Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Hammadsaeed has been attempting to create an article, Shah Aqeeq Baba. When the article was nominated for deletion, these SPA accounts (created on the same day) responded at Talk:Shah Aqeeq Baba to oppose deletion. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hammadsaeed created Shah Aqeeq Baba and suspiciously the other accounts created their own user pages (often misusing name) and chimed in on Talk:Shah Aqeeq Baba to say that they loved the article and that it shouldn't be deleted. None of them use edit summaries. Each of them exhibit the same ESL form of English and none of them have edits elsewhere on wiki. It wouldn't surprise me if the deleted edits show the same activity at Talk:Jayda al-Sindhi. Funnily, the puppeteer's was to create a userpage so I would guess that the puppeteer is actually the puppet of someone else, perhaps a banned user.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppetry is now trying to influence an AfD discussion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the sockpuppeteer and the Alex12233 have done this. This is a pretty loud WP:DUCK. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sock attempts to remove evidence of puppetry after this SPI was brought to the AfD's attention. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Added . SPA, adding an URL to the article which was apparently used by in their speedy-deleted versions of the article (see Hammd's talk page and the deletion log of Hazrat Shah Aqeeq Baba r.a (Spiritual Surgeon)), and then !voting in the AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 07:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. Or Quack, rather. There is a lot of disruption going on, and I've now reported the master account to AIV for blatant canvassing after a final warning. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Add User:39.50.249.127 to the list per this edit. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And . I just noticed that this account is older than the others, though: created in June of last year but with no edits (that I can see) until today other than to create their userpages. However, the behavioural evidence is crystal clear, it is the same user. Several of these socks have copied the signature formatting of other users:, (note that two of the socks have copied kashmiri's style there), . --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Woah!!!!! Hello are you out of the world and by the way have you any proper evidence about me ?? Excuse me and by the way who the hell are to delete my opinion on the page I am going to complain about you Mr just wait and watch you are doing violation .Do you have any evidence haaaawn!!!!!!! I said restore my opinion. If somebody make the same account of you name User:Bonadea 4 and some other name so what will you do????? And why yous spoiling my name in the public??? Re add my opinion again on the page!!!!! Right now !! Because I research on Shah Aqeeq page .?????? And Hammadsaeed 4 is just the user name my name is Sameer Khan as you can check my account now please delete my name in this investigation or blaaa blaaaa Hammadsaeed4 (talk) -- 08:21, 28 Fabuary 2017(UTC)
 * "Do you have any proper evidence against me?"
 * Please feel free to click any of the various references above which highlight your sockpuppetry. This edit where you signed a post of one of your very obvious sockpuppets is more than sufficient enough to prove that you are violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * "Excuse me and by the way who the hell are to delete my opinion on the page I am going to complain about you Mr just wait and watch you are doing violation ."
 * I only removed the edits that were obvious forgeries of consensus committed by you by using sockpuppets. Feel free to complain all you want, it is guaranteed that you will get no where.
 * "and Hammadsaeed 4 is just the user name my name is Sameer Khan as you can check my account now please delete my name in this investigation or blaaa blaaaa Hammadsaeed4"
 * Thank you for basically confessing to sockpuppeteering. Though the names, behavioral evidence, and the pending CheckUser would be enough to have you blocked for abusing multiple accounts, you have just defined "sockpuppeteering" by trying to explain your behavior, as well as the fact that you used an sockpuppet to leave said above reply.
 * Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * has now identified as Hammadsaeed. --bonadea contributions talk 06:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please check these accounts. Thanks, GABgab 20:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say that I blocked the supposed master for 31 hours for disruptive editing, but this block had nothing to do with any evaluation of potential socking, but purely on the basis of the disruptive behavior of the supposed master. I do not have the time to investigate this at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - I have blocked User:Usama Saeed Malik as an obvious meat/sock account: disruptive editing at Shah Aqeeq Baba and a user page created today with a picture uploaded at Commons by Hammadsaed of himself . — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ all 7 users listed on 25 February to Hammadsaeed; blocked, tagged. I see no immediate sleepers, but the involved IP space is vast, and thus they may appear any time. Materialscientist (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shah_Aqeeq_Baba&oldid=767858504 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Added another duck. Sro23 (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ Hammadsaeed1; blocked, tagged. Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK. First edit outside userspace was making the same fake block notice at JJMC89's talk page as Hammd posted previously. See also this, cf the master account's user pae. bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Question to reviewing admin: The master is currently blocked for 48 hours (a few hours after coming off a 31-hour block). Should that perhaps be extended given their socking while blocked? --bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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


 * SEE MY CONTRIBUTION*

THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT ME???? FOR SOCK OF HAMMD SYED???????????

Hammad Ibn Saeed TALK TO HAMMAD

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked indefinitely per WP:DUCK. I have also changed the block to the master account to indefinite for obvious continuing the violation. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created Syed Asghar Ali Shah Bukhari which is a content fork of Shah Aqeeq Baba, specifically, it is the version of that article before it was edited to remove unsourced information. bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing behavior is identical, and the IP range to the above blocked IP address is way to close for this current IP to not be a sock. The second account, Hammadsaeed admitted to creating, and to it's being a sockpuppet here. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Shah Aqeeq Baba is other person page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufi Articles Creator (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Shah Aqeeq baba is a hoax by himmad Saeed And Syed Asghar Ali Shah Bukhari is the original page please delete this page Shah Aqeeq Baba it's. A hoax this page steal all information from my both websites Sufi contributions talk 14:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hemmad Saeed making you fool
 * http://www.rightfulreligion.com/ise407_spiritual-power-muslim-martyr-shah-aqeeq-baba-spiritual-surgeon&ved=0ahUKEwit4dimgLjSAhVmD5oKHT9ICMcQFgg5MAo&usg=AFQjCNECzMvgXAlRqQRfgjFfROUd29lvIg
 * http://spritualtreatments.blogspot.com/2014/08/history-of-hazrat-shah-aqeeq-shah.html%3Fm%3D1&ved=0ahUKEwit4dimgLjSAhVmD5oKHT9ICMcQFgiTATAd&usg=AFQjCNFIjSzeLFMHG9W8adE93qDubH_Igg as you can see ???

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * as WP:DUCK per user's edits. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The Rehman Badami account was created 3 minutes after the block on Hammadsaeed was extended to indefinite. The edits by Rehman Badami have been to create an article entitled Syed Shah Kasturi Bhukhari, supposedly the name of Shah Aqeeq Baba, an article which is the subject of the work of Hammadsaeed and his socks. User:Rehman Badami gives a commited identity which is apparently the same as that previously given at User:Hammadsaeed. In view of the number of previous socks, a search for sleepers may be wise. David Biddulph (talk) 07:37, 4 March 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, tagged. Materialscientist (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All removing G5 & prod tags from Syed Shah Kasturi Bhukhari. Other similarities with previous IP socks from this sockfarm are obvious. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:23, 4 March 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

 * All blocked. GABgab 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Self-discloses that he is another Hammadsaeed sock, makes some mild personal attacks, and says "I am not giving up". More socks coming in, no doubt. bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 4 March 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, tagged. Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Username is an obvious impersonation of User:JJMC89. Created Syed Shah Kasturi Bukhari because Syed Shah Kasturi Bhukhari was salted Sro23 (talk) 14:42, 4 March 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

 * . Favonian (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK at (IP) and commenting on my talk page as MASTQALANDAR. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Added 43.224.238.188, 43.224.238.183, 103.7.77.17, 39.50.168.218, and 202.69.11.184. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:36, 5 March 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

 * ✅. Materialscientist (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Claims to be a bot operated by the sockmaster Sro23 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 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

 * . Favonian (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Confirmed here to be yet another sock of Hammadsaeed. Timing of the creation, as I stated on the talk page, of Shah Yaqeeq Bukhari‎ by this editor after the AfD of Shah Aqeeq Baba, and subsequent sockpuppetry by the sockmaster in question is too coincidental to be ignored. Not only that, but the recreated page was an exact copy of Shah Aqeeq Baba, the errors that led to it's subsequent AfD included. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken as to which the editor involved, as I did not look closely enough to see the difference between "محمد مجیب" and "مھتاب احمد". I've updated the username of the suspected sockpuppet to show the correct username. Sorry about any confusion caused by my error. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The user who recreated Shah Yaqeeq Bukhari is User:محمد_مجیب. Is that who you mean? Sro23 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks as if it was User:محمد_مجیب recreated the article but it was User:مھتاب احمد who was involved in the discussion on the article talk page. Another case of the confusion that can be caused by usernames with non-Latin characters. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant. What about the edit on the Simple English Wiki, in which Hammadsaeed admitted to محمد_مجیب being one of his socks? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
❌. By the way, the two articles are not "identical". محمد مجیب is a much older account than the master. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This commons thread started by User:BukhariSaeed seems to indicate that he has been using this IP to circumvent a block on en.wiki. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 15:28, 15 October 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

 * I don't get the same interpretation out of that comment; I think he was just saying he disagrees with the revert. Nothing in that comment proves sockpuppetry. Closing. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)