Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faizan (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 30 August 2015 (→Comments by other users: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:04, 30 August 2015 by Faizan (talk | contribs) (→Comments by other users: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Faizan

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive.



22 August 2015

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

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 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 . 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, 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 . My obeservations about this case is as follows,
  • Freechat self-reverted himself 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 it.
  • In this revert of Faizan 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. , 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. Human3015  21:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Before explaning more about this case, My first observation was Faizan too made section "In my defense" on edit warring board , same like earlier done by freechat. . Now I will describe this case, wait. --Human3015  21:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. --Human3015  21:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. --Human3015  21:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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" , 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 without commenting anything on RfC at that time. We also had edit war here. . Later Freechat made some comments on that Rfc. --Human3015  22:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. --Human3015  22:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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)

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. --Human3015  03:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Human3015:, have you got the wrong diffs? I looked at this claim by Human3015: "In this revert of Faizan 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)
  • 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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan Add topic