Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lkomdis/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Lkomdis nominated this BLP Waqar Zaka for deletion, but they got blocked. Then, out of the blue, Sleeper account shows up and drops a deletion comment on the same BLP. Plus, the last time they joined an AfD was way back in 2020, so it kinda passes the duck test. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 20:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Over to you guys! — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I am not in any way linked to this SPI. I only carried out an unbiiased source analysis on this AFD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waqar_Zaka_(3rd_nomination)#Waqar_Zaka  I'm not in support of deleing nor keeping the page. I did a clear source analysis based on Wikipedia policies on WP:RS. So sad to see this from Saqib. It's uncalled for. Cheers everyoneMaltuguom (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maltuguom, Like I mentioned in the AfD, you're labelling every Pakistani source, even the highly respected ones like DAWN and The Express Tribune, as unreliable and paid. Yes, you're not outright saying "delete," but your comments hint that you're advocating deletion of the BLP based on your intentionally wrong assessment of the sources. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 07:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not an SPI clerk, checkuser, or admin, but ! Quack quack!  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  17:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or it could be a compromised account that Lkomdis is using, but I'm not experienced enough to know for sure.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  17:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TheTechie, For sure, old Wikipedia accounts are being sold online. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Saqib, Ah yes, I completely forgot about that. Let us hope Jimbo and WMF do something about this, as a side note (the selling accounts thing, not the SPI).  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Not a CU, I think this needs their eyes. Star   Mississippi  01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the history here is a bit suspicious, but this is somewhere between ❌ and . Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I've done some digging into the editing history of these accounts except @Wastas, and it's clear they've never touched Pakistan-related pages before NOR ever participated in AfDs before. Yet suddenly, they're all highly invested in an AfD related to Waqar Zaka. Seems like we've got a bunch of sleeper accounts awakening all at once. They're all pushing for the same rationale to delete the BLP. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

My account is not a sleeper and I have no connection whatsoever to the account I'm being accused of working with. It has been quite active for a couple of weeks doing Recent Changes Patrol and the evidence of that is there for everyone to assess. About a week ago I shifted attention to WP:AFD where I spent about three hours of my time analysing sources in two promotional articles created by a single editor. My analysis of the sources offended the creator of those articles and accused me of working for the nominator. My first three AFD votes have now been confirmed as valuable as those pages have been deleted.

I commented on the Waqar Zaka AFD about three days ago and immediately saw the comment he accused me of working with other editors who are voting to delete the page. I urge Clerk to take a look at the Waqar Zaka AFD to see first hand how Saqib has accused everyone with opposing opinion in that AFD. They have taken ownership of the page and the AFD. They have refused to see merit in all comments made by other users especially if the account has lesser edits or younger than their own. Their activity violates WP:Civility and do not act in good faith towards other editors. They have to be stopped otherwise they're doing more harm than building the encyclopedia. Just few hours ago a user advised Saqib to show some good faith and stop commenting and labeling every user that vote to delete the page. Clerk, please take a look at that AFD and see what Saqib is doing there. Piscili (talk)
 * Hold on a sec, how did you find out about this SPI? And no, I'm not pointing fingers at everyone who took part in Waqar Zaka's AfD, even if they voted to delete. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So knowing about this SPI is also an offense? You attacked me the day I voted in that AFD stating that you're not the only person with suspicion of my AFD deletion votes. How does deletion votes in AFD become an offense? From that very moment I kept an eye on that AFD thread to see how it will end and just few hours ago you boasted in that AFD that you had filed SPI against only 3 editors out of 6 editors who voted to delete the page. I decided to check your edit history and found this. This is public, not private. Piscili (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Piscili, Alright, the BLP is gone now, so let's just move on. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else the wrong way. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 15:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Both Ludamane and Maltuguom became active after a break to participate in the Waqar Zaka AfD, and then went inactive again. Additionally, you mentioned that heavy proxy usage was involved. Doesn't this validate my concerns to some extent? --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As above, appears to be ❌, though heavy proxy use means somewhat . I will note I did not dig too deep into Piscili and Ludamane, because the evidence just isn't strong enough. Saqib, I think you're getting a little too close to this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm saying may need to take a step back from this; I agreed with you above that the history here was suspicious, but suspicious editing and sockpuppetry aren't always the same thing. I don't think the evidence here - technical and behavioral together - are anywhere near enough to block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)