Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Xtremedood

Xtremedood (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
18 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Both are doing the same edits and editing behaviour (blanking any mention of forced conversion especially in Islam in India articles, giving the same "reasons", both have the same userpage, both are new users, both are editing the same articles and same topic.

  • Both have the same editing behaviour and doing the same edits, ie. they are both blanking any information of Forced conversion in articles.
Blanking of forced conversion by Xtremedood :

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

and there are many more such examples in his edit history.
Blanking of forced conversion by Calm321

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

  • Both users blank such information giving either no reason at all or the same reason: "Did not see source, no ref, no references".
Calm321 either has no edit summary or says "Did not see source" [14], "no reference", "i see no ref"
Xtremedood either has no edit summary or says "did not see reference, Did not see source [15], No references.
  • They edit the same articles (Ibn Arabi) and same topics (Islam in India, Islam and forced conversion,...)
  • They have the same userpage with the words "Hello", and both are new accounts.

Xtremedood has also been reported to ANI and AE several times for disruptive editing and has been blocked for edit warring. @Gorgevito: @Kansas Bear: @FreeatlastChitchat: @Ghatus: @Delibzr:

Calypsomusic (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • The evidence seems rather weak here. Aside from the things Bbb23 pointed out below, the times that they edit are somewhat different, and they have no significant page overlap (Just 1 page, 30 days apart). Unsubstantiated allegations of forced conversion are common across the 'pedia, and if we were to start checking the users who remove or revert such, we would be checking a lot of users indeed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I'm declining the CU as I don't see enough evidence to warrant it. First, the alleged master has a fairly extensive history of editing here, whereas the alleged puppet has very little. Second, in this area of the project, there are bound to be editors who challenge forced conversion. Third, having "Hello" on one's userpage is not uncommon. Fourth, the fact that the master has been reported to noticeboards says nothing about any tie-in to the puppet. Finally, I don't find the edit summary evidence very compelling. There are other edit summaries by each editor that don't overlap and that are actually more unusual than the ones highlighted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing the case with no action taken. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


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]

"he source provided by Capitals00 and other Indians are from Hindustan news and other Indian mouth piece" is nowhere close to being a racial issue. Don't cloud the waters with obviously bad accusations. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


2 IPs from Canada, the same country where Xtremedood's admitted IP address[16] comes from. These IPs came from nowhere, and started to save an article created by Xtremedood from AFD(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praise and veneration of Muhammad),[17][18] their fanboy commentaries read like they are real authors of this article.

They have particular habit of making little edits[19] without marking them as minor edits, like Xtremedood too.[20][21][22]

142.109.127.36 shares same location as 96.51.75.106 (self admitted IP of Xtremedood)

"on negative perspectives of Muhammad" - 69.165.152.170[23]
"matter of negative perspectives as" - 142.109.127.36[24]
"a negative perspective on Islam" - Xtremedood [25]

Just like Xtremedood fails to type out whole thing at once, and requires many many edits to make his paragraph, this IP address has done exactly same thing. Just compare:-

Xtremedood's making of a comment[26][27][28][29][30][31]
142.109.127.36's making of a comment[32][33][34][35][36][37]

Capitals00 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Vanjagenije to review this, because there is an on-going AFD, master is temporarily blocked and these comments on AFD are capable of influencing the outcome of AFD. Capitals00 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2015 (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]

  • First IP blocked for 48 hours, second IP is not active at the moment. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


From first comment on this on-going AFD concerning an article created by Xtremedood, this IP[38] is acting like he knows wikipedia well, while continuously using AFD for WP:FORUM. He knows the redirect called "WP:IDONTLIKEIT"[39] thus he is not new to wikipedia at all.

Apart from that, IP went to bludgeon whole AFD,[40][41][42][43][44] just like previous IP sock of Xtremedood.[45]

Same style of writing:-

86.96.60.18: "The topic of the article is very encyclopedic"[46]
142.109.127.36: "The article is of encyclopedic value"[47]
86.96.60.18: The topic "Praise and veneration of Muhammad"[48], "The topic of the article is"[49]
69.165.152.170:"the topic of praise and veneration of Muhammad"[50]
142.109.127.36: "of the topic it makes sense as", "Western scholarship on the topic"[51]

Very soon, IP went to restore the result data of a totally unrelated article, First Anglo-Afghan War,[52] which was originally written by Xtremedood.[53]

This is clear block evasion and WP:DUCK.

Requesting Vanjagenije to review this, as AFD is still on going. Capitals00 (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeings this edit on closed AFD, it tells that this abusive IP,94.58.157.181 claims to be the owner of 69.165.152.170, which was from Canada. It is Xtremedood. Since Xtremedood is eager to establish that 69.165.152.170 wasn't him,[54] even though it is not going to help his case or it matters, he is now evading block with this IP (94.58.157.181) to push it further. We can see there was no influx of IP addresses on this AFD, for its last 3 days,[55] only those IPs have commented who had same behavior as Xtremedood. Capitals00 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I have the habit of defending others against false accusations launched by established liars like you doesn't mean that I claim to be the owner of theirs IPs or accounts. I edit by an iPhone using the Internet service of Etisalat (Emirates Telecomunication Corporation) which is, as can be seen here, the 17th largest mobile network operator in the world. It is not a proxy server.--94.58.143.194 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link some diffs where we can find your "habit of defending others against false accusations", or this is the first or last time that you needed this "habit"? If there is no evidence of your habit, then as usual, WP:DUCK. Capitals00 (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this IP has failed to prove if they edited wikipedia ever before this scene, I am sure that this IP was Xtremedood and even meatpuppeting is violation of socking. Ping Ponyo again as he is active now. Capitals00 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just read edit history of First Anglo-Afghan War, it looks like this IP continued reverting[56][57][58][59][60][61] to preferred version of Xtremedood[62][63] for last few days, IP also made false accusations of vandalism[64][65] similar to Xtremedood.[66][67][68]
This IP mentions "LuzLuz31"[69]? Xtremedood also mentioned LuzLuz31,[70] for justifying his edits. Capitals00 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
94.58.148.217 is now trying to bludgeon the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 1, just like Xtremedood's sock 142.109.127.36 was bludgeoning the AFD. Capitals00 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

I was the guy using that ip: 86.96.60.18 from United Arab Emirates and I am not the same guy using the account of Xtremedood. I came accidently accross the article "Praise and veneration of Muhammad" and saw a big notice at the top saying that it is going to get deleted, so I followed the link and voted to keep it, then I noticed the name of user:Xtremedood and went to check his talkpage and contributions. I saw that he is being trolled by certain anti-Islam/Muslim admins and editors whom I am familiar with because I have been watching this silly social network for a long time and know these admins and editors trolling Muslims editors here.
By the way, user:Capitals00 is an obvious liar. The sourced content that I restored on first Anglo Afghan war and got deleted repeatedly by British meatpuppets were not originally written by user:Xtremedood but by user:LuzLuz31 as shown here.--94.58.157.181 (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these ips are from United Arab Emirates and not proxies.
And also, just because multiple persons are telling this jackass that "an encyclopedic article" is "encyclopedic" doesn't mean they are sockpuppets. Perhaps he and those who voted with "delete" are sockpuppets of each other..--94.58.157.181 (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @Ponyo: Can you take a look? You extended Xtremedood's block recently. This looks like him, but how can we be sure that it is not somebody trying to set him up? This IP appears to be from a different part of the World, but I don't know much about those proxies. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, missed the ping. I'm not seeing any current open proxies, but people travel, share their grievances with family and friends, request back-up from online groups of like-minded individuals etc. I don't buy the explanation by 94.58.157.181 above for a second; if they are being disruptive they can be blocked in their own right regardless of any WP:MEAT or sock connection to Xtremedood.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing the case with no action. IPs are not active anymore. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

31 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


For months, several users (DeCausa, Jobas and myself) have been repeatedly harassed [71], [72] by IPs mainly from the UAE. Thanks to Diannna identifying the link between the harassment of DeCausa and myself and the harassment of Jobas, it seems obvious that the sock master behind it all is Xtremedood. The only connection between DeCausa, Jobas and myself is that we have at some point locked horns with Xtremedood.

  • The master behind the IPs harassing us has an interest in Mia Khalifa [73], [74], [75], [76] and Xtremedood has an interest in Mia Khalifa [77], [78], [79], which is where he locked horn with Jobas.
  • The master behind the IPs harassing us has an interest in the history of Punjab [80], [81] and Xtremedood has an interest in the history of Punjab [82], [83].
  • The master behind the IPs harassing us has an interest in Christianity and Islam [84], [85], [86] and Xtremedood has an interest in Christianity and Islam [87], [88], [89], [90].
  • The combination of Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity and Islam seems too specific to be coincidence, especially as the IPs have focused on harassing users who disagreed with Xtremedood.
  • As if that was not enough, sometimes the IPs have been brought in directly to support Xtremedood on AN boards [91], [92] in their very first edits.

Jeppiz (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • One final piece of evidence that emerged after I filed the report. Bbb23 blocked Xtremedood for one week for filing a "baseless report at SPI" [93], and when the latest IP incarnation turns up here, it pings Bbb23 and refers to a one week block and ''baseless SPI reports" [94]. So not only do the troll IPs edit the same articles (Mia Khalifa, Punjab-related and religion-related) as Xtremedood, sometime they head straight to ongoing investigations to support Xtremedood [95], [96] or, as here, launch into tirades directly tied to cases related to Xtremedood [97]. Jeppiz (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23:In reply to your comment below about the possibility someone is framing Xtremedood. Yes, before filing the report and making my comments on ANI, I gave some serious thought to the possibility that somebody would try to frame Xtremedood. Had this all started now, I might have believed that. But the harassments originally started early last summer, not long after Xtremedood registered and for a long time they were much less transparent. Perhaps because Xtremedood also used his confirmed socks Calm321 and Greentea555. Actually, he has been rather careful and it wasn't until Diannaa made the link between the IPs harassing me now, DeCausa last summer and autmn and those harassing Jobas that the pattern became clear, with Xtremedood as the only common denominator. Consider that these latest rather obvious outbursts only came after someone had made the link between Xtremedood and the IPs. So I consider it highly unlike that someone took a strong disliking to Xtremedood just a month or so after he joined, decided to frame him, but still wanted to wait 9 months(!!) to do it. As I said, if this had started now, or in the past weeks, it would have been possible to consider other scenarios. But that's not the case, quite the contrary. It's a careful sockmaster who has not been very obvious at all, it's just that when it goes on long enough and he targets those who disagree, it eventually becomes more and more obvious. Believe me, I spent several hours yesterday going through all of 53 IPs (and several more that were possible but not obvious IP socks) to study the pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the fact that the sock master has really lost it after being linked with Xtremedood is also a bit indicative. [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. There'd be no reason for this strong reaction if it would be a mistake. That in itself is of course only indicative, the previously presented evidence of the clear pattern in editing certain areas and the IPs going after those who disagreed with Xtremedod already in summer 2015 and ever since is much more conclusive. Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (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]

  • I've declined the CU request. We rarely publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jeppiz: There's no question that many of the IPs listed are disruptive. They are also fairly clearly trolling. You might give some thought to the possibility that the IPs are intentionally trying to make you think they are Xtremedood. It's almost transparent. BTW, I did block the IP that has been editing lately for block evasion. That doesn't mean they are evading Xtremedood's block. There are other IPs in the same or similar ranges that are blocked, and they are evading that block or blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm putting this on hold. No action should be taken against Xtremedood without consulting with me or another CheckUser first.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no technical evidence connecting the UAE IPs with Xtremedood. There's no question that the IPs are disruptive, and they are being blocked as they pop up. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Account created on 26 May 2017 just for edit warring and disrupting one article Nathu La and Cho La incidents. Same thing was done by Xtremedood before, who created an account(Greentea555) just to carry out disruption and edit warring on this article.

Using the same isolated source("https://books.google.com.au/books?id=02Hjr6RUckwC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197")[107] as Xtremedood did.[108]("on page 197")

Prefers putting a dot in the end of the edit summary:

Capitals00 (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since CU is stale, I am adding more behavioral similarities.

  • Same level of English both.[115][116]
  • His catchphrase "in regards to"[117][118] that is seen frequently in Fenal Kalundo's editing.[119]
  • Too much use of word perspective/s, sometimes 4 times in single diff:
"an another perspective", "with Indian perspective", "different perspectives"[120]
"however his perspective, the Ottoman Caliph's perspectives, the leaders of the 200+ Million Barelvi Movement of Sunnis perspectives should not be silenced"[121]
  • Same kind of format to reply on talk pages. "1." "2." [124][125]
  • Marks major edit as minor.[126][127][128][129]
  • Very long edit summaries often.[130][131][132][133]
  • Uses <ref> </ref> tags on talkpage.[134][135][136] You can see on talk pages that no one else used <ref> </ref> tags on entire talk except him in these diffs.
  • has problem with deciding what's singular and plural.[137][138]
  • goes back to put @ before the typed username.[139][140]


Ping @Vanjagenije and Ponyo: who blocked him or his socks before.[141][142] Capitals00 (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing that he has resumed his disruptive edit warring, after 1 month of break, I am finding more similarities of these accounts:

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]

 Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this stage, Xtremedood hasn't edited for eight months and Fenal Kalundo hasn't edited for over a month, so investigating this would not be time well spent given the SPI backlog. I'm closing this without prejudice; if the account starts editing again, this can be reopened for investigation. --Deskana (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same propensity to add flags in various battles, particularly the File:Alam of the Mughal Empire.svg. cf. [151] or the entire set of contributions [152] regentspark (comment) 20:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik:. The consensus is that File:Alam of the Mughal Empire.svg and various other mughal related flags are fictional. Xtreemedood (and their sock User:Alexis_Ivanov are known to add this flag to articles that are related (or peripherally related) to the Mughal Empire. Looking at Nuclear Elevator's contibutions (hover over the diffs at [153]) shows little interest in anything other than the addition of the Alam and other fictional flags to various articles. My guess is that this needs to be evaluated behaviorally so @SpacemanSpiff and Fowler&fowler: for additional input. --regentspark (comment) 14:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: The User:Alexis_Ivanov sock of Xtreemedood has added these flags in the past. For example, [154], [155]--regentspark (comment) 21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Xtremedood is currently topic banned by Wikipedia community at ANI

Which doesn't allow him to edit many articles with a different account, so SirSputnic should be made to know the background, or he will make wrong assumption. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Xtremedood was topic banned from whole India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. NuclearElevator should not be making any edits on the articles of those countries but he has. NuclearElevator has also edited Third Battle of Panipat[156] like Xtremedood.[157] Capitals00 (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to gather some evidence while keeping in mind that there is very low amount of activity from new account.
Changing/removing images on India-Pakistan articles,[158][159] like NuclearElevator.[160][161]
Fails to sign the comment.[162][163]
Prefers putting a dot in the end of the edit summary:[164][165][166][167]
"should not be used",[168] "shouldn't be used"[169] Capitals00 (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • Whether or not this is the same person is king of a moot point. With Xtremedood not blocked, and inactive for almost a year means that if this is the same person, there's no actual misuse of multiple accounts here. Closing with no action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Xtremedood#Topic ban --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed - Given the topic this may be evasion, but clearer evidence is necessary to establish a link to Xtremedood. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed - @RegentsPark: Could you provide some examples of the Xtremedood add[ing] flags in various battles, as you put it? Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repinging RegentsPark because of typo. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RegentsPark: Thank you, I'm well aware of NuclearElevator's editing pattern. What I was looking for are examples of Xtremedood doing this sort of thing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexis Ivanov is a sockpuppet of RussianDewey not Xtremedood. Given that Xtremedood has not made any edits, as far as I can tell, relating to NuclearElevator's singular and particular interest, I can only conclude they are not the same. As for a connection between NuclearElevator and RussianDewey, it's possible of course, but unlikely in my opinion. RussianDewey was never this single-minded nor are they the only editor with an interest in this flag. Closing without action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Registered only for restoring non-notable articles created by Xtremedood.[170][171][172]

Ping Ponyo who might have the logs.

His recent edit[173] that "In return, Tipu would get all the places that they had captured in the war, including Gajendragarh and Dharwar", is same as what Xtremedood added here.  Looks like a duck to me. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Xtremedood is under an indefinite community topic ban from anything related to religion, India and Pakistan.[174] His last edit show he tried to appeal the topic ban to Arbcom and it failed.[175] This is how he has every reason to be behind this sock account. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:51, 26 July 2020 (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]

04 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


All these very new accounts restoring edits of this sockmaster.

 Looks like a duck to me. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:49, 4 August 2020 (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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtremedood/Archive&oldid=1138682277"