Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00

Capitals00

Capitals00 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive.

30 April 2018

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Capitals00 has a prior history of sockpuppetry [1] and issues with WP:BATTLE, pro-India WP:POV, and WP:NPA across WP:ARBIPA articles which bear an eerie resemblance to MapSGV. There are some striking language similarities and editing overlaps between these two accounts, which are difficult to ignore per WP:DUCK.

MapSGV was registered in 2014, and was rarely used until February 2018 when one of its first edits involved inserting this disputed text into Siachen conflict (which Capitals00 supported on talk). For a user with below 100 edits prior to February and below 300 currently, MapSGV had surprisingly good command of Wikipedia jargon, noticeboards, acronyms, and editing know-how which was noted by admin Sandstein [2] The account was topic banned for relentless POV pushing and personal attacks (see decision here) which was removed on appeal [3].

Further details as below:

• One of MapSGV's first 10 edits on Wikipedia in 2015: ([4]), insisting on repeated replacement of "defeat" with "ceasefire" on List of wars involving Libya ([5]), ([6]), ([7]), ([8]). Months later, Capitals00 restores the exact same edit ([9]), ([10]) with no prior involvement or history on article.

• MapSGV's replacement of "victory" with "ceasefire" on List of wars involving Egypt in 2015 ([11]), ([12]). 14 months later, Capitals00 restores the same result with zero history on article ([13])

• In 2013, Capitals00 replaced the infobox result for "Egyptian military victory" on Libyan–Egyptian War with "Status quo ante bellum" ([14]). In 2015, MapSGV restored the same result ([15]), ([16]), ([17]), ([18]), ([19]), and in 2016, Capitals00 again restored the exact same ([20]), ([21]), ([22]). Both accounts edit warred with Mikrobølgeovn on this article.

• Both involved on Talk:Libyan–Egyptian War on the same obscure content dispute: MapSGV ([23]); Capitals00 ([24]), ([25]), ([26])

• Similar POV concerning results added on List of wars involving Pakistan by Capitals00 ([27]) and MapSGV ([28]), ([29]) while edit-warring with TripWire

• MapSGV has edited 96 pages in total, of them 32 overlap with Capitals00. Both edited Nathu La and Cho La clashes [30], Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes (where both participated on a dispute in December 2015) [31], 1987 Sino-Indian skirmish [32], Template:History of Pakistan [33], Template talk:History of Pakistan [34] (where both pursued the same disputes), Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics [35], Hinduism [36], Talk:Hinduism [37], Tourism in India [38], Talk:Tourism in India [39], Talk:Roti [40] (where both !voted on RfC on same day), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan (where both !voted delete within hours) [41], an SPI case [42], and of course on the Siachen articles to support MapSGV's POV, where both also participated on the same content disputes [43], [44], [45], [46].

• Capitals00 vehemently opposed MapSGV's first indef block and then topic ban, including on his talk: [47]

Behavioural similarities:

• Removing content under the rationale of "copyvio" [sic] as per edit summaries: Capitals00 ([48]), ([49]), ([50]), ([51]); MapSGV ([52]), ([53])

• Calling other users "incompetent":

MapSGV:

(but you are being too incompetent that you have to cry out loud for disruption..) while displaying WP:BATTLEGROUND against Mar4d, (incompetent editor who can't keep discussion at one place), (He is clearly saying that editors are not allowed to be competent in Wikipedia with this much edit count, even though I am editing for 4 years)

Capitals00:

(but given your incompetence and WP:IDHT issues you just can't understand a thing), (NadirAli, let me be crystal clear that EdwardElric2016 is more competent than you and Xinjao put together.), (I can't do anything about your incompetence and WP:IDHT, I can only tell you the guidelines), (You should better blame your incompetence that you can't even detect) while arguing with Zetret, (and it is nothing but further indication of his lack of competence), (That's why I am in favor of indef block, due to your lack of competence)

• Same language structure and level of proficiency eg. use of "despite":

MapSGV:

(Sandstein has blocked me for harassment despite I am the one who was always being harassed), (I am also topic banned from "Afghanistan" despite I never edited that subject), (your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future), (despite it was correctly sourced... despite he never even asked... topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite I never even edited Afghanistan)

Capitals00:

(you have clearly singled out MapSGV despite he is the biggest victim here), (I should describe my changes with "an accurate edit summary", despite I already have), (with a meaningless edit summary despite you are being the problematic editor... you can't even detect what is a copyright violation despite you have been warned enough times), (he violates his topic ban despite it has been clarified to him very clearly.), (despite Classical period is only from 200 BCE to 5th or 6th century CE)

• Use of 'frivolous':

MapSGV:

(Sandstein first blocked me... by finding sense in a frivolous report filed by a ban evading sock... filing frivolous reports and he even trolled on SPI by claiming that CheckUser absolved him... and also for filing a frivolous report), (why are you buying into frivolous tagging... You can't edit war over such frivolous tagging... before such frivolous tagging you have to raise them here)

Capitals00:

(frivolous notification is just another example of your WP:IDHT), (I didn't even saw your frivolous warning I just went ahead to write a note on your talk page, highlighting your history of mass disruption), (By entertaining such frivolous complaints we are only encouraging editors to misuse)

• "Refer":

MapSGV:

(that's not how you refer it)

Capitals00:

(and consensus was not to refer them as pseudoscience)

• Elaborate use of commas; basic semantics:

MapSGV:

• ...covered by reliable sources like Springer, Routledge, and but your earlier edit

• it is lacking any sense, because misreprestation of sources, copyvio, sock puppetry were... being resolved with my efforts

• Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time

• ...in other articles like Infrastructure in India, Rape in India, and others. We don't claim, for example, prevalence of terrorism, lack of infrastructure and other problems in Pakistan... affecting tourism,(Tourism in Pakistan)

• you are trying to find a way to get away with your POV but I tell you, that you are going to only fail.

• "lack of response" is not valid, as long as there are no sources

• Whether you know freeatlastchitchat or not, it is impossible for two accounts to share this amount of similarities as well as disruption tactics, unless operated by same person

Capitals00:

• Why he didn't opened a request on WP:AN instead, or consult the AFD closing user

• While you are allowed to wikihound, edit war, in favor of a disruptive sock?

• ... the military ones, 52 killed per the sources provided here. Range of numbers like Adam puts, which would be 35-45 military casualties

• ...you believe it will help you pushing your POV, while rejecting all sources is not going to help you... , so why you are engaging in this disruption now?... better resolved at any other noticeboard, not here. Wars end up with ceasefire, that's not something new.

• ...read his messages, observe his frequent failure to understand relevant policies such as WP:CANVASS, WP:RS, WP:BATTLE, WP:CIVIL, and it is nothing but further indication

• ...whole paragraph is undue and repetition, it doesn't bring anything that has been already said... I didn't removed Arvind Sharma for a reason, because his views seemed alright

• your recent blocks on IPs were perfect, you are already familiar with the case

• your history of disruption in AfDs, those AfDs concerning non-notable subjects are better without you. You had to already realize it, but you are just WP:NOTGETTINGIT... assumption of bad faith around, you are only making it worse for yourself

• Use of adverbs and verbs to begin sentences, simple mistakes, and lack of sentence structures:

MapSGV:

• Why I have to notify that topic banned sockmaster?

• ...they are academic sources and describes the term

• See third point listed...

• Don't need because you are distracting readers and tourism is not directly responsible.

• I asked Doug Weller to recuse and also posted the reasons on his talk page but he is refusing to recuse and thinks that he had to be involved with me then only he could recuse while asking unnecessary recusal from admin Doug Weller

• You can't really topic ban somebody for such a good work, can you? You have been misrepresenting AE rules that admins can act against users only if separate report has been filed against them...

• You both seem correct and I totally agreed... On ARE, it seems that conduct of all parties is observed, but I was just singled out... it was better to report the false allegations than replying them, and in addition to that I was just casting my doubt if Sandstein would have taken any action, given his comments

• ...we need to think that why so many sources completely contradict that analysis of yours. When it was the last time that India and Pakistan fought over it?

• Whatever above user said is not a hoax, we will need to discuss this in lengths but still it's too much for lead.

• but you are just [[WP:IDHT|not listening]] what I said

• If SPAs were so loosely defined then I will call you an SPA who is here only to push Pro-Pakistani POV and unable to disagree with what goes against his POV even if all reliable sources disagree... It is funniest when a disruptive POV pusher is trying to lecture

• that doesn't means that we need to remove results

• You arr using your own opinion to counter the reliable sources...scholars and experts are intelligent enough to know that as well, why they would deceive the readers by saying that this was Indian victory? They say that because that's what correct result is

• That's like telling that India didn't won 1971 war, only won the battles of that war... Pakistan never launched a successful attack on India, India successfully defended Siachen. That's why overall result is Indian victory.

Capitals00:

• Misrepresenting Indian position when you believe it will help you

• Has shown his opposition against...

• Given that he edited nearly 45 days after his block

• Mohanbhan what you consider as "knowledgeable" source is inaccurate given how much scholarships have changed about this subject.

• How that is the case?... you have been told, now it is being followed by your typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT...There is a great support for the inclusion of the result

• ...even if that book was wholly copied here... Your comment shows you don't even know what is a WP:COPYVIO

• You have rollback and despite you had to be aware of the rollback policy before requesting and abusing rollback, I am still telling you to read the whole guideline page again. If you really know better than you wouldn't be engaging in this WP:IDHT while arguing with Spasage

• ...or his researches

• Why you can't prove that he is an on Bangladesh or this war?

• There is a heavy use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in summary line and discussions by both, just giving few diffs here: MapSGV ([54]), ([55]); Capitals00 ([56]), ([57]), ([58])

• There is a heavy use of WP:IDHT by both, just giving few diffs: MapSGV (but you are just [[WP:IDHT|not listening]] what I said); Capitals00 (You have rollback and despite you had to be aware of the rollback policy before requesting and abusing rollback, I am still telling you to read the whole guideline page again. If you really know better than you wouldn't be engaging in this WP:IDHT), (How that is the case?... you have been told, now it is being followed by your typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT...There is a great support for the inclusion of the result), (You have rollback and despite you had to be aware of the rollback policy before requesting and abusing rollback, I am still telling you to read the whole guideline page again. If you really know better than you wouldn't be engaging in this WP:IDHT)

• Similar terms used in edit summaries / talk discussions: Capitals00 (topic banned disruptive editor), (topic ban evading sock); MapSGV (ban evading sock), (Why I have to notify that topic banned sockmaster?)

Note that the two also virtually edit in the same time zones. MapSGV is likely a sleeper account, given it edits on-and-off every now and then on "bouts". It is also worth noting the remarks left by Zanhe on an older case, that "Capitals00 has also had a sock blocked before (User:OwnDealers), and he's probably learned from the experience to operate the new sock via a proxy or VPN to evade CheckUser detection" [59]. The use of VPN is further confirmed here [60] so please evaluate the behavioral evidence as there is a plethora of it in this SPI even if the CU comes out negative. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. It indeed looks very suspicious. I was suspecting other users rather than the one named, however if a CU is runned, I'm sure the others will be caught or cleared. But in all due fairness, regardless of their disruptive behavior, I am willing to read the accused defend themselves. Their defense should be compared with the evidence provided to see if it adds up or not.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

---