Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan/Archive

02 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This diff suggests at least meat puppetry, as does  this archive. As says on User:JamesBWatson's page, the activity increased a lot after User:Bazaan's block. They both edited Bangladesh and pages related to it. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 11:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Looks strongly like an WP:INDEF editor trying WP:EVASION with a WP:SLEEPER.
 * UCk22 and Bazaan edit(ed) almost identical articles (Bangladesh and Chittagong for instance)
 * Both focus(ed) on the same stuff (the history section of Bangladesh or the images of that article for instance)
 * Both drove the same opinion (like, for instance, use of an image on Bangladesh national parliament)
 * Both has the same tendency to blank their own talk pages every time some non-flattering post is made by other regular editors and admins (proof: User talk:Bazaan: Revision history and User talk:Uck22: Revision history)
 * Both of them are also in the habit of removing their comments from article talk pages and when that is reverted with policy reference, they re-revert it (proof Talk:Bangladesh: Revision history)
 * Uck22 regularly blanks Bazaan's talk page as if it was his own (proof: User talk:Bazaan: Revision history)
 * Both has low regards for Wikipedia policies - one was indef blocked for NFCC violations, the other is constantly edit warring (proof: User talk:Bazaan: Revision history and Talk:Bangladesh: Revision history)
 * Both sport the same "retired" banner on the user page, and both continued to edit long after posting the retired banner, in fact neither ever taking off at all (proof User:Bazaan and User:Uck22)
 * They edit the Wikipedia by rotation (proof: Special:Contributions/Bazaan and Special:Contributions/Uck22)
 * They never edited on the same day (proof: Special:Contributions/Bazaan and Special:Contributions/Uck22)
 * Now that Bazaan is indef blocked, Uck22 has gone extra active (proof: Special:Contributions/Bazaan and Special:Contributions/Uck22)
 * Interestingly for an editor with only 300+ edits, he showed an amazing amount of knowledge on the Wikipedia, including instant knowledge about events that has happened while he was off Wikipedia for a month.

All their activities are largely around a few pages, so I don't think it's much difficult to check. But, if needed I can provide a diff (inserted) verifiable link for every observation. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 12:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated with links. Not just one or two diffs. Whole histories are quite evidently proving the points. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As he was rapidly blanking the talk page of Bazaan, I would tell him that he should not and content would've been removed only if it violates WP:NPA or copyrights. Even then, I had asked him "you've signed in after months, just for blanking the page of Bazaan?" Later he claimed in one of his edit that he blanks the page of Bazaan because of "personal attacks". I don't think that Bazaan had any fan like this, if he had, he would've came during the period when Bazaan was "vanishing". Page was emptied by Bazaan 4 days before he was finally blocked.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 12:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Replying to Aditya Kabir's finding that Uck22 has made 300 edits. I second that. The editor has never created even 1 article.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well then go ahead and just block me. And let Aditya continue with her dictatorship.--Uck22 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know the procedure. Process has been almost completed.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 23:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There is a very large degree of similarity in editing history, both in what pages have been edited and in a number of features of how they have been edited. Other facts also look striking, such as the truly dramatic increase in Uck22's rate of editing round about the time when Bazaan was blocked. However, I cannot see anything which unambiguously shouts out "sockpuppetry". Considering the considerable amount of coincidence, but the lack of anything that makes it a WP:DUCK case, a checkuser would be welcome. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * is ✅ from .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

10 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Confession made while logged out on user page. Previously he confirmed that this IP is indeed his. While discussing at ANI, I was looking into the histories of several Bangladesh related articles and I found a stunning similarity between behavior of Uck22 (sock of Bazaan) and interestingly, Rainmaker23 emerged soon after Uck22 & Co. got blocked for sock-puppetry in June 2014. When Rainmaker23 became active in some articles related to WikiProject:Bangladesh he appeared to be much more experience than his login's age. –  nafSadh did say 15:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you WP:OWN WP Bangladesh articles? No new users are allowed to edit them? Have I harmed any of these pages? I'm pretty sure I've done my bit improving them, and there's a scope to do a lot more. But of course that won't be possible when they're monitored by the likes of you.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * That "page blanking" is more than sufficient. Also he created Rainmaker23 about 6 days after the block of Uck22.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I never blanked any page other than my own user and talk pages, and I only did so after placing the retirement tag. I once reduced a convoluted POV centric article to a paragraph, considering the notability of the subject. Nafsadh seems to think its page blanking. He's a little weasel. Also, Bazaan got himself blocked, expressedly. No real sock puppetry here. Not a single controversial edit.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you are trying to claim that how none of your edits are bad and how much different you are from Bazaan, you forgets that you are digging your own grave.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop being so rude you personal attack redacted. "Forgets" what? I don't even understand what you mean. Bazaan's edits were not controversial either. That account purposefully got itself blocked for sock puppetry, the account user clearly said "block me for sock puppetry", something out of a fit of rage. A joke maybe, but a crazy one (maybe didn't know a ban was indefinite). The record is there for everyone to see. The account Bazaan created several good articles. Regarding myself, an IP is not unique to a person. I think ultimately this is a personal campaign by a few WP Bangladesh members and personal attack redacted to target a specific editor simply because he shies away from a particular WikiProject's community. personal attack redacted--Rainmaker23 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: It would appear that Rainmaker23 has now "retired"... Not that that should affect the CheckUser, I suppose. --IJBall (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both Uck22 and Bazaan did post "Retired" notice on their userpage while still kept editing Wikipedia with regular frequency; Rainmaker23 is doing the same as well. (rephrase: He always does that). –  nafSadh did say 04:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bazaan was inactive for two years, with a retirement tag. To rephrase, you're a personal attack redacted.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * (see: ). Admin needed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Duck indeed. Rainmaker23 blocked indefinitely and the IP for three months. Closing. Favonian (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

17 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

and another IP got blocked for being Bazaan's sock and momentarily, sleeper came back to restore edits after R23 complained about it. Just after undoing that restore, he told we dislike him much as R23 would say often. Eventually, quack quack & quack quak (Rainmaker23 tried to remove Putin image several times before). –  nafSadh did say 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC) –  nafSadh  did say 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * And the UTP blanking. +1  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am putting sock notice in his page. –  nafSadh did say 00:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is extremely when compared to blocked sock .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Umran Chowdhury already blocked, so I guess we can close this one. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

22 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Possibly sleeper, came to call names on me and at 's talkpage section about Rainmaker23.  nafSadh did say 04:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * q u a c k

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Wikipedia needs to realize that it's not okay for editors like and  to do whatever they like. They provoke personal attacks by condemning new editors, saying "they can't go a far way" and stuff like that. And then they launch terrible personal attacks. And then you have editors like  and, with their own partisan sympathies, joining this worthless charade. They've turned into a ghetto.--JKhan20 (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And here comes the array of evidence, right here, in this very SPI; same whining, same repetitive modification of comments, same blame game. Good for the admins, they won't need a checkuser or some time consuming investigation.  nafSadh did say 05:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Added some more diffs from the IP and Rainmaker23.  nafSadh did say 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rainmaker23 had been Bazaan's long standing un-detected sock. Most of his sleepers came into play when he got blocked for Sock puppetry. Every other sock came in various talk pages to support Rainmaker23's view, say he is innocent, or make comments on other Bangladeshi editors including, and . R23 made same type of comments that JKhan20 is making. R23's main point had always been, all Bangladeshi editors belong to some group and are against him. It is all in how he behaves. Also refer to recent SPI's on him which resulted also in account creation block. JKhan20 made a few edits in May 2013 where Bazaan was used to edit, and now came in for editing after almost two years to comment on R23.  nafSadh  did say 16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with nationality, you hateful, spiteful individual. In fact the majority of Bangladeshi editors don't even engage in your shenanigans. And btw, isn't it you and Aditya Kabir who always say that you all are a community and that your consensus is apparently paramount? In that case the four of you I mentioned can be regarded as a group.--JKhan20 (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know all these things? Did you partake in some conversation where you came to know these?  nafSadh did say 22:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's there in the talk pages. All Bangladeshi editors do not belong to your group. I'm Bangladeshi myself.--JKhan20 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is enough evidence to investigate. But, that is okay. If a sock wants to carry the masters good work then it will come out of its sleep, and evidence will show up. If there is a sock, it will not evade long. I guess it is time to close this one.
 * BTW, what did I ever do to you, JKhan20? Why are you rambling about me? Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not rambling, just pointed out to what you yourself wrote in the talk pages. Although I'm pretty sure the consensus you achieve there isn't always binding. One last thing, don't mistake anyone's good work as sock puppetry. It's bad enough you don't maintain articles properly, it's disgusting when you block people from improving them.--JKhan20 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. So a pattern can be established. I withdraw my previous comment, right above. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Please, provide some evidence of sockpuppetry. Provide WP:diffs of edits by and diffs of edits made by Bazaan or previous socks, so to show their similarity.   Vanjagenije   (talk)  14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how the diffs you added prove the connection between JKhan20 and Bazaan. Could you comment them?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - - Yes, I see your point. Both are claiming that,  and  are some kind of evil team directed against him .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , and the sleeper account  are ✅ socks of .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that, who was blocked per WP:DUCK is also now ✅ as . Although Bazaan is , they did log in and interact with mediawiki (I'm being purposefully vague here) which shows a clear technical connection between the accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

25 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Edits by this IP are similar in nature to Bazaan and their other socks. Edits are Bangladesh related, the user calls other editors' actions disgusting or horrible, and they blanked a suspected sock's user page for no apparent reason. I - and Vanjagenije - nearly blocked as an obvious DUCK, but given that Bazaan has recently been given a standard offer unblock with a topic ban from Bangladesh articles, I'd like to be more certain and so am requesting CU. Sam Walton (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that IP blanked the username of the Bazaan sock after Bazaan asked for the sock to be unblocked (See here: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't feel quite sure enough to block, but forgot we can't request CU. Sam Walton (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The blanking of the sock template right after Bazaan's request to have the template removed was declined looks very very suspicious. That being said, the IP is an open proxy and I've hard blocked it for 3 months.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * IP has been blocked. Changing to close. Mkdw talk 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

25 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Last identified sock-puppet of Bazaan was blocked on 23 April 2015, User:Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf under the name of User:Akbar the Great was created on 6 May 2015. User:Bazaan submitted his unblock request on 9 January 2016 while he was still active as User:Akbar the Great now known as User:Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf. User:Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf seemed a very sophisticated user since his first edit and had a Semi Retired template on his user page while he was editing all along. He had a habit of blanking his user page and his talk page once in a while along the lines of all the sock-puppets of User:Bazaan. He stopped editing on 1 February 2016 and requested vanishing when he saw User:Bazaan's unblock request is close to being fruitful on the promise of no sock-puppeting in last 6 months. He vanished this sock-puppet of his in order to avoid detection and being blocked again. User:Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf had a habit of attacking personally any editors who opposed him or even who did not oppose him along the line of all other sock-puppets of User:Bazaan. He was countered by me and other editors for not using the edit summaries for his edits and it seemed to me that while not doing so he was trying to avoid detection. There was another Auckland IP blocked just today 120.136.5.60. User:Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf has made IP edits mistakenly using another Auckland IP 120.136.5.71. These could be home/work, home/library or work/library IP addresses.


 * Diffs:


 * 5 February 2016: Bazaan unblocked
 * 7 February 2016: User:Akbar the Great vanished

Page blanking: 1, 2, 3, 4

Countered for not using edit summaries: 1, 2

Angry, uncivil or personal attack edits or edit summaries: Calling an editor "pathetic", Calling an editor POV pusher on a public space, Stop shouting

Finally, please do not close it lacking evidence without running a CU, ask for more evidence if you need more.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 21:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Bazaan had so many sock-puppets that it's hard to go through all of their edits and find similar edits but please see Bazaan blanking his talk page (diff) and he used to do it very consistently, see same behaviour by Vanished user (diff) and he would do it very consistently too. I have seen Vanished to use word "shenanigans" and one of the confirmed sock-puppets of Bazaan to use it as well but it will take me time to find those diffs. Also please see 120.136.5.60 removing SPI tag from User:Umran Chowdhury's page yesterday, (diff) and please see User:Akbar the Great who is now a Vanished user replacing IP address 120.136.5.71 with his signatures at (diff). WHOIS for IP addresses 120.136.5.71 and 120.136.5.60 show that they match down to the street level, exact same physical address. I think all this warrants that we check these because if Bazaan has been editing while being blocked then he did not meet the conditions set in his current unblock. At least we know that one of those IPs removed SPI tag from one of likely socks of Bazaan and that confirms some kind of correlation. I can provide more information if need be but please don't close without checking.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 10:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Can you check for sleepers?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 23:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare this vanished user to Bazaan.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've completed my check. However, I'd like some input from the unblocking administrator,, before proceeding. It's a relatively easy question. In your view, am I "permitted" to reblock Bazaan for sock puppetry during a period when he was supposedly sock-free?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's what the CU evidence shows then yes, of course. The unblock was made on the condition that Bazaan had not been socking. Sam Walton (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and are ✅.  Given the unusual circumstances of Bazaan's recent unblock, I will also add that Bazaan has been editing with IPs as well during the period when he supposedly wasn't socking. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Requesting CU for sleepers otherwise his last known sock is stale according to my knowledge and Vaza12 should be blocked behaviorally as a sock of Bazaan. His last known sock User:Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf was blocked on 1 March 2016 while running away (vanishing) and when the master was already unblocked under WP:STANDARD. Vaza12 was created on 6 March 2016 just five days after Vanished was blocked. Vaza12 kept himself off of my radar until the 91st day (24 May 2016) of User:Bazaan's last edit (24 February 2016). His first talk edit addressing me and the way he addressed me was an indication that i have edited and had conflicts with this editor in the past. Look the way he named the section Edit-war brewing again but actually this was my first interaction with him as Vaza12 so there was no edit-war prior to that between me and him. Then he continued on about how SheriffIsInTown does not know anything about the history of Bangladesh and he should not be allowed to edit. Vanished used to have this same opinion and kind of liked to own Bangladesh articles. The following behavioral evidence should be good enough to block him. Performs large scale editing the way as it seems that he is rushing to edit before he can be spotted and blocked. They are almost always an SPA on topic of Bangladesh with few edits here and there specifically on South Asian and South East Asian country pages.


 * Behavioral evidence:
 * First ever edit, creates the sandbox, new editors do not know how to work with sandboxes: (contribs)
 * File:Mukti Bahini posters.jpg: Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (uploads it), Vaza12 (updates the summary of same file)
 * File:1971 BDLib poster.jpg: Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (uploads it), Vaza12 (updates the summary of same file)
 * Poor and wholesale wikilinking without disambiguation, interestingly, by the time, they get blocked, they all would have received almost same number of dablink notifications: Bazaan (1, 2), (3, 4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11, 12), (13), (14), (15), (16), Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6, 7, 8, 9), (10, 11), (12, 13), (14, 15), (16), (17), Vaza12 (1, 2), (3, 4, 5, 6), (7), (8, 9, 10, 11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17)
 * Not using summary line in the beginning to avoid detection, both Vanished and Vaza received notices from Ugog Nizdast for not using summary lines: Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (diff), Vaza12 (diff)
 * Almost all of his socks are known for rude remarks and personal attacks: Bazaan (Watch your language), (fuck you), Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (pathetic), (stay out of my talk page), (Calling an editor POV pusher on a public space), (Stop shouting), Vaza12 (Dont try being oversmart), (1. Do you think this is a joke?, 2. You have done nothing to develop the article. You should know who has, (Note: This comment in itself is an admission that he is not a new user) 3. before you messed it up, 4. If you make worthless accusations next time)
 * Due to large scale editing and in-haste editing often breaks markups and receives notifications for that: Bazaan (diff 1), (diff 2), (diff 3 and 4), Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (diff), Vaza12 (diff 1), (diff 2), (diff 3)
 * Habitual talk page blanking (Vaza12 is just starting that behavior): Bazaan (diff), Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (diff 1), (diff 2), (diff 3), (diff 4), Vaza12 (diff)
 * Copyright and licensing issues, extensively uploads images regarding Bangladesh and receives notices on talk regarding violations: Bazaan (diff), Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (diff), Vaza12 (diff)
 * Boasts about contributions to Bangladesh pages: Bazaan (You look at my contributions over the last couple of years, I have created numerous articles of importance on Bangladesh), Vaza12 (You have done nothing to develop the article. You should know who has)
 * Adds bare urls and then mass refills them with WP:reFill, this behavior started with Vanished as much as I know: Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (23 bare references), (8 bare references), (26 bare references), (33 bare references), (5 bare references), (12 bare references), (2 bare references), Vaza12 (3 bare references), (12 bare references), (5 bare references), (7 bare references), (7 bare references), (4 bare references), (5 bare references), (2 bare references), (9 bare references), (12 bare references), (2 bare references), (17 bare references), (3 bare references)
 * Works heavily with the sandbox and replaces content with Template:user sandbox every now and then: Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (diff 1), (diff 2), (diff 3), Vaza12 (diff 1), (diff 2), (diff 3)
 * Most editors complain about his edits being massive, huge, frequent and large-scale: Bazaan (diff), Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (diff), Vaza12 (diff)  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 19:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You already kind of admitted by saying, not sure what my IP will show up but its a small world. Do you want me to name the city and country where you are based in? I know that, i can see you typing!  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have worked hard to build the encyclopedia. This is truly pathetic. I don't know what my IP will show because it's a small world, but I am not a sockpuppet.--Vaza12 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The only purpose, which is in bad faith, behind this investigation is because I edited Mukti Bahini. And the accuser here is a hardline Pakistani nationalist who promotes genocide denial in relation to Bangladesh.--Vaza12 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * From what I know the master the geolocation is a match with overlap in IP range and ISP used. This information can be used in conjunction with the behavioural evidence above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked The behavioral evidence is super strong.--regentspark (comment) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

F2416 was created same day when Vanished vanished, possibly created using a public wi-fi. Vanished vanished on 7 February 2016 at 17:05 while F2416 was created on 7 February 2016 at 19:36 just two hours later. The master Bazaan was unblocked on 7 February 2016 (same day) at 07:17. Vaza12 was blocked on 2 September 2016 while F2416 became extremely active on 5 September 2016. The user is editing same topic area as Bazaan's all other socks. He still does not have much edits, just only short of couple hundred. The user is careful and is not giving away much of the evidence for which his previous socks were exposed. A CheckUser would greatly help but here are the few pieces of evidence which i could find. I will add more evidence if i found any. I could have waited a couple more months but i want to nip this in the bud right at the start.


 * F2416 has only used summaries in three of his edits out of close to 200 edits, this was one piece of evidence mentioned in SPI against Vaza12
 * F2416 started to receive dablink notifications as Bazaan's other socks did: (diff)
 * Makes huge edits, most of Bazaan's socks did: F2416 (diff 1), (diff 2), (diff 3), Vaza12 (diff 1), (diff 2), (diff 3), (diff 4), Vanished user ija0qfr2o3ijfi 4i4tijwci823irnf (diff 1), (diff 2)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * F2416 is ✅ to and  to the master. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This I think is straightforward, but as I'm not overly familiar with the draw, I'm bringing here. Compare this to earlier sock's regular edit &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

One thing, I noticed which is similar to previous socks of Bazaan is that out of his nine edits, three of them are over one thousand bytes. Bazaan is known to make such huge edits. He is also known to not remain sock free for a long time but out of just nine edits, its hard to make a sure determination, only a check will tell us for sure.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 02:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ to and. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Bazaan has had socks that were uncovered only years later and this is likely one of them. A few weeks back Bazaan had tried to get editors in good standing to proxy for him, I'd told them about the problem and they backed off, he then sent me an email asking me to restore these articles (can forward to any CU/functionary) and now he's using a sock to do it : (see full section in the diff). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Katietalk 04:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - same geographic area but there are some technical differences. Katietalk 04:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Behavioral (and temporal!) evidence is strong and may even be enough. CU provides additional support. Blocking. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged, closing. GABgab 02:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This set of edits is basically to restore some edits from the sock farm that were reverted by --. I'm comfortable with doing a duck block but I'm just bringing here for some sort of confirmation from other admins involved --,. As Bbb23 is currently inactive, it would be helpful if the attending CU can identify the proxies used and block them, this one socks from proxies across continents. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping the real . &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , the second diff is from who was cleaning up after this sock farm, so it isn't actually a contradiction. Bazaan socks have a history of doing the same edits -- partially done by a sock here. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked as an obvious duck. CU would be helpful in case there are other accounts extant. --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - Due to long history of socking and time elapsed since last check. Thanks, GABgab 03:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - Contradictory diffs like and  make it seem like two different people. Please provide more specific evidence. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ponyo and Mailer diablo both ran this in August with no comment, and the account is already blocked, so I'm closing. Katietalk 23:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Maestro2016 is an account created in Feb 2016. Until last month, this account was only involved in editing music and film-related articles. However, in the past few weeks, the user has been contributing heavily towards articles in the Indian history space. Most of their edits appear to centre around the history of Bengal and violence against Muslims, particularly in Bengal. While their edits are not without merit, they do suffer from NPOV issues.

The articles that Maestro2016 has heavily edited in the last few weeks include
 * Mughal Empire: The thrust of their edits appears to be to promote Bengal Subah.(diff1, diff2, diff3)
 * Maratha Empire: As with the next article in this list, edits to Maratha Empire largely concern the Maratha expeditions in Bengal (and Bengal Subah), another article they've heavily edited.
 * Tipu Sultan: While many edits are to do with violence against Hindus, etc., they have also promoted Bengal Subah as being a source of Mysore silk. (diff)

Both Bazaan and Maestro2016 have edited templates to promote Bengal Subah. (Bazaan diff, Maestro diff)

Bazaan's socks have heavily edited Bengal Subah as well as Bengal Sultanate, an article that Maestro2016 recently contributed to. (diff)

Both Bazaan and Maestro2016 have a propensity towards making large edits. This has been remarked upon in previous investigations as well.

FWIW, I'm also seeing a lot of 's socks in many of the edit histories of pages that Bazaan (and Maestro2016) have edited. One of Barthateslisa's socks was also involved in an edit war with Maestro2016 (as per their talk page). I'm unsure if it'll be a good idea to also check against that account or for sleepers in general.

I should note that Maestro2016 has already been investigated once before on a different issue and was given a clean chit. This was however in March 2016 and I'm not sure if being unrelated to a specific account also implies that they were unrelated to all other Wikipedia accounts. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Addendum:
 * , a Bazaan sock, was the one who introduced content on Bengal Subah (as well as Dhaka) into the Mughal Empire article. A coat rack template was added to the page subsequently pointing out the undue importance given to Bengal.
 * Maestro2016 has removed this template and greatly increased the amount of Bengal-centric content in the article. (Note: the provided diff includes edits, largely unrelated, by other users.) As a rough indicator, the number of mentions of Bengal in the article before Maestro2016's edits is 26. The number of mentions of Bengal in the article after Maestro2016's edits is 53. A similar comparison for the word "Dhaka" is 4 vs. 9. This is quite contrary to their claims in the comments below.
 * This Mughal-Bengal Subah content has since spread to articles such as Muslin trade in Bengal, History of Cotton, Economic history of India, Great Divergence, Industrial Revolution, Shipbuilding in Bangladesh etc.
 * Both Bazaan and his many socks have heavily edited Bangladesh and related articles. According to Bazaan, they are from the city of Dhaka.
 * Bazaan moved Bengal Subah to Mughal Bengal on at least 2 occasions in 2014 before being reverted. Bazaan's sock, Vaza12, opened a move request in May 2016 to move the article to Mughal Bengal before self-reverting. Now, while Maestro2016 generally uses Bengal Subah, he occasionally slips to using "Mughal Bengal".
 * The Bazaan sock, Vaza12, is also interested in Bengal's muslin trade and prefers the term "Mughal Bengal".

I'm reasonably convinced by all this circumstantial evidence and Maestro2016's style of editing that there's something here worth looking into. I also recommend looking for sleepers. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm done waiting for this investigation to happen. I'm happy to withdraw my case. I apologise to for dragging him through this muck. Regards.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Who is Bazaan? I've never heard of him until now. It's just a coincidence that this banned user may be interested in similar topics. As noted before, there was already a sockpuppet investigation against me before, which showed that I was clean (and it turned out the user who was accusing me turned out to be the sockpuppet). Either way, it's just another misunderstanding. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking through Bazaan's edit history, most of his/her edits seem to be mainly concerned with Bengal specifically, whereas most of my edits in recent weeks have been concerned with the Indian subcontinent in general. The Bengal edits only account for a small minority of my Indian edits, whereas the Bengal edits account for the overwhelming majority of Bazaan's edits. For example, if you look at Mughal Empire, you'll notice that the Economy section was entirely focused on Bengal before, before my edits significantly expanded the Economy section far beyond Bengal, but still keeping it in a separate sub-section (with some more added info). Most of my edits to the Economy section mostly de-emphasized Bengal, compared to the over-emphasis on Bengal previously. As for User:Barthateslisa, the edit war I had with his/her sockpuppet User:SoniaKovind was over Indian film articles, a completely different topic area. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, if I really was related to Bazaan, then wouldn't this investigation of me back in March 2016, or one of the many investigations about Bazaan from June 2014 to November 2016, have been able to pick up on it? None of these investigations had established any link between me and Bazaan before. Maestro2016 (talk)
 * I disagree that most of your edits "have been concerned with the Indian continent in general". Your initial history edits all centred around Bengal and, from the topic of Maratha atrocities against Muslims in Bengal, has segued into other areas of violence against Muslims. Most of your contributions to economy articles are to do with Bengal or Bengal Subah, a topic that you return to with some frequency.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your claim that most of my history edits are to do with Bengal. You can clearly see in my edit history that the Bengal articles only account for a small minority of my history edits, and that I started editing Indian history articles with the Mughal Empire article. Also, simply comparing the number of times "Bengal" is mentioned in the Mughal Empire article is misleading. The number of times "Bengal" is mentioned has increased as a result of the overall content increasing, from 63,289 bytes to 101,152 bytes, an additional 37,863 bytes added to the article, making the "Bengal" mentions insignificant in comparison. And regarding Maratha invasions of Bengal, it's the other way around, I started with Maratha atrocities and then that led to Maratha atrocities in Bengal, which I didn't know about until after I started investigating Maratha atrocities. My initial edits about Maratha atrocities were not about Bengal. That's not to say I'm not interested in Bengal, but that is just one of my topic interests, out of a number of other topic interests. My main historical interest has been about economic history, mainly focusing on the economic history of the subcontinent, and occasionally branching out from there. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

After looking through the edit history of User:Vaza12, I believe I've come across extremely strong alibi evidence to prove my innocence:


 * 1) User:Vaza12 was active at the same time I was last year.
 * 2) The previous investigation against me (where I was proven innocent) dates back to March 2016, when Vaza12 was active on Wikipedia. If there was any connection, then that previous investigation could've picked up on it, but didn't.
 * 3) I was continuously active between March 2016 through July 2016, when Vaza12 was also continously active. Yet once again, the investigation into Vaza12 in September 2016 once again never established any connection between us.
 * 4) There are numerous edits where we're editing completely different articles barely minutes apart from each other.
 * 5) In fact, there are even a handful of edits where we're editing on the exact same minute. For example, my edit to Muhammad Ali (which he has never edited before) on 01:15, 10 June 2016, and Vaza12's edit to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (which I have never edited before) on 01:15, 10 June 2016. It is humanly impossible (at least for me) to make an edit to one article, log out of one account, log into another account, and then make an edit to another article, in the exact same minute.
 * 6) In case anyone thinks #5 above is somehow humanly possible (which I would find extremely hard to believe), my edit before that to Muhammad Ali was at 1:12, while Vaza12's edit before that to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was at 01:13. That would mean I would have to make an edit to one article at 1:12, log out of one account, log into another account and make an edit to another article within a minute by 1:13, then log out of that account and log into another account to make another edit to another article by 1:15, and then log out of that account again and log into the other account again and make an edit at the exact same minute in 1:15. Furthermore, these edits mentioned were not minor edits with just a few bytes, but major edits with hundreds of bytes. There is no way such a feat could be humanly impossible.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Looking through both of our edit histories, there so many days, hours and minutes where Vaza12 and myself are making large-scale edits to completely different articles so close to each other. It simply would not make any sense at all for two completely different accounts editing completely different articles concurrently at the same time like that to be linked to the same person. I believe this is strong enough alibi evidence to prove that Bazaan/Vaza12 and myself are two completely different people.

Maestro2016 (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Cpt.a.haddock for withdrawing the complaint. As it's been a long enough wait, and both parties no longer have issues, I would also like to request this case to be closed. Regards, Maestro2016 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The behavioral evidence (many long edits, the emphasis on Bengal, the general style of editing, etc.) as pointed out by capt.a.haddock is very strong but, primarily because Maestro has ranged further afield than Bazaan and their socks, I'm hoping someone else will also review the evidence. I'm not sure a CU will help because of the time factor but it is worth a try. I suggest a CU and, if that doesn't prove conclusive, then keeping this open till can also review the case.--regentspark (comment) 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal noted, and I agree there's not enough evidence here to run CU again for this user. Closing. Katietalk 23:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

same topic- same manual style- writing and restoring the edits and images of old Socks 87.78.18.54 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I have no relation to the banned user Bazaan. My edits cannot be the same as his/her. The IP which brought this charge smells of a sockpuppet actually.--102.160.38.97 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The IP user's defensive reaction is similar to that of the previous socks of Bazaan including accusing the user opening the investigation of having some sort of bias. They accused me and another user of being behind the IP reporting them. Both me and the other user had differences over content with socks of Bazaan which the IP user would have no way of knowing unless they are Bazaan.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This section allows me to defend myself. You brought a malicious and false accusation against me and I am supposed to defend myself. I don't know anything of you're problems with Bazaan. I am accusing you of sockpuppetry and you are probably the IP itself as well as User:Samudrakula. From your edits I have judged that you have quite detailed insight of the Government of Bangladesh and hence you may represent vested interests on Wikipedia, and that is perhaps why you are so vindictive.--102.160.38.97 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all I am not the IP nor am I User:Samudrakula. Your accusation is laughable and frankly without any merit. Good day, I have better things to do then report you through an IP.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
IP blocked on behavioural evidence per the above. Ben  Mac  Dui  16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * closed on the basis of the block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * all three are Sleeper Socks
 * Edits are similar in nature to Bazaan and their other socks
 * Bazaan and his many socks have heavily edited Bangladesh and related articles
 * contributing heavily towards articles in the Bengal Sultanate history space and large edits
 * same manual style, noncooperative attitude and they blanked a suspected sock's user page for no apparent reason

also known to not remain sock free for a long time 2A0A:A541:1E2F:0:A0F1:2997:87BB:2347 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Confirmed Sock User:Vaza12 created "Bengali Muslim architecture"  recently active Sleeper "Mp3moment" are restoring some pic with new tag "Bengal Sultanate architecture" here and there- bengal sutanate/ muslim architecture" tag was created by none other than bazaans and co.
 * User:ArmanJ edit and user [User:Mp3moment] edit both are quite similar or identical.2A0A:A541:CF0F:0:D47F:A7FB:A4EC:7D7 (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I endorse this SPI, I have noticed similarities myself but have been quiet regarding that as preparation of evidence takes a lot of time. As we know, Bazaan from their history, they cannot stay off Wikipedia for long.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ArmanJ hasn't edited in a year and Fez Cap 12 hasn't edited since October, so I'm not even going to look at them. Don't file reports for idle accounts.
 * is Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan and is, though one could make a convincing argument that these two cases are related. My analysis below:
 * The most recent Aalaan sock was blocked 21 May 2015, with an IP identified about a week later, leading to semiprotection of Fazlur Rahman Khan on 30 May 2015.
 * Mp3moment was created 3 June 2015, then didn't edit for four days. They made five edits adding junk vandalism to random articles, then went quiet. At that time the Aalaan IP resumed editing the page as protection had expired.
 * Mp3moment came back on 5 May 2017 and made four more pure vandal edits. Two minutes after their 10th edit, they re-added Aalaan's image of a Khan memorial to Willis Tower, an indefinitely semiprotected article. This behaviour could go in Wiktionary under a definition of "obviously someone's sock".
 * That particular image was uploaded by a confirmed Aalaan sock on 21 February 2014, and was previously pushed into the article by another Aalaan sock on 20 May 2015.
 * Like other Aalaan socks (e.g., , ), Mp3moment has pushed the incorrect description of Khan as the "architect" or "designer" of Willis Tower. Khan was its structural engineer, not its architect, notwithstanding the fact that Khan was quite highly regarded for his work.
 * I'll consider merging the cases, but for now this is closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll consider merging the cases, but for now this is closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Ivanvector; another sock "User:Dwaynerocky" was created after block and are restoring previous socks edits on Bangladesh page! Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan are related. Blanking own Talk page is very much familiar with Bazaan socks. see previous cases and discussions and this time he/she give us just hint very [early] —2A00:A200:0:826:4045:2FBA:5DC6:7DAC (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC) 2A00:A200:0:826:4045:2FBA:5DC6:7DAC (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - . Not taking any action on merging the cases at this time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Another new account looking like it's gaming autoconfirmed, tinkering with images of the Willis Tower in various articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * per recent activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ to other socks plus:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Restoring the same edits promoting FR Khan on Skyscraper and Bangladesh. Already blocked; requesting CU for sleepers per this case's normal activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - own request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ + . . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I know this case was just checked a few days ago, but in the meantime these two sleepers, both created days after the batch detected in May but with no edits until the last couple days, were woken up to restore the same edits about FR Khan on Bangladesh. I'm not keen on making work for the CheckUsers for no reason, but I'm wondering if these two sleepers reveal any new technical connections that would identify more sleeper accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * per my own request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my doing. When I last checked, I saw all the sleeper accounts but didn't report them because they were created so long ago without being used. From a cursory look at previous reports, this master hadn't created accounts and then waited that long before using them (I think I saw a week but not months), so I didn't report them. In the future, if a CU request is made, please refer to this report so the CheckUser will know that all sleepers, no matter how old, should be reported and blocked.
 * The two listed are of course ✅ along with:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

For the record. —DoRD (talk)​ 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * —DoRD (talk)​ 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —DoRD (talk)​ 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —DoRD (talk)​ 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —DoRD (talk)​ 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —DoRD (talk)​ 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Writting patterns are pretty common way and 2 sleepers account are for comparison. heavily involvement on bangladesh south asia and chittagong etc related articles and partially reviving sleeper sock edits are one of some strong evidences. 2A0A:A540:B491:0:51CE:4A7E:E21C:26F8 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

pls look the same case archived on "05 April 2018" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A540:B491:0:51CE:4A7E:E21C:26F8 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are both years inactive. Please provide evidence of 's relationship with previous confirmed socks. ST47 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: If this case does result in a CU check, please check for, report, and block sleepers, no matter how old, per Bbb23. ST47 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's rare for IPs to respond to requests for more evidence. In any event, Foxcon 1950 is ❌. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Writing patterns are quite same as he writes mainly bangla polit related wiki and recently involved when logged out with dynamic IP- all of IP belongs Bangla Link Internet Provider!!! -2A0A:A546:57AE:0:41DE:9FA5:6BCD:41CF (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 2A0A:A546:57AE:0:41DE:9FA5:6BCD:41CF (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' @Callanecc- I’ve been watching Bangladesh related articles and Bazaan for years. The self revert edits by alleged user and both IP: 43.245.122.101 & IP: 43.245.122.10. are same. Interestingly user:Armanaziz is also editing same pages and Bazaan had previously an sleeper account named user:ArmanJ. For Engr.Md.Alhaj Uddin newly created to abandoned the alleged pages!? Creating multiple pages his hobby!! CheckUser may find more evidence.—-46.114.111.170 (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what the above editor is saying, but I'm going with "unlikely." From what I can tell, there is clear overlap in interests with regards to Bengal, but I don't see a solid enough similarity to justify SPI. Additionally, Respected Person seems to have some...concerns...about Wikipedia being too "feminist," which is not a behavior I saw in Bazaan from skimming the archived SPIs. Also, I'm not sure whether a sleeper check was done during the past SPI, but if it was, this account should have been active at that time and presumably would have been caught. creffett (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format: Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.
 * Insufficient further evidence presented. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)