by Faizanali.007 while the previous AfD dicussion had been closed on 5 April 2013. An article Bilal Khan (singer) was also recreated on 23 March 2013 by Cool Angel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a confirmed sock of Sabeeel43. Can a checkuser please look into this? De728631 (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If check user can really prove my innocence then it should be done. And I want deletion of this page after the finishing of this misguided case. Faizan 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be deleted? If you're not connected to the other accounts, this page will serve as a record of your innocence. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks De. But it will always hurt me that I was tagged with SP suspicion. Any other way? Can get it through MfD? Faizan 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. We don't delete these records because they don't concern you alone, but also the other accounts mentioned here. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will tolerate. Faizan 14:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - No credible evidence of socking. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Recreation of an article, by a guy with the same name, where the previous article was heavily socked? Certainly its not conclusive, but not even worth the check? Especially as a 3rd party (De7) also asked for CU?Gaijin42 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes really, Gajin, be careful of using Twinkle, it hurts. Faizan 10:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked for CU I was more thinking of Sabeeel43 who has got a host of confirmed socks. King of Hearts, could you please reconsider your evaluation? De728631 (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should be done for Sabeel, why for me? Tarnishing. Faizan 13:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of Sabeeel43's confirmed socks have been active since March 2012, making CU useless for this purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Faizan 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
09 November 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Zarb-e-Azb&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheSawTooth User:Faizan suspected meatpuppet and user:TheSawTooth persuaded and brought into the dispute, to reverts edits on the article Operation Zarb-e-Azb so user:faizan can avoid being reported for edit warring. I have removed my own view and user:Faizan view and wrote with the undid revision "(I have removed my own view which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...User:TheSawTooth and User:Faizan view that afghan militants" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute on talk page first.)". User:TheSawtooth keeps undoing my revision. For proof you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Zarb-e-Azb&action=history and on User:TheSawTooth talk-page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheSawTooth ) you can see Faizan message to TheSawTooth whom was brought into the dispute . (User:TheSawTooth wasnt involved in the dispute before November 3. if you look at User:TheSawTooth contribution and interest it is clear that he/she has no interest in similar article and no way near and was brought into the dispute. for her contribution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TheSawTooth&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=-1 ). Thank you for your time regarding this and I wish this incident of suspected meat puppetry is investigated. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence. Just because he reverted you does not mean that he is my sock. He's been active since even you started disruptive editing in the concerned article. Faizan 13:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Saadkhan12345 can edit(use) templates but despite repeatedly being informed on his talk to "sign your posts" [2][3], he does not learn to sign. Infact, just as a revenge-taking measure, he's opened an SPI against me as I reported him to ANI for edit-warring this morning. Faizan 13:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting user said above: "you can see Faizan message to TheSawTooth whom was brought into the dispute". I did not message or try to canvass him, instead just welcomed him. Faizan 14:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never met Faizan or Saadkhan except on Wikipedia I did a review of references and revised it. First Saadkhan gave me barnstar (see my page) so that I do not revise when I did not obey he got aggressive. Khans have close racial association with Afghans, so you see Saadkhan keeps removing Afghan militants from belligerents every day to make it look daisy. One thing more, I have edited other topics of Pakistan operations how is Saadkhan saying I have no interest in this. I move to block Saadkhan for such frivolous report. --TheSawTooth (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I think the evidence presented does not establish any connection between the two users. Having a similar interest does not necessarily mean that an account is a sockpuppet. Also, the timeframe of edits from Faizan and The SawTooth strongly suggests that they are located in different parts of the world. I'm closing this case with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 20:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you close can you please check if User:Faizannehal, User:Faizanalivarya and User:Faizan are the same person. The location, particular interest, making very similar edits on the same article [4] [5], POV and the level of English support my suspicion. He claims to be editing Wikipedia since 2005, which highly suggests that he has been using other accounts in the past. See also [6] and [7]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30 November 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Number 1: First of all I would like to ask the following question that is it allowed "to recruite new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia"? No right? Well, you can take a look at User:Faizans revision as of 15:40, 27 November 2014 here and he is telling me (edit summary) to suspect the other User:Krzyhorse22 of socking (referring to this SPI Here.

And Number 2: So there was this edit war on the article Operation Zarb-e-Azb here from November 2 with User:Faizan. We tried to sort it out on the articles talk page Here and also on users talk pages. But consensus was in no sight, and so therefore I opened a DR/N here and User:Keithbob told me to inform all parties involved in the dispute about the DR/N. I did so here and here but User:Faizan ignored the notice (he made contributions to wiki while DR/N was open).

Faizan has denied that the IPs belong to him here . This IP has made no contribution to Wikipedia before and did so by restoring User:Faizan's version twice 39.41.212.125 Did so:

IP:39.41.185.43 Did so:

Behavioral Analysis


Timing analysis

Faizans Latest reverts/revision on article Operation Zarb-e-Azb:

  • 00:14, 16 November 2014‎ Faizan Here
  • 18:32, 28 November 2014‎ Faizan Here

IP 39.41.185.43 latest reverts on article Operation Zarb-e-Azb:

  • 18:31, 25 November 2014‎ 39.41.185.43 Here
  • 08:06, 26 November 2014‎ 39.41.185.43 Here

IP 39.41.212.125 Latest reverts on article Operation Zarb-e-Azb:

Other ANALYSIS My revision time:

  • 00:02, 29 November 2014‎ Saadkhan12345 Here

IP39.41.212.125 reverts me time:

  • 00:05, 29 November 2014‎ 39.41.212.125 Here

User:Faizans warns me time:

  • 00:12, 29 November 2014 Here

Also can the admin/clerk perform/request a check user to see if the user and the IP are likely to have any connection.

  • Also please if a Diff is wrong etc...please point it out so I can fix it. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Come on, you are hounding me now. Everyone who supports the inclusion of referenced content is my sock? You did it before here too. You should be blocked as this is second time you have come here without proper evidence. I am not from Islamabad, whereas the IP is from Islamabad. Faizan 11:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did it before (Newb times) but this time with evidence. Regarding harassing, well pointing fingers wouldn't be correct here but ignoring the DR/N (even after nearly two weeks of no result in sight) and the mediators who were willing to help us clearly shows that you were not interested in solving this through consensus and would resort to something like this. I mean Here you claim your POV is indisputable. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this IP(39.41.212.125) was linking to a humorous article (which even I dont know much about after a month and a half of editing) shows that this was no regular user. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP editing is not sockpuppetry anyway. I can't fathom calling an IP address, a sockpuppet. Malicious report which should be discarded as such. kashmiri TALK 22:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Checkuser comments: We're generally not going to link IP addresses to accounts at the best of times, and there's insufficient evidence to proceed here. Risker (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this case with no action taken. I don't see any evidence strong enough to connect the account to the IPs. Mike V • Talk 06:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets
  • Possible sock/meat puppets. (Note: English is my third language)
  • Faizan always wanted "number of injuries" should not be included in 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes [8] which was very unusual demand. He wanted that only "number dead person" should be written in article and not "number of injured". Faizan also tried explained it on my talk page which I archived in which Faizan said "I will not do edit war over this". One more editor named FreeatlastChitchat came in scenario demanding same unusual thing [9] [10]. First time I interacted with FreeatlastChitchat at Talk:2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes#Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms. Me and FreeatlastChitchat had edit war over this. On talk page of the article Freechitchat was referring that discussion between me and Faizan which I archived, [11] saying that "reasons have been explained to you already, don't ask again and again" as if he himself wrote it. Till that time I never had interaction with Freechat on my talk page, he claimed that he saw that discussion in "Talk page history", not in archive. Anyway, I reported Freechat for edit warring [12]. My obeservations about this case is as follows,
  • Freechat self-reverted himself [13] after my request, but in his defence on Edit warring board he "predicted" that I will "surely" get reverted again by another editor. And Faizan reverted [14] it.
  • In this revert of Faizan [15] edit summary very much matches with Freechat's quotes on talk page.
  • And obviously, Faizan came to defend Freechat on that edit warring case.
  • I his talk page reply Faizan intentionally says "I have not invited Freechat" without asking anything about him. [16], Faizan also makes claim on behalf of Freechat that "He self-reverted so it doesn't mean that he agrees with you". (Means Faizan knows what Frechat is thinking, even when Freechat's comments were missing once Faizan came in scenario).
  • Both of them were keen for removing injuries from the article.
  • I have more evidences to write from other articles, wait. Human3015Send WikiLove  21:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other evidence is from Talk:Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. Me and Faizan were involved in edit war on Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. On talk page you can read this discussion. Faizan agreed to do some compromise only after I reported him on Edit warring board. [17]
  • Before explaning more about this case, My first observation was Faizan too made section "In my defense" on edit warring board [18], same like earlier done by freechat. [19]. Now I will describe this case, wait. --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Talk:Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Faizan agreed on compromise after reporting him but it seems that he was not happy with it. Freecht made claim read last line on behalf of Faizan that "Faizan may have done some compromise with you, it doesn't mean that he will not revaluate his version". (both of them talk on behalf of each other).
  • Here also once Freechat came in scenario, Faizan's comments were missing. Maybe Faizan don't wanted to comment from his main ID because if he comments from it then he must have to be firm on his earlier compromised version which he doesn't wanted so he came with Freechat and continued discussion there against that version. Even Freechat commented on my talk page to sort it out quickly, so that Faizan can be online later without any hesitation.
  • I have one more evidence. Wait. --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • one more thing regarding above evidence, this was "classic" comment by Freechat, when I repeatedly insisted on "Faizan's compromised version" and said "He is experienced" etc. then Freechat again "predicted" that "He will change his opinion", also Freechat said regarding Faizan that Just becuase an editor has more edits does not mean that we accept everything he has to say. Here Freechat somewhat "disrespecting" Faizan, Faizan who defended Freechat on edit warring board, Faizan who helped Freechat in edit warring, How Freechat can use such statement for Faizan? He can use such statement because both of them probably same/related person and they don't even wanted "compromised version" in article. --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue which is dear to Faizan is Siachen Glacier. Faizan started RfC for "how a controversial line should be written in Infobox of the article" [20], I will not talk about content here, but it was much awaited issue of Faizan, he tried his best to get that controversial line in infobox, but no one was commenting on that RfC or there was no progress in that matter, but lastly Freechat came and started writing that line in infobox [21] without commenting anything on RfC at that time. We also had edit war here. [22]. Later Freechat made some comments on that Rfc. --Human3015Send WikiLove  22:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many users who support each other on India-Pakistan topics and most of times no one suspects them as socks or meats but this seems very obvious case,they continue each other's discussion. When I first time interacted with Freechat on 2014-15 skirmishes, that time itself I realised that he is sock/meat of Faizan because he was supporting very unusual issue of "Not include injuries" with same intensity like Faizan. But I just waited for more evidences. Faizan and Freechat always want to show themself as different persons but I think they have been failed. --Human3015Send WikiLove  22:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Defence, as if it was needed

I have no idea why Human seems to think that he can "use" the admins of wikipedia to do his "dirty work". Human has been trying to get me and Fauzan off the wiki for some time now, he lodged three reports of edit warring against us, but his bad faith and attempts to game the system were caught by an admin. The admin in question stated that "I'm not sure what you're doing Human, but stop. Let me further clarify, since you apparently aren't particularly deterred by the threat of a block (based on your above comment): yes, your opponents may absolutely be blocked alongside you in some of these situations, but given your prior and current incidents of edit warring it's difficult not to see a problematic behavioral pattern on your part, and the next block you receive will be substantially lengthier, especially given the leniency I've opted for regarding these last two reports. Stop edit warring. Last warning from me before the consequences start getting serious." The said admin was User:Swarm

Now as for this SPI, I'm not sure what to say. On one hand if I say that "NO, I don't want this to happen". then many editors will consider this perhaps as a "sign" that perhaps I am a sock. However, if I say "OK, check our IP's", then Human will just continue to harass us both by launching false reports. Therefore seeing that he has already launched three false reports a CheckUser should be carried out with the prerequisite that if Fuzan and Me are proven to be legitimate accounts, then there MUST be some kind of penalty for Human. I'm sick and very very tired of this kind of bad faith attitude. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above comment signed with name "Swarm" is not made by Swarm in this SPI investigation, it is copy pasted by FreeatlastChitchat from old edit warring board, not related to my SPI analysis. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Human3015:, have you got the wrong diffs? I looked at this claim by Human3015: "In this revert of Faizan [23] edit summary very much matches with Freechat's quotes on talk page." The second link is to the article chat page (not the talk page), and does not show what Human3015 says it shows.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TOOLONG. I returned from a Wikibreak today and will try to defend myself here. Human3015 is trying to drag content disputes into SPI. I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss content disputes here. Anyway, as far as the article 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes is concerned, I had quit editing it after that note on your talk page. If someone says to you that "reasons have been explained to you already, don't ask again and again", how does that mean that it is my sock? Obviously the other user knew that you will not acquiesce. Is this an evidence too "both of them commented the same way"? It is lucid that if we agree on a point, we would comment the same way. "I his talk page reply Faizan intentionally says "I have not invited Freechat" without asking anything about him." - I read the talk-pages and the article's history, we comment on the content and "not on the contributors." "Both of them were keen for removing injuries from the article." - That does not prove he is my sock! I thought it would be good idea to write "In my defence" at the AN. If you see closely, FreeatlastChitchat had in fact opened a new "section", whereas I used a * and "bold text". When his case filing here did not elicit a response, Human tried to the same at ANI too. Perhaps this one needs to be relisted? Faizan (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Checkuser note: I'm closing this case with no action taken. The evidence presented seems to show that the users are more likely to be two individuals who side on the same side of the argument, rather than one user with two accounts. I don't feel confident enough with what has been presented to run a check. Mike V • Talk 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same POV pushing in Bangladesh war related articles.

Evidence
  • Oye You There account was created two days after Towns Hill was blocked for one month. His very first edits show that Oye You There is knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing.
  • This brand new account added same content which Towns Hill had added: "Indian soldiers as well as as Bengali millitiamen" raped women in the Bangladesh war. 1 2
  • Both Towns Hill (1, 2) and Oye You There (1, 2) sometimes forgets to sign their comments on the talk page.
    • Additionally, both have a habit of signing their names manually: 1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Often opens new sections with the title "My edits": (1, 2)
  • Other behavioral similarities include use of visual editor([24],[25],[26]) and similar edit-summaries:
    • "IP user" (1, 2)
    • "Important information" (1, 2)
    • "added new section" (1, 2, 3)
    • "added information" (1, 2)
    • "restoring --- version" (1, 2)
    • "removal of sourced content" (1, 2, 3)
    • "spelling.." (1, 2)
    • "reference added" (1, 2)
More
  • added another case of genocidal rape from Journal of Genocide Research [27]
  • added from indian expresses.. [28]
  • you are tampering with the article structure.. [29]
  • undone tampering [30]
  • Thee were removed completely without any explanation (which indicates bias of the remover)[31]
  • He revered me here without any explanation [32]
  • Interest in Bangladesh war and religion-related topics — a hallmark of the master.
  • Forgets to space after default undo message in edit-summaries:
    • Oye You There (1, 2, 3) vs. Towns Hill (1, 2, 3)
  • Both posted books.google.com.au links: (1, 2, 3, 4) which indicates geographical location in Australia.
  •  Looks like a duck to me —MBlaze Lightning T 14:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please closely evaluate this behavioral evidence. I'm certain that Oye You There and Towns Hilll are the same person.
  • He knows how to revert edits[33][34], knows how to leave user talk page comments, knows how to format references[35], knows WP:ONUS[36], and even knows about gaming 3RR.
  • He comments that: "I guess his revert on "Honour killing in Pakistan" was a ploy of sucking me into an edit war and then try and create trouble for me." It is strange for a new user to be aware of advanced WP polices. I'm sure Towns Hill[37] is knowledgeable about getting blocked for edit-warring.
  • Both accounts have a same habit of signing their comments by writing their name on a separate line, inability to capitalize the word "I"[38][39][40], similar phrasing "my reliably sourced content"[41] "my entire rewrites"[42], and Visual edit stuff and adds blank lines as well[43][44]
  • wraps up links with nowiki tags[45][46][47]
  • This edit[48] is particularly very telling. I believe that the behavioral evidence here is enough to prove this is a sock. —MBlaze Lightning T 07:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Hi, I am User:Oye You There. I would like to give my statement. MBlaze Lightning's accusations are false, i am not a duplicate/sockpuppet of Towns Hill. He reverted me here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jana_Gana_Mana&diff=764876749&oldid=764738553) without any explanation, even-though the content was properly/reliably sourced. I reverted him back and added further relevant information along with another reliable reference. After i reverted his edit on "Jana Gana Mana" the first time he revered another edit of mine, on another page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honour_killing_in_Pakistan&diff=764884813&oldid=763149721). I guess his revert on "Honour killing in Pakistan" was a ploy of sucking me into an edit war and then try and create trouble for me. Then he reverted the properly sourced content on the "Jana Gana Mana" page, the second time, again without giving any explanation. I have been going through wikipedia policies so i do not want to engage in an edit war with this user. MBlaze Lightning seems to be an experience user who has been granted certain "rights/privileges" on wiki. But this user indulged in disruptive/unconstructive behaviour. I request the administrators to take a serious note of MBlaze Lightning and his behaviour. Regards Oye You There (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing surprising in knowing/learning about wiki policies when it has all been mentioned on Wikipedia. I am reading them and trying my best to understand these policies. Using a bit of brain can often make learning very easy, e.g, i learnt some reference formats from other references. I just copy pasted the format and filled in the particulars.
  • I am a new user, and i learnt signing comments properly just yesterday.
  • I am not a sockpuppet (as has been confirmed by Bbb23), unlike MBlaze Lightining who has been blocked once by admin:Vanjagenije for socking. I just checked his public log. Oye You There (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This is a complicated case, but I am beginning to think that Losthistory9 and Problematics are the sockpuppets of Towns Hill, and Owais Khursheed is their meatpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstantial evidence: Towns Hill was indefinitely topic banned from the entire ARBIPA topic area on 18 January 2017. His last edit was on 27 March 2017. Roughly two days later Losthistory9 was created and became active in the Kashmir history topic area, a favourite of Towns Hill's.

Duck evidence: The very first edit of Losthistory9 is over 4,000 bytes. Then he quickly got to work on Kashmiris, a major contribution of TownsHill (188 edits, now followed by 106 edits of Losthistory9 [49]), extending and amending the previous work. Notice the sophistication of this edit sumary taking away primary sources content and putting similar content from secondary source instead. This is one week into the career of Losthistory9. Also, this massive edit, converting ref-citations into Sfn and Efn-ua footnotes. Three weeks into his career, this fully formed article on Muslim political movements under Dogra rule magically appears in his sandobox and gets installed minutes later. Excellent scholarly sources that Towns Hill is well-versed with are used here: Christopher Snedden, Sumantra Bose, Mridu Rai, Rekha Chowdhary, Ayesha Jalal etc. (In fact, Towns Hill is the only editor, other than me, that has studied all these sources.)

The complicated case: While all this is going on, yet another whiz kid appears, Problematics, to take control of the Rape in the Kashmir conflict article. Within 3 days of his appearance, he can make claims like this article is specifically for covering war rape in the present post-1989 conflict in Kashmir Valley. Please add your material to ... [50] (ownereship) and This article's lead and background specifies the context as the insurgency in Kashmir since 1989/90. The scholarly sources .. particularly discuss rape in Kashmir conflict in the context of the insurgency... [51] (intricate knowledge of the article's construction). The ostensible author of this article, Owais Khursheed is nowhere to be seen, but Problematics is in total control (5 edits by Owais Khurseed, 79 edits by Problematics [52]). The same lop-sided contributions are seen on the talk page (8 edits by Owais Khurseed, 135 edits by Problematics [53]).

The mystery: Who authored Rape in the Kashmir conflict? This article, like the Muslim political movements earlier, magically appears highly polished [54], with citations to scholarly books and journal articles as well as a "Further reading" list. Is Owais Khursheed, who installed this article, its real author? Looking at Khursheed's edit history, we find him struggling to make Srinagar bypoll election killings 2017 around 19 April, where he can't even write full citations for newspaper articles. He normally does mobile web edits. His new articles look like this. There is nothing in Khursheed's edit history that is of this quality. It is more likely that Problematics wrote Rape in the Kashmir conflict and gave it to him to install. Then Problematics had to come in himself in order to defend it and improve it.

Losthistory9 as well as Problematics both create good articles offline and install them. Both of them are focused on Kashmir. Losthistory9 is a purpose-made account to deal with history. Problematics is purpose-made account to deal with violence/human rights issues. Towns Hill has contributed to both: Kashmiris (48.6%), Kashmir (8.7%), Kashmiri Muslims (51.8%) in history, and 1971 Bangladesh genocide (6.3%), Wartime sexual violence (12.0%), Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (21 edits) for sexual violence. He also engaged in extensive discussion on their talk pages, much of which was highly contentious leading to all kinds of disputes, eventually resulting in his topic ban. So, now, we get this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

23 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edit warring[55][56] over the content added by Faizan with sock.[57]

Same edit summaries:

Ip: supports the sentence i.e. sexual assaults primarily by Indian forces[58]
Faizan: source (i.e. 'primarily at the hands of Indian security forces')[59]

It is not first time that an IP is being reported as Faizan's sock.[60] Capitals00 (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

07 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Duck evidence: Sicilianbro2 continues the interests of Towns Hill, viz., Partition of India and disputes over princely states. He wisely stayed away from Kashmir, but this time he is dealing with Balochistan and Junagadh. In the Junagadh edit, we see him having constructed a complete article offline (similar to what he was doing in edits [65] and [66] of Losthistory9, edit [67] of Problematics, or the new article [68] created using Owais Khursheed as a proxy editor). Signature patterns include the use of scholarly sources (Iqbal Chawla's article in the Balochistan edit and Rakesh Ankit's article in the Junagadh edit, overused, similar to his overuse of Bina D'Costa and Sharmila Bose in Towns Hill's Bangladesh edits or the overuse of Seema Kazi in Rape during the Kashmir conflict), India-bashing and Muslim victimhood. More directly, the Junagadh edit gives copious quotations from the source, a habit Towns Hill developed sometime around this edit of Kashmiris. Shows good understanding of verifiability but little understanding of WP:NPOV. (See this WP:RSN discussion.) Remarkable that the user knows about WP:HISTRS despite being a newbie editor! Nobody pointed him to it.)

Identity: Towns Hill was topic-banned on 18 January 2017. Sicilianbro2 was created on 20 January 2017. It is possible that Towns Hill created this account for himself. But it didn't show up in the CU check done in May. It is also possible that Sicilianbro2 is a separate individual, who has lent his/her account to Towns Hill sometime in June. There is a marked difference in the quality of edits done by Sicilianbro2 around 15 June 2017. However, the two individuals appear to have been connected. In one of his first edits, Sicilianbro2 copied the content originally written by Towns Hill in August 2016.

I am also pinging EdJohnston for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilianbro2 claims a 'friend' helped him to edit Wikipedia. Interesting friend indeed who tells him to write an edit summary like "restored last good" as soon as he is autoconfirmed! Why was Sicilianbro2 even watching this SPI page, for a user that was blocked even before Sicilianbro2 was autoconfirmed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I observed the edits of the mentioned users, I have been here for months so am familiar with the procedures, arguments, I have been an observer on wikipedia for months. But I am not a sock. Run the CU thoroughly please. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who lives in my area who is also a wikipedia editor. He often helps me in refining my content. I am not aware that such a thing as helping friends or being helped by them is prohibited on wikipedia. According to WP:PROXYING even if I did make edits for a banned user (who could be my friend, I will ask him) then thats not prohibited by wikipedia policy as long as they are verifiable which is a fact Kautilya3 accepts. I also have independent reasons for making such edits. I have an interest in these topics and I do the research myself and get help from my friend in wording my content,. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My friend had informed me about edit summaries and whats written in them,. Please assume good faith, which is part of wikipedia policy. Its also courteousy, if not wiki policy to notify a user of an SPI. I am saying that from memory of observing wiki pages and userpages. Kautilya did not inform me of the SPI but I had seen his comment this morning on the talkpage of the article i am editing over the past couple days and i was planning to reply soon with assistance from my friend. When I opened Kautilya's contributions page to check if he had made any other edits on the talk page I found this SPI link and was shocked to find it had me in it. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

21 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Samm19's account was created on 13 June, but it becomes active only on 9 July, after Sicilianbro2 and other Faizan socks got blocked.

  • The first edit is too sophisticated for a beginner: marked as a minor edit, and adding {{Citation needed}} templates.
  • By 10 July, he is able to add {{cite web}} citations [74].
  • On 16 July, comes to Talk:Kashmir conflict (a favourite of Towns Hill) to pick up a thread that had been lying dormant for over a week. [75].
  • By 18 July, he can cite books including sfn's. [76]. He claimed that he was "learning how to add references", but knew enough to talk about "authentic sources". (Nobody had asked him for any sources.)
  • Argues for the superiority of his source [77], Mr. Bangash, an Oxonian etc. (Bringing back Sarmila Bose to memory from the 1971 Bangladesh disputes.)
  • Extensive POV-pushing argumentation [78] (16–20 July) reminiscent of Towns Hill.
  • On 20 July, he adds content to Kashmir conflict, which Towns Hill had been previously exercised about. Writes essentially the same content [79] with the same substandard sources as Towns Hill's edit. (Towns Hill engaged in a huge talk page debate in April 2016).

ContributingTo Wiki uses the sources [80] mentioned previously by Sicilianbro2 [81] (Jones2003) and Samm19 [82] (CheemaRiemer1990). In fact, this edit is essentially the same as Sicilianbro2 here.

It seems that the Faizan/Towns_Hill sockfarm is getting complicated with apparently multiple individuals, exchanging notes, sources and arguments behind the scenes. Sicilianbro2 already admitted "I have a friend who lives in my area who is also a wikipedia editor. He often helps me in refining my content." Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23. But I need to ask for a behavioral evaluation. The similarity of the edit that I mentioned in the last bullet point (On 20 July etc.) is an essential copy, including the mis-written citation
{cite book|last=Dutt|first=edited by Sagarika|title=South Asian security 21st century discourse|year=2012|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|isbn=1136617671|author2=Bansal, Alok}
that appears in both the edits [83] and [84]. This is clearly not an accidental similarity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is an obvious sock of Faizan, please closely evaluate the behavioral evidence. Account became active a few days after past socks were blocked. Just like the master and past CU-blocked socks, Samm19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is singularly focused on Kashmir conflict and related articles, pushing pro-Pakistan POV. Account registration date[85] is close to that of past CU-blocked socks[86][87][88]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

ContributingTo Wiki is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Samm19 is Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Calling duck on this one, copypasting from articles without attribution Faizan did the a lot, and has done it with previous socks, Obsession with what happened to the Bihari diff community during the Bangladesh civil war, requesting CU to check for sleepers Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar edits on Rape during the Bangladesh lliberation war, Townshill, a previous sock, Suspect Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Also, could a check be run on Fahaddar65 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? Account created in January 2016,[98] but only started editing actively on 9 August 2017, some two weeks after several Faizan socks were blocked (see archive). Editing the same set of articles,[99][100] same tendency of copying content from one article to another,[101][102][103][104] ([105]-[106], [107]-[108], [109]-[110] WP:DUCK), visual edit stuff, etc. —MBL Talk 07:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CU for the master is  Stale.
  • These three accounts are Red X Unrelated to each other. Katietalk 13:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with no action. Sro23 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


05 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Seems to be doing the same POV edits as Faizan and has the same IP subnet as one blocked in the past with the same ISP. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • no Declined We do not publicly link IP addresses with registered accounts. Katietalk 12:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP is now inactive. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The IP argues with sophistication which show an editor who has been editing for quite some time. Has show disruptive behavior on pages which were the in the sphere of interest for Faizan. Has a tendency to use quotes to emphasize their point ([112]). Same as Faizan and Towns Hill ([113],[114]). Even has same style of writing. Same ISP as the past socks of Faizan. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter I have also provided behavioral evidence as well. If you think that is not sufficient, then I understand. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the main SPI page it states, "Additionally, CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances."
Now, if all you turn in is a IP address in a report with a CU request, we cannot do anything with that publicly. You see, even if we found an account, we couldn't list it here because that would be making a public connection with the IP. You are better off filing without a checkuser request and having a behavioral investigation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Berean Hunter Okay. I understand my mistake. In the future, I will only request a behavioral investigation with IP addresses and a CU with suspected accounts. My rationale for requesting a CU here was to weed out sleepers. Sorry for this and I will be more careful in the future. I will not refile this since the IP has gone cold anyways. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

10 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

"+ Criticism"[115] same as Faizan saying "+quote"[116], "+update"[117] or his other IP, "+ Parchi (film)"[118] and this IP is no different than other previous blocked IPs of Faizan. Capitals00 (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Closing with no action. Please refile if the IP becomes active again. Sro23 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


15 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

@Sro23: IP is active again[119] restoring edits of the earlier IP, also the same "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" reasoning[120] like his other socks.[121] Capitals00 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing ‎39.57.157.163 now for edit warring on this article. Capitals00 (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

25 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usual IP range for Faizan, he's jumped IP's three times today to restore copyvio content added by a previous sock, if a range block is not possible please semi the article Wartime sexual violence Darkness Shines (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Based on recently reported IP socks, it looks to me that they are on a very wide dynamic IP range, which can't be blocked without significant collateral damage. Wartime sexual violence is already semi-protected. Closing without further action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Context

Towns Hill got topic-banned for all of ARBIPA topic area on 18 January 2017, and got a one-month block on 28 January. He created a series of socks Sicilianbro2, Losthistory9, Problematics and also took control of Faizan's account. All these accounts were indefinitely blocked on 13 May 2017. Two other accounts Obaid Raza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been sanctioned for meat puppetry.

  • TurboCop was created on 2 February 2017, but made no edits until 28 June 2018. On that day, it made its first edit 28 June 2018 replacing Towns Hill's original content from 26 March 2016 with an improved version. The editor interaction shows that this account took over all of Town Hill's work on Bangladesh-related pages, and managed to stay under the radar till today.
  • JosephusOfJerusalem was created on 18 October 2017. Its job was to deal with the Kashmir conflict articles (editor interaction) and to provide backup for numerous friends and meatpuppets. After making a big scene and getting many of the friends banned, this account took a voluntary block on 31 July 2018.
  • FreeKashmiri was created on 11 January 2018, apparently to provide professional-sounding support to Josephus and others at Talk:Kashmiris. After Josephus retired, it took over the backup support role that Josephus used to provide.
  • Alive4islam is a recent creation on 29 December 2018. It immediately got to work on Alastair Lamb article and raised eye brows [122]. Its role seems to be similar to the above two. (editor interaction page for these three accounts.)
Evidence (old accounts in red and new accounts in orange)

Towns Hill switched from hand-made citations, which used to give away his Australian location (google.com.au) to the reftag citation tool around 10 April 2017. The new accounts start using the tool immediately. (You can verify it by typing into the tool the same URL, you should get back more or less what the editors included.)

  • But FreeKashmiri actually managed to give away his Australian location. 29 December 2018
  • Alive4islam: 6 January 2019 (author=Steven A. Hoffman) On the same day as account creation.

They quibble about who is a historian and who isn't: Faizan 5 April 2017; UpDown745 28 June 2017; Obaid Raza 15 June 2018; TurboCop 28 June 2018 (a better historical reference (Schendel)); JosephusOfJerusalem 20 March 2018; 7 April 2018; 19 April 2018; 23 April 2018; 2 May 2018 FreeKashmiri January 2019

They brand scholars as "Indian", "pro-India", "partisan" etc. JosephusOfJerusalem: 18 March 2018 ("Indian commentator"); FreeKashmiri: January 2019 ("Pro-India scholar"); 2 February 2019 ("(partisan) reviewer"); Alive4islam: January 2019 ("Pro-India scholar")

They use a single polemical book by Perry Anderson for smearing scholars: Obaid Raza: 13:58, 15 June 2018; FreeKashmiri: 01:51, 10 January 2019; Alive4islam 10:43, 3 February 2019.

They work on scholars' biography pages and cite book reviews appearing in journals: Obaid Raza Srinath Raghavan, 15 June 2018; JosephusOfJerusalem Prem Shankar Jha, 21 April 2018, Michael Brecher (multiple), Josef Korbel, 21 April 2018; FreeKashmiri Alastair Lamb (multiple); Alive4islam Alastair Lamb (multiple)

They make sections for individual books of scholars while discussing book reviews: JosephusOfJerusalem 20 April 2018, 20 April 2018 , 21 April 2018, 21 April 2018, April 2018; Alive4islam January 2019

They name scholars in edit summaries:

  • TurboCop: 28 June 2018 better reference from baxter's general history ("baxter" not capitalised)
  • JosephusOfJerusalem: 6 April 2018 expanding with Korbel and Howley, often more cryptic 24 February 2018
  • Alive4islam: 6 January 2019 what copland actually said ("copland" not capitalised)

They somehow seem to know what Fowler&fowler said to me or other editors:

I would like to request a CU check and, failing that, a behavioural investigation. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Checkuser results weren't helpful but I have blocked the accounts as socks of someone. With meatpuppetry, it may be hard to tell who they belong to but they are of the same POV sock cloth.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Few accounts were blocked yesterday. I found this account to be similar to TurboCop. Account registered to contribute into same articles.

  • Turbocop: "→‎British rule: expanding with schendel p (60)" [123]
  • MekoScopiBangle: "→‎British rule: expanding with Willem (p. 119), Majumdar, Hunter (1876, 1977)"[124] Orientls (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This account was created on 13 February 2019, the day after I filed my earlier report. The first edit is trying to avoid scrutiny by hacking the reftag citation tool's citations (e.g. "SWWH1876") by adding a Google Books url from UAE and other modifications that don't make sense. This account had a clear knowledge of my earlier report and is trying to make itself look different. I think it is testing the waters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 September 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This sock farm, with Towns Hill as the ringleader, has been evading the topic ban from India-Pakistan since 2017 and has, at its most successful run, included a network of meatpuppets operating side by side to aid and assist a main sock account.

TrangaBellam, created on 2020, typifies the modus operandi of this sockfarm, that is, when the sock account gets booted out, a new one registers, lays low, and after sometime picks up editing in the same narrow topic domain. There is no doubt in my mind, and there never will be, that TrangaBellam is a sock belonging to this sockfarm, and I show why.

As TrangaBellam, in the course of his editing on Wikipedia, he has frequently revisited articles that used to be a favourite pastime of Towns Hill, where he had had disputes with a number of longtime editors which had come in the way of his POV pushing, impeding his endeavours to make progress with his edits that he had expected to make. In doing so, he has most manifestly remembered the unfinished business of the past that he could not dispose of as Towns Hill.

I cannot help but point out that in all this, he has been emboldened by having not just survived unpunished hitherto but also by being convinced that he has firmly established himself in his new avatar in the eyes of familiar editors.

When it comes to proving Towns Hill's unrepentant socking, what better way than to delve into his favourite pastime articles, the ones pertaining to the war of 1971 which culminated in the creation of Bangladesh. One need not even look further in order to make a compelling case about his socking, such has been his fixation with the whole thing. It were these articles where he had carried out his nationalistic-driven editing, whitewashing Pakistani army crimes and in fact glorifying the same.

So here follows:

Allow me to emphasize the last aspect, for in the long history of this article, nobody (not even the Pakistani SPAs) other than Towns Hill dared have even the thought, let alone endeavour, to done away with this consequential quotation. And why would anyone do so, anyway? But for Towns Hill, it was important to dilute the ignominy bounded up with the Pakistani army actions in the war. The resort to deceit both times in edit summary also underscores the desperation to conjure up whatever he could for the purpose.
I also cannot help but feel the need to dwell on context here to the extent that it pertains to Towns Hill's editing on 1971 articles, for the same is most instructive in helping develop a better appreciation of the incriminating nature of the diffs provided above as well the ones I provide below.
Towns Hill's on the 1971 articles was driven by a nationalistic urge to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, to change what he perceived was a "shockingly one sided account on Pakistan's defeat", taking it upon himself to endeavour to glorify the Pakistani army to counterbalance what in his words was an "exceedingly pessimistic and negative.." picture of the "performance of the Pakistani army", whitewashing its genocidal acts, mass rapes, diluting scholarly backed rape numbers, by citing a dodgy Pakistani army report, and fringe account of Sarmila Bose, an author infamous for her fringe revisionist account, historical negationism and downplaying the 1971 Pakistani Army perpetrated genocide and mass rapes.[127][128]
  • As Trangabellam, on Sarmila Bose's "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War", he dedicates a new section to the content he added as "Towns Hill" about Sarmila Bose.[129][130]
  • Towns Hill and TrangaBellam claim that Kalat (Balochistan) was not annexed by Pakistan. It flies in the face of what the sources actually say. Towns Hill and TrangaBellam have both endeavoured to censor the information about this event in the mainspace as well.[131][132][133][134] To anyone with even a slight appreciation of the issue, this strikes as singularly the most incriminating evidence, given his strong sentiments, of course, strongly colored by his affinity for Pakistan that he has so often manifested.
  • Towns Hill had a tendency of posting very long quotations, prompting Kautilya3 to caution him about the same. This time around, with this new sock, he notified Kautilya3 of his quoting issue well in advance, reminiscing the past episode.[135][136]
  • Towns Hill had a problem with the addition of information concerning attacks on Hindu community in Kashmir on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus.[137][138] Trangabellam has the same issue with this article.[139]
  • On Aurangzeb, both the sock farm and TrangaBellam, not only used the same book "Architecture of Mughal India", written by Catherine B. Asher, as a source, but also purposely avoided adding a Google books link, making sure others don't access it. [140][141].
  • Editing the same section Annexation of Hyderabad#Communal violence during and after the operation just like he did with multiple socks before. See: Trangabellam, Towns Hill, Sicilianbro2, Faizan
  • Displays command and flaunts fluency of the writings of a particular subset of authors including "Schofield", [142], [143] Alastair Lamb,[144][145] AG Noorani.[146][147] This evidences of Towns Hill's involvement.
  • Both are very aware of a book written by Catherine B. Asher, an inaccessible source.[148][149]
  • Cites "Kim Wagner" to talk about British colonization of India.[150][151]
  • Towns Hill started out as a newcomer and over time developed certain idiosyncrasies. This ranged from editing quirks to using certain phrases in certain specific situations (situation-specific vocabulary), such as this same use of phrases "off on a tangent".[152][153]
  • Towns Hill counted his replies in edit summaries as ​"r1",[154] "r2",[155] while TrangaBellam has also exhibited the same predisposition by counting his edits as "edit 1".[156][157]
  • Same tendency of mentioning page number of a cited work in parenthesis in edit summaries: [158], [159]
  • His edit summary often includes only the surname of the author.[160][161][162][163] This is yet another one of their quirks, as the edits show a peculiar proclivity to write one-word edit summaries, ordinarily containing the last name of the author, while using that author's work. This use of "Wink" in edit summaries[164][165] by both while using André Wink's work further exemplifies the same. This is a telling piece of evidence that is one well worth taking heed of.
  • Overhauling of 1988 Gilgit massacre.[166][167]
  • While overhauling this article, he made it sure to say "[[Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq|Zia-ul Haq]]" (hyphen missing) as against [[Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq]].[168][169]
  • Like Towns Hill, TarangaBellum overhauled the same section on Persecution of Hindus#Pakistan, focusing on and writing about the population statistics of Hindus in Pakistan.[170][171]
  • Both say or show that they are rewriting the whole of an article, but actually remove large chunk of content, in excess of 10,000 bytes, while making sure to note in edit summaries that they will follow up with some kind of expansion "soon": [172], [173] This is clearly characteristic of him.
  • Starts talk page sections with threats to people to haul them off to "WP:AE".[174][175]

This is by no means an exhaustive list of evidence, but only indicative, encompassing the most glaring diffs telling of the fact that this same guy has been unrepentantly socking; other relevant evidence can, of course, be presented on demand. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Having interacted with both Towns Hill and TrangaBellam, I am pretty confident that there is no relation between the two. But I will look into the evidence over the weekend. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Adding note) I have now looked through all the evidence cited, but my opinion hasn't changed. TB is by and large an NPOV editor and, if his view aligned with TH in some cases (e.g., the Rummel quote or the accession of Kalat), we can't read too much into it. In the page on Dead Reckoning, TB did not add a new section on Response. It was already present. I am ignoring all the other stylistic similarities. Unless there is a match in POV, they don't amount to much. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had peeked into this as well earlier, although I had been more preoccupied with the Nangparbat SPI. From a reading of the evidence, it seems to be clear that the evidence is speaking for itself here: the manifest of same POV across the same subgroup of articles that Towns Hill/Faizan was most concerned with. The last SPI (which I had filed) evidenced the similarities that this new account has continued to manifest.
  • TrangaBellam: "Undid revision 1004237640 by Kautilya3 (talk); See Slaje (2019); p. 34".[176]
  • MekoScopiBangle (Towns Hill sock): expanding with Willem (p. 119), Majumdar, Hunter (1876, 1977)[177]
Needless to quote the time-tested, age-old WP:DUCK test here: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." The sock is quacking, indeed. Orientls (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having skimmed the evidence, I've got to say that there's a "throw everything at the wall" approach going on here. I routinely tell disruptive editors about AE. Persecution of Hindus has been a POV magnet for a considerable time, as has the Kashmir conflict (1988 Gilgit massacre); it's no surprise that experienced editors are revising it. A considerable number of scholarly sources are indispensable for working in these areas. Using the same solid source isn't an indication of anything; it's shared usage of fringe sources that would be a tell. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TB, WP:AELOG and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions will give you what you need; but please, keep your comments out of the admin section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally read through the confusing case made by OP and this does seem like the "kitchen sink" approach to me. The only takeaway is that there is an overlap between the articles edited by TrangaBellam and by Townshill/Faizan. That, in and off itself, is not surprising and there are likely many other editors with the same overlap. Some edits are similar in content but I don't see any reason to think they are anything other than coincidences. For example, in this and this both editors refer to the Hindu population in Pakistan but they use different sources and provide different numbers which is not really evidence of anything. A convincing behavioural case would provide examples of the same text being inserted as content, idiosyncratic spellings being used, similarities in edit summaries (using author last names is hardly idiosyncratic), etc., and this case does not do that. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have worked/jousted with TrangaBellam in the past in the areas of my interest, but have not come across the other users/socks in these areas. So I could say that TrangaBellam does not confine himself to the specific areas of interest of these other users. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look at about 2/3 of the evidence above, and I really can't see anything persuasive even if I squint. Using common English idioms like "off on a tangent", referring to works using author's last name, citing the standard scholarly sources, starting article rewrites and promising to follow up, mentioning AE, etc. – these are all common to many, if not most, of the people in this and other topic areas. My first-hand experience is relatively limited, but I have occasionally interacted with Townshill's socks and with TrangaBellam, and the only similarities I can see are two: they're both interested in South Asian history, and they both tend to piss off a certain subset of the editors in this area. – Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think TrangaBellam is related to Faizan in any way. The evidence given is not convincing and I read TB's point by point rebuttal that makes sense. Many editors have similar styles. And they might agree on a few things or have similar interests. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TrangaBellam's response to the report is dubious and rather gives more credence to the words of the OP. TB's response renews the archrivalry between OP and him because there can be no other factor why TB would be attempting to detract from the report by citing a discussion almost 3 years older than his account, and misrepresent it.[178] Apparently, only the socks of this sockfarm were active in those days and fighting the OP with the same attitude as TB. Dear Debasish (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone having interactions with both Faizan and TrangaBellam, I can attest that the two are different persons. TrangaBellam is more articulate in his talkpage conversations while Faizan had a coaxing tone to it. I also feel that these SPIs with long histories could be handled with a little more care. Often I see newbies or even established editors getting indeffed based on superficial evidence of shared POVs which is not much unusual in this topic area. --Zayeem (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith, I'm not aware of all the details here, but I don't believe there's reason to doubt the claim that Faizan has passed away. Unless I'm mistaken, the central claim of the Faizan case was that Towns Hill, who is a different person, had managed to persuade or trick him into granting him access to his account. All the actual socks afterwards are socks of Towns Hill, not of Faizan. – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TB[edit]
  • Orientls seem to be unaware that all academics refer to sources in such a manner.
  • How else will I refer to a source? Multiple editors including Fowler&fowler do the same - are we all socks?
  • In real life (except if we are acquaintances, too close) referring to random scholars by their first names is quite offensive - such goes the etiquette.
  • One of the claims is that I start[] talk page sections with threats to people to haul them off to "WP:AE".
  • Hard to see what I am supposed to defend. Can present at-least ten other editors who adopt such a tactic.
  • Both are very aware of a book written by Catherine B. Asher, an inaccessible source & not only used the same book "Architecture of Mughal India", written by Catherine B. Asher, as a source,
  • Any academic working on S. Asian Art is aware of her works - she is one of the biggest names in the field.
  • How is this an inaccessible source - her works are held in about a few hundred libraries across world? I have provided a CambridgeCore URL. Their metric page shows 60 hits in Wikipedia. GScholar shows a whooping 308 citations!
  • Overhauling of 1988 Gilgit massacre -
  • Throughout this mud-slinging attempt, I have been accused of nationalistic-driven editing, whitewashing Pakistani army crimes and in fact glorifying the same. Also, strongly colored by [] affinity for Pakistan that [I have] so often manifested [in content].
  • That surely explains this edit, where I added state-sponsored in the very first line. Much whitewashing - wow.
  • Cites "Kim Wagner" to talk about British colonization of India
  • Two editors working in the same area will use the same author. Wagner is no fringe academic, either with about 556 citations (GScholar profile) in a career of two decades. TH had used it for our article on Sepoy Mutiny of 1857: multiple historians had commended Wagnor for producing the most definitive history of the events.
  • Clutching at straws.
  • Same tendency of mentioning page number of a cited work in parenthesis in edit summaries
  • I suggest that the OP read relevant style-guides. This is very common in academia (and Wikipedia).
  • Displays command and flaunts fluency of the writings of a particular subset of authors including "Schofield", [18], [19] Alastair Lamb,[20][21] AG Noorani
  • As in the case of Asher and S. Asian Art, this trio is necessary reading for anybody involved in Kashmir Conflict. Even as a perpetual hater of Lamb, I have to admit it.
  • Even Kautilya3 is intricately aware of all these authors and we have discussed other scholarship, their pros and cons etc. in email - what proves? Once again, clutching at straws.
  • such as this same use of phrases "off on a tangent"
  • Editing the same section Annexation of Hyderabad#Communal violence during and after the operation just like he did with multiple socks before.
  • I was executing an edit, that was proposed by Kautilya3 at talk-page. My edit summary clearly mentions this but the OP skips it, conveniently. I had already explained why I and K3 show a lot of intersections.
  • This only helps in disproving the overall thrust of the complaint. If I am indeed a pro-Pak POV pusher, why would I even bother to remove claims of Indian Army raping Muslim women?
  • As Trangabellam, on Sarmila Bose's "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War", he dedicates a new section to the content he added as "Towns Hill"
  • More clutching at straws. I rewrote the entire article and created multiple sections and subsections.
  • If I am indeed a pro-Pak POV pusher, why will I bother to expand the section on negative reception so massively?
  • As I am repeatedly asserting, all the facts which didn't fit into the narrative were kicked out.
  • This also rubbishes the very first allegation, where the OP tries to portray me as some sort of genocide-apologist or denier. For my rebut on Rummel, see below.
  • Towns Hill and TrangaBellam claim that Kalat (Balochistan) was not annexed by Pakistan.
  • but also purposely avoided adding a Google books link
  • I never add one, on any article, unless I have to consult GBooks/IA. Which are rare cases, where I don't have the book in my home or the institute queue is unbearably long.
  • Kautilya3 can probably confirm that I am not bluffing about having physical access to an immense magnitude of sources.
  • Like Towns Hill, TarangaBellum overhauled the same section on Persecution of Hindus#Pakistan, focusing on and writing about the population statistics of Hindus in Pakistan
  • I suggest that the OP brush up his reading skills.
  • TownsHill had written an entire (irrelevant) paragraph on the process of historical decline of Hindu population in Pakistan. In stark contrast, I mentioned (in a single line) the current percentage composition (and caste-status) of Hindus in Pakistan. Both are very relevant in pointing out how feeble a minority, they are in Pakistan.
  • In the very same edit, I had added a new line about how Pakistan's official textbooks promote heavy bias against Hinduism.
  • So much for pro-Pak POV pushing.
  • Towns Hill had a tendency of posting very long quotations, prompting Kautilya3 to caution him about the same. This time around, with this new sock, he notified Kautilya3 of his quoting issue well in advance,
  • More cluelessness - intentional or not. It was Kautilya3 who asked me to provide quotes. Obviously, I will be in a discussion with him.
  • As LukeEmily can attest to, I hate quotes. It was only a month back, when we were sparring over the need to contain quotations in references.
  • His edit summary often includes only the surname of the author.
  • I plead guilty to this. Now for the OP to show that TH exhibited the same pattern - not just across one-off edits. Going by the single edit, TH might be F&F as well.
  • Pending which, I can analyze respective edit-summaries.
  • Both say or show that they are rewriting the whole of an article, but actually remove large chunk of content, in excess of 10,000 bytes, while making sure to note in edit summaries that they will follow up with some kind of expansion "soon"
  • It seems that the filer has been seriously impressed of this particular approach. In this edit of August 2021, we see the OP remove large chunk of content, in excess of 5,000 bytes, while making sure to note in edit summary that they will reinsert bonafide improvements "shortly".
  • Joking apart, in my one year of editing, it is only twice I have used the word "soon" in my edit-summary — Providing citation for Vaishya soon and writing a neat SUMMARY of arguments from each side, soon.
  • In stark contrast, Towns Hill used a part. phrase will expand [..] soon. And, six times in a span of eight months.
  • Same dodgy removal of a very weighty quotation from Rudolph Joseph Rummel, a noted genocide scholar of celestial repute,
  • The OP is joking - no serious scholar takes Rummel's figures or methodology or commentary seriously. Some dedicated reviews of Rummel: 1, 2
  • where he [TrangaBellam] had had disputes with a number of longtime editors which had come in the way of his POV pushing, impeding his endeavours to make progress with his edits that he had expected to make.
  • Who are these vanguards, Sir - maybe, you care enough to ping a few of them? Or provide a few diffs?
  • In a nutshell, this is a motivated and baseless attempt to sanitize Wikipedia of editors who critically interrogate Hindutva POV in our articles.
  • I suggest admins to read this AE decision where the OP was permanently banned from all articles concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
  • EdJohnston, thanks. Is there any page of these updates for all users? I did not know AE bans could be revoked at AN. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also suggest that the admins decline this SPI with prejudice. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the SPI archives, Kautilya3 is evidently the most experienced editor in dealing with this sock-ring. I suggest that his considered comments, when and as they appear, be assigned due weight. Than somebody who got unbanned a few months back, laid low, and filed a motivated SPI. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my last post on this thread - if this is encompassing the most glaring diffs, I won't bother about other relevant evidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • User:TrangaBellam has complained that MBlaze Lightning was banned at AE from ARBIPA, but (a) he was only banned from 'all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed', and (b) the restriction was lifted in February 2021. So MBlaze's filing here at SPI doesn't violate any ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing this with no action taken. I glossed over much of the extensive verbiage in this report, but what I read didn't give me a strong feeling that socking was proved. I also looked at a bunch of technical indicators (WP:BEANS) that make me strongly doubt that TrangaBellam is the same person as Faizan or several of the more prolific confirmed socks (although, some of what I found makes me wonder if all the CU confirmations are actually correct). In particular, some distinctive writing patterns in edit comments, but other things as well. I don't know what to make of the reports at User_talk:Faizan that Faizan has passed away, so I pretty much ignored that. If somebody wants to pursue this further, they'll need to present better evidence and stay away from editorializing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've received several off-wiki communications about this. All I can say is if you have specific evidence of socking, open a new case and present your evidence concisely and dispassionately. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Faizan/Archive&oldid=1076819932"