Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devoter/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( account renamed to Devoter)

When I nominated a biographical article on a Turkish-born British businessperson created by IntelisMust for AfD, they didn't find this fair and evidently tried very hard by spamming links and whatnot to prove his notability on AfD. Like another editor who voted "delete", I've started having some concerns on COI, because that when [they] see the news in TV, decided to write a page on him doesn't add up with someone starting to get aggressive on two disagreeing users. When I've pointed that out, IntelisMust, a relatively active user, stopped editing altogether. Their last edit is from April 19. A dismissive comment in Turkish from a 0-edit IP geolocating to London a day later only strengthened my suspicions on COI.

Weeks later, two editors, Hkkingg and Hukumat Namanzoor consecutively voted "keep" repeating IntelisMust's arguments. But I wasn't truly suspicious on sockpuppetry, until I found out some interesting details that tie these accounts together, other than their comments on the AfD:
 * The userpages of all three are very simple with just one sentence in each:.
 * Their interests are mostly on Indian and Pakistani people. They all create biographical articles, many of which get nominated for AfD with COI/PROMO concerns. They vote "keep" with similar reasons by spamming links and pointing out the person won "awards":
 * Their edit summaries are very similar, almost always following an Object + Verb order instead of Verb + Object: IntelisMust and Hukumat Namanzoor even make edits with the exact same summaries:
 * "1 link added""1 link added" Aintabli (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "details added""details added""details added""details added"
 * "page published""page published and sent for submission""page published"


 * There is quite a bit of overlap in how Hukumat Namanzoor and IntelisMust approach other editors. Both ping the editors on their own talkpage and mention how and why they started the article with an emphasis on that they are not paid editors:

This list is not exhaustive. I would be happy to provide more evidence if necessary, especially from their talkpage entries. Aintabli (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Another 0-edit London-based IP promptly replied to an editor's comment on possible sock/meatpuppetry on the AfD page. Added both IP's to the sock list. Aintabli (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hukumat Namanzoor has changed their name to "Devoter". This is not the first time they renamed their account, see User talk:Maj Gen PA. Aintabli (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2023 (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

 * - Probably best to move this to Devoter as it's easier to work with. Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Spicy (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - please compare the named accounts per the evidence in the filing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IntelisMust is ✅ to Devoter. Hkkingg is  due to extensive proxy use.   -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm suspicious of Hkkingg in general for various reasons, but I don't think there's enough evidence to block them as a sock of Devoter at this time. The IP range has not edited recently. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This account was created one to two days after the confirmed socks were blocked. This user voted keep and made almost the same argument on the AfD page the sockpuppets had commented on before. They have a similar userpage with just one sentence as the other socks. The way they spelled the Muslim greeting as-salamu alaykum there is almost exactly the same as the way IntelisMust spelled it on my talkpage. Although this is a new account, they jumped right into AfDs, which currently constitutes all of their edits. They're not even trying to make this not obvious. Aintabli (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2023 (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

 * ✅ Courcelles (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Courcelles (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
A month-old account similarly interested in biographies of South Asian people and makes small changes to articles with simple summaries often involving a object + verb order, such as "Articles inserted", "preposition corrected", article added, and so on. (In previous reports, this was a prominent common feature between the confirmed socks.) More suspiciously, they have responded to a welcome message on their talkpage: "Hi! Thank you for a warm welcome. To tell you the truth, as I saw an alert, I got scared that I have been caught for some wrongdoing. Pleasantly surprised to see a welcoming note. Cheers!" Aintabli (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2023 (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

 * CU puts them in broadly the same location, but they are using a completely different set of IPs. I guess it could be the same person, but it seems unlikely. I don't see any disruption - all of the contribs I checked were clearly improvements to grammar and punctuation, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Closing without further action.  Girth Summit  (blether)  10:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I had previously reported Hkkingg, but the CU evidence turned out to be inconclusive. mentioned that they were suspicious of Hkkingg overall, but there wasn't enough evidence. To be honest, at first, I was a little bit unsure, but now, I'm close to confident: I have also added Karmelhi here, because:
 * 1) Both IntelisMust (confirmed sock) and Hkkingg have a specific way of attempting to prove notability of articles they have created by "spamming" links on AfD nominations:, , ,
 * 2) Hkkingg is the only one who was not blocked for sockpuppetry on Articles for deletion/Cemal Polat to vote "keep". (Note Shaikha Habiba, although their comment was not struck, was also blocked due to sockpuppetry.)
 * 3) Hkkingg tried to circumvent community's recent decision to delete Muhammed Majeed, an article they created, by creating it again under a slightly different title Muhammed Majeed (scientist) (See Articles for deletion/Muhammed Majeed (scientist) for more information.) In the previous AfD discussion for Muhammed Majeed (Articles for deletion/Muhammed Majeed), it is safe to assume that Hkkingg tried to create an artificial consensus by voting "keep" logged out: An IP geolocating to India, like Hkkingg, voted "KEEP" in all capital letters and the same IP additionally edited Hkkingg's own talkpage: Overall, Hkkingg doesn't appear to be a person with the urge to abide by Wikipedia's rules, just like IntelisMust/Devoter. Just in Articles for deletion/Cemal Polat, we have 3 confirmed sockpuppets voting "keep". And one of them, Shaikha Habiba, was created right after when IntelisMust requested to be unblocked and evidently lied that CU evidence was a mere coincidence:
 * 4) Hkkingg stopped being active after May 7, when they voted "keep" together with other sockpuppets on Cemal Polat's AfD. Then, between May 7 and 22/30, many of the confirmed sockpuppets were active: Devoter, Shaikha Habiba, IntelisMust. Hkkingg wasn't. Between June 14 and 24, Karmelhi was active. Hkking still wasn't. And on June 26, Hkkingg is back to editing.
 * 5) All of this is in addition to a great overlap in these accounts' interests, which are biographies of Indian people, all of which were often noted with possible WP:COI and WP:PROMO.
 * 1) As pointed out above, Karmelhi, already an account I was suspicious of, stopped editing on June 24, and on June 26, Hkkingg became active again.
 * 2) There is a great overlap between this and previous accounts, per previous report. Aintabli (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not surprising that every aforementioned editor suspected of sockpuppetry declared that they are not paid editors, although most other editors, even IPs, have shown concern:
 * On 22 May, Hkking said: I would like to add that I am not an employee of the company or associated with them. I am simply a fan of this project and have been following it since the start. (Someone else did not believe Hkking and pointed at possible COI, PROMO, and so on.)
 * On 19 April, IntelisMust said: When I see the news in TV, I decided to write a page on him. (Despite apparent COI, PROMO per the AfD of Cemal Polat, as noted by several editors.)
 * On 19 November the previous year Devoter said: I created the draft two weeks ago No COI and no Paid to edit. (...) I was covering NYFW 2022 and saw this celeb and few others, When I searched Wikipedia I couldn't see her hence I decided to create article on her and few more celebs.
 * Hkking and other suspected parties in this case have accused other editors of being enemies when they noticed the promotional nature in their edits:
 * On 22 May, Hkking said: It seems to me that this project has a lot of enemies
 * On 10 May, after an editor showed concern on sockpuppetry (confirmed by this investigation), an IP (Devoter), out of nowhere, responded: surely you have a personal agenda against this individual
 * I believe these to be poorly disguised quacks from a WP:DUCK I've initially missed in my first report. Aintabli (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * It seems to me that there are sufficient socks in the archive drawer to suggest sleepers may be present. I have requested CU on that basis. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Previous accounts are stale. The activity at AFD and the linking style is quite suspicious, although I'm undecided to act based on it. The account has just a few edits and has been inactive since this report was filed, so I'm, but feel free to re-open if it is active again and there is new evidence. MarioGom (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)