Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lutfy Jahan/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Lutfy Jahan was recently (2 February) blocked for inserting a large number of promotional links to the works of Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal. All of Sirius Black92's edits and nearly all of Stjt's have been on one article-- Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal. Sirius had been inactive since October 2018, but reappeared within three days of Lufty Jahan's block to edit Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal. Likewise, Stjt has been inactive since July 2018, but reappeared today-- to edit Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal. Pepper Beast   (talk)  21:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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


 * I appreciate Pepperbeast's concerns about the accounts Sirius Black and stjt belonging to me. First of all, I should be very outspoken about the fact that Lutfy Jahan is the only account operated and owned by me. And bringing up the issue of my account getting blocked in order to malign my credibility is really offensive. However, I should clear the confusion created by this statement and that is that my account was blocked because one of the administrators thought that the subject of the Article and my account were the same person leading to conflict of interest and autobiography. As a result, I was asked to change my username from S M M Iqbal and refrain from editing the said article and my account was unblocked.
 * Now, considering that both these accounts have made some edits to Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal (the Article I created roughly 5 years ago) doesn't necessarily mean that they are being run by me. As the plaintiff himself suggests, they've made edits to the article before as well and their attempts to make new edits now shouldn't surprise us. Addressing Pepperbeast's 'evidence' that both the accounts resurfaced after being inactive for quite a while should also not be surprising as judging by their account histories, it appears that both these accounts haven't been active on Wikipedia much. I also observed the Edits made by Sirius Black to the above mentioned article, and they seem to be correcting the references only (and not adding anything new) as Pepperbeast had arbitrarily deleted 2 or 3 sections from the article that had rendered those references without proper citations and the references were  'only invoked and never defined.' 
 * Why the plaintiff thought that Stjt account also belongs to me is incomprehensible given that the latter had requested to revert the Publication section deletion carried out by pepperbeast (as is evident from the Talk page of the article) and I believe that Pepperbeast's decision to accuse my account of sockpuppetry may be because he doesn't want to revert the said deletion.
 * Having said that, I am willing to contact all the parties in this case viz. Sirius Black92, Stjt and Pepperbeast to resolve the issue. I rest my case.--Lutfy Jahan (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I was a little confused when I received an email about the Sockpuppetry case being filed against me. Having gone through the evidence put forth by the User Pepperbeast, I would like to clarify and eliminate all the apprehensions that have been developing regarding my Edits to mostly Sheikh Iqbal's Wikipedia Article. In truth, I have interests in Middle-Eastern History and hence my coming across Mr Iqbal's books, and, when I discovered an article on him on Wikipedia, I have since made mostly technical corrections to it only and even sometimes added information and provided credible references to back them. I don't Log In much and hence my occasional appearance in Wikipedia logs. In fact, I wouldn't have even known about this case had I not received a notification about it in email. The incident that probably prompted Mr Pepperbeast to file this case was my request to reverse his deletion of the section Publication which the User had carried out depriving the Article of the information of the main academic contribution of Mr Iqbal. I think it was unpalatable for Mr Beast to be told by an amateur to revert his changes even though I fully agree with his decision to delete the SectionComments on Works because it was not an encyclopedic content as I had written earlier in the talk page of Mr Iqbal's article. If there is anything else that can help me prove my stand, I'd encourage to be helped by experts.--Stjt (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Nobody has taken any action after over a month. I'm also not seeing nearly enough evidence. There may be collusion, but the article has been deleted now. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)