Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PAKHIGHWAY/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PAKHIGHWAY

07 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


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

  • Proposed a page move on Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, only Mfarazbaig supported it[1] and would tell PAKHIGHWAY to "make a move" and "Give it a week or so"[2] PAKHIGHWAY would make the page move after a week,[3] but no one except these 2 accounts supported page move.[4]
  • On Template talk:History of Pakistan. PAKHIGHWAY replaced comment of Mfarazbaig[5] by applying same POV, it looks like a botched attempt of socking.
  • ends all edits summaries with a full stop. PAKHIGHWAY[6][7][8], Mfarazbaig[9][10][11]
  • threats to "report" people on edit summaries.[12][13]
  • Alleges people of being blind.
Mfarazbaig: "Please use your eyes & the brain"[14], "If the eyes & brain fail, please use Ctrl F"[15]
PAKHIGHWAY: "Maybe you're blind. Take off your nationalist glasses"[16]

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]

06 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

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 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


New account created only for supporting PAKHIGHWAY and asking protection of Template:History of Pakistan,[26] same request that was also made by PAKHIGHWAY[27] to preserve his pseudohistorical version. Only person to claim "vandalism" on template's talk page.

Pakhighway claimed "it has to be one of the most (if not the most) vandalized template"[28] and Ratatatain claims "This has to be the most vandalized template on Wikipedia",[29] both are nonsensical claims.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me.

PAKHIGHWAY has often boasted his work on this template elsewhere.[30] Hence his obsession with the template. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sro23, RegentsPark, and Yamla: clearly this is PAKHIGHWAY. I also know that this block is not going to be overturned since CU Bbb23 and NeilN support the block, still it is good to clear all doubts. This account canvassed "particular set of editors" because he thought that they agreed with his version per these comments of these editors: [31][32][33][34][35], and yes he also thought that because Cabayi made a request to protect a WP:WRONGVERSION and Ritchie333 protected it, that means they agreed with PAKHIGHWAY's pseudohistorical content as well. But nearly all of these editors gave up supporting his version once lengthy discussion and proposal was made, pointing out the extreme faults with the version. Who else would want to wade through heavily edited WP:RFPP to know that Cabayi asked for protection? People care about why the page was protected and how the protection would be removed. Someone who is very obsessed with the template would care enough to remember who asked for protection, and it is even more evident when the requesting user (Cabayi) is totally uninvolved in this whole subject. How come this editor was so quick to analyze that who may have supported PAKHIGHWAY's version? Why he didn't canvassed blocked sock Mfarazbaig who supported that version?[36] Because only PAKHIGHWAY was aware of all that. These are the only two users to spout utter nonsense that this is the "most vandalized" template of Wikipedia, when there has been no vandalism on this template for years. Statement like "when their block is nearly over", doesn't make sense, because PAKHIGHWAY was blocked for a month on 6 February, and today is 24 February, that means 10 days are still left and easily 35% of the block was in place before expiration and even if his block was expiring tomorrow he still can't edit this template because of his recent topic ban.[37] PAKHIGHWAY tried to evade CU and he failed. When PAKHIGHWAY makes extraneous claims like "Facebook claimed I was using multiple accounts",[38] in order to deceive since none of us can verify such fairy tales, there should no reason why we should reconsider the decision. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correction I had nothing to do with setting the protection level - I merely responded to a TPE request while it was template protected Template talk:History of Pakistan#Template-protected edit request on 5 October 2017 (a non-controversial fix to presentation) and while there I pointed out in response to PAKHIGHWAY's request for protection that protection was already in place Template talk:History of Pakistan#Permanent Lock on template with request edits?.
When I received the sock's request for help, a request from a new user account, asking me to ask for protection (which Ratatatain could easily have done for themself) I had a strong feeling of being played for a cat's paw. A scan through the template's talk page showed the only interested editor unable to make the request for themself was PAKHIGHWAY. Personally I have no doubt at all that PAKHIGHWAY is Ratatatain.
The CU's finding that master & sock were using different browsers doesn't seem any hurdle to linking the two accounts - I use two browsers myself (one for wiki, one for everything else). Cabayi (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed the correct meaning of "which you helped protect"[39] to determine your role in this template. Looks like PAKHIGHWAY's gross CIR issues are way bigger than what I thought, given his clear inability to describe what he actually saw. Ratatatain knew that posting a request for protection won't do anything and it would get rejected under a couple of minutes, that's why like a pro-disruptive editor, Ratatatain went on to wage a WP:BATTLE and WP:EDITWAR on the template by canvassing everyone who he assumed will edit war for his version and such unrest would automatically create a reason to protect the template and that has always been the wish of these both accounts.[40][41] Looks like a well thought but failed plan of PAKHIGHWAY. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I received a request from Ratatatain to get involved at Template talk:History of Pakistan#Disruptive editing (diff), as did Willard84 (diff), Joshua Jonathan (diff), LouisAragon (diff), Kautilya3 (diff), Mar4d (diff), Muboshgu (diff), and Ritchie333 (diff). I was wondering if we were being played as cat's paws then saw that Muboshgu has already called it out as an obvious sock. JzG has already put PAKHIGHWAY on notice that a site ban is the next step. Quack! Cabayi (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Thank you User:Cabayi for opening this. I agree it's a WP:DUCK. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think this needs a checkuser investigation. If this does indeed turn out to be PAKHIGHWAY evading their WP:ANI-sanctioned block, the master account will need to be blocked indefinitely. So, we should be as sure as we can here rather than just blocking as a duck. --Yamla (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to RegentsPark for raising a valid concern. I was quite perplexed myself. When I saw the message on my talk page this morning, I did not get the "feel" of it being PAKHIGHWAY. There are several dozen pro-Pakistan editors that hover around Wikipedia without registering accounts for whatever reason. Any one of them could have given these alerts, given that the template in question of emotive interest to pretty much all of them. If there isn't a clear CU connection with PAKHIGHWAY, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is not even here to defend himself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea why someone would shoot himself in the foot in such a ridiculous way, with just a few days left on his block. It just isn't credible. All I can tell from the sidelines is that there is clearly bad blood between several editors of PAKHIGHWAY's topic area (India-Pakistan-Afghanistan). There are several users in this topic area that would just love to get rid of each other (i.e. "one less nuisance"). - LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sro23 that Ratatatain must be someones sock -- just probably not PAKHIGHWAY. This requires more attention on another venue in my opinion. IF it turns out to be PAKHIGHWAY, the key should be thrown into a deep well. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Blocked. NeilN talk to me 17:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had never checked PAKHIGHWAY before and were looking at these two accounts fresh, I would say the two are between  Unlikely and  Possible because the user agents are completely different. What's remarkable, though, is in late 2016 PAKHIGHWAY was editing from one country, and now they are editing from another country on another continent and in the same geographical area as Ratatatain. The two accounts are also using the same ISP, although the IP ranges are different.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks a little odd to me. The user creates a sock and then posts messages on various user talk pages? That's not sock like behavior. Unless the CU is compelling, this may need rethinking. --regentspark (comment) 23:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interested to hear more opinions on this. Possibly a joe job. Sro23 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must admit, I'm uncertain. Arguing in favour of this being a sockpuppet is the overlap in styles and concerns matched with an apparently close geographic proximity. I mean, I couldn't frame PAKHIGHWAY in this manner, as I have no idea where they are located. Literally, not even what timezone they are in. Combine this with PAKHIGHWAY suddenly becoming active after the block was extended. On the other hand, PAKHIGHWAY could just be reading Wikipedia and not editing. That would be entirely appropriate. And the overlap in styles and concerns isn't complete. There are significant differences here. I'm not sure how it can be a joe job, but I'm also not convinced it is PAKHIGHWAY. On balance, I'd like another checkuser to weigh in, as this is apparently a difficult case. I have great trust in Bbb23 but it sounds like this isn't a straight-forward case. --Yamla (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What's remarkable, though, is in late 2016 PAKHIGHWAY was editing from one country, and now they are editing from another country on another continent and in the same geographical area as Ratatatain." Any reasonable explanation for this? --NeilN talk to me 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I do see that is remarkable and I will defer to Bbb23 on this. But, if it is socking, then the editor must be a complete idiot. To come back and post a "disruptive editing" message on that particular set of editors (who are often at loggerheads with each other) makes no sense. (Of course, they could also be randomly trolling.) --regentspark (comment) 01:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're done here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LouisAragon: You're not the first person to make inaccurate statements about the history here. There was a lot more time left on the master's one-month block than "just a few days". He was blocked on February 6 for one month. Ratatatain's edits were all on February 23. There were 13 days left on the master's block, almost half of the original block. Additionally, being stupid or an idiot is not a defense to socking. I see lots of socks doing things that are so obviously stupid it beggars belief.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 June 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This new account was created on 18 May 2018, right after PAKHIGHWAY's unblock appeal was rejected.[42] Since PAKHIGHWAY made unblock appeals on UTRS as recently as 16 May,[43] I'm requesting CU assuming that the master is not stale.

Overlap is too big between the PAKHIGHWAY and HudairaViki, including on many uncommon pages as the Editor Interaction Analyser shows. HudairaViki turned up yesterday on Point 5353, an obscure article created by master, and pushed the conspiracy theory that the mountain lies on Indian territory, same as PAKHIGHWAY,[44] who was obsessed with pushing this conspiracy theory.[45]

Further evidence:

PAKHIGHWAY: "Updated information. Moving radio stations to [[List of radio stations in Pakistan]]"[46]
HudairaViki: "Updated description. No need for schools."[47]
PAKHIGHWAY: "Fixed Urdu translation"[48]
HudairaViki: "Urdu translation fixed for "line"[49]
"Urdu fixed"[50][51]
PAKHIGHWAY: "Fixing abbreviations as per Pakistani subnational abbreviations"[52]
HudairaViki: "Fixed template as per Abbreviations of administrative units of Pakistan"[53]
PAKHIGHWAY: "Corrected name and replaced transliteration with proper actual TRANSLATION."[54]
"Replacing silly transliteration with proper Urdu translation"[55]
HudairaViki: "Replacing transliteration with translation."[56]
  • Creates articles talk pages with {{WP Pakistan|class=start}}/{{WP Pakistan|class=list}}[57][58]
  • Argues that "KPK is not an official term" for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but "KP" is:
PAKHIGHWAY: "KPK is not an official term. It's a term used by people who don't know any better. See Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa."[59]
HudairaViki: "KPK is not an official term. This is a mythical term created by the media and social media. Khyber Pakthunkhwa = Two words = Two letters = KP"[60]
See also: [61][62]

Sock puppetry seems to be too obvious here. My Lord (talk) 15:25, 30 June 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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


01 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


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

Editing "History" of a page[76] that HudairaViki and PAKHIGHWAY edited.[77][78] Focused on changing nastaliq scripts.[79][80] My Lord (talk) 11:48, 1 July 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]

02 October 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


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

See:

[81] and [82].
[83] and [84]
[85] and [86] D4iNa4 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Can you still make a check if that's possible?
@Sir Sputnik: See:-
[87] and [88]
Both made same edit e.g. "(Urdu: سڑک ہال, Sarak-e-Hall)" [89][90]
Removed same thing on Abbreviations of administrative units of Pakistan.[91] and [92] D4iNa4 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 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]

07 April 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Created after last sock reported to this SPI was blocked.

Similarity includes creation of Pakistani administration related articles.[93][94][95][96] Heavy interest in History of Pakistan.[97] ML talk 13:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If CU says inconclusive then there is still a case of socking. This is not a new user and he is engaging in gross POV pushing.[98]

@ST47: This account was created barely 1 month after the previous sock was blocked.[99]

Accounts use same edit summaries such as "Fixed template".[100][101]

PAKHIGHWAY had mentioned "Category:Balochi-language surnames" on Buzdar (tribe) as category,[102] and DdBbCc22 mentions Balochi language and Baloch people on infobox instead.[103]

These accounts share similar expertise in Districts of Pakistan.[104][105][106][107][108]

These accounts also correct Urdu scripts around.[109][110]

Prefers creating false balance for "Urdu" language over "Hindi" language.[111][112][113][114]

His modus operandi has been to rehaul History of Pakistan by modifying content in very large lengths.[115][116]

He is the only person so far who likes to refer pre-Independent Pakistan as "Indus Valley", despite "Indus Valley" is not a synonym for Pakistan. Here are examples where he did this:-

  • "Besides Achaemenid presence in Indus Valley"[117] (DdBbCc22)
  • "encompasses the history of the Indus Valley region" .. "contributed to the rich cultural diversity of the Indus Valley" [118] (PAKHIGHWAY)

ML talk 13:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • The evidence presented does not seem to conclusively support the sock-puppetry claims. In view of the inconclusive CU evidence, we ought to AGF that this's a new user. Also, the editing overlap is on an article that is not fringe in any manner; so nothing much from that aspect either. ∯WBGconverse 15:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 May 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Truthwins018 (created 16 May 2020) and PAKHIGHWAY share a number of same interests. Both have similarly updated Overseas Pakistani,[119][120][121][122] and Tourism in Pakistan.[123][124] Refers unfavorable content as "childish".[125][126]

@Bbb23: Since you made the last check you can probably check this time as well. It could be also worthwhile to check if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Identityanddifference has connection to this sockfarm. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@RoySmith: They are most likely same person given same propaganda pushing at Kargil war where master was concerned over "Biased article not reflecting the ground realities"[127] and suspected sock is providing "unbiased mentioning".[128] This sockfarm has more than one SPI and not just this one. Orientls (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that the suspected sock has only 53 edits and registered on 16 May, I would say the mentioned similarities are enough for conducting a CU at least. Orientls (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: From today: "Nationalism is not allowed on wikipedia",[129] "nationalism is not welcomed".[130] Major edits on Point 5353,[131][132] which is edited by barely a few editors is also another give-away. PAKHIGHWAY was the creator of this article. Orientls (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by RoySmith as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case (including admin actions against suspected socks) without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

04 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Still promoting a self-created narrative that "Indus" means "Pakistan".[133][134][135]

Misusing the word "vandalism"[136][137].

Terming opponents as "Indian".[138][139] Capitals00 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2024 (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]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Data will be stale. Izno (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, looking at the archives, I see this was one of the cases I used for my SPI clerk training. The last time I touched this case was 30 May 2020 when I wrote I don't see enough similarity in the edits cited to make me think sock. India-Pakistan relations is a highly popular topic, and these edits were several years apart. And that works today just as well as it did four years ago! Closing with no action taken. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PAKHIGHWAY/Archive&oldid=1253256582"