Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mostly shoaib/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Since 22 January, there has been a burst of activity by single purpose accounts around Shoaib Rahman and companies claimed to be connected with him. Similarity in edits, use of unreliable sources, use of sources that fail verification, and misleading edit summaries suggest a single guiding hand.

I'm not sure whether these are different members of the Shoaib Rahman fan club working together, or whether the club has only one member who is using multiple accounts in the hope of evading scrutiny. In any case their edits are unconstructive, not reliably sourced, and are pushing a personal agenda despite being reverted by other editors. They're not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Worldbruce (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Fadew Inc (company)
 * creates draft about a company he says was founded by Shoaib Rahman. Cites sources which all fail verification. None mention Fadew or Rahman.
 * "I added some citations and ref links which weren't there before"
 * Substack (company)
 * adds Shoaib Rahman as co-founder. Cites a deprecated source that doesn't mention Rahman.
 * "I added some citations and ref links that weren't there before"
 * 180.211.174.102 tinkers with infobox, adds Shoaib Rahman.
 * "I added a few missing information like Language of the website and corrected some spellings"
 * 180.211.174.102 tinkers with infobox (after another editor reverted) and adds Shoaib Rahman to body. Cites a post on blog host Medium, written by EDL Magazine, which claims to be a subsidiary of Fadew.
 * "I corrected some spellings and added some important links that were missing"
 * adds Shoaib Rahman and other controversial information to infobox without citing any sources.
 * "I added some missing information and removed a source-less information"
 * tinkers with infobox without citing any sources.
 * "added some missing data's and removed unnecessary data's"
 * Laksham Upazila (subdistrict in Bangladesh)
 * adds Shoaib Rahman to the list of notable residents. Cites sources that are unreliable or that don't mention Rahman.
 * "Added missing information, and added citations"
 * adds an external link within the text for Shoaib Rahman.
 * "just added missing citation"
 * adds Shoaib Rahman back to the list of notable residents, after I removed him as non-notable. They cite a source that doesn't mention Rahman.
 * "Added missing information with citations"

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

 * ✅. Bagging and tagging all accounts. . This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

more or less self admitted here "articles i've previously created" + username VAXIDICAE💉  14:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . VAXIDICAE💉  14:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears I've misfiled and it should be this case. VAXIDICAE💉  14:31, 25 March 2021 (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. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * moved to oldest. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Like the last socks, doing the same "articles i've created" on their userpage, edits to Ed Lay, Justin Lockey TAXIDICAE💰  16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * self admitted. TAXIDICAE💰  16:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the normal nonsense here. TAXIDICAE💰  16:40, 28 April 2021 (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

 * ✅ to and blocked.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Closing. Blablubbs&#124;talk 22:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Account created two days after prior sock was blocked. Created articles on Fadew and Shoaib Rahman, and has edited Laksam Upazila, all favorite subjects of the the master. Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Worldbruce, Hi, I appreciate your proactiveness and efforts to make wiki a better place. But I must say, these are some really weird and wild allegations. IDKWTS.😅 I mean I can see how these purely coincidental things point out to something fishy, but these are just misunderstandings, and cherry pickings. I've edited so many more upazilas, magazines, entrepreneurs, the same way I edited Laksam, Fadew, Shoaib. I mean if we start cherry picking arbitrarily, almost any editors with lots of edits will come under suspicion.  Tame (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Worldbruce, and how's creating my account after 2 days relevant here? Would I still be under suspicion if I created it after 3 days? What about 7? Does that count? I mean by that token, anyone who edited those pages and created accounts within 2 days are perpetrators too? And if I indeed were the alleged sockpuppet, I'd edit those pages earlier than later. Like you just outright rejected all of my thousands of other edits prior to those pages, and cherry picked the ones in the way you wanted to, to make my account sus. I'm sure, in those arbitrary ways, as I already said, anyone with good sum of edits comes under suspicion, which is nothing but asinine. Tame (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Worldbruce, Also, to establish the fact that how easy it is to cherry pick, here's one for you: I once created the page Partho Paulinews Folia, which was later AFD'd and was deleted. Now this page also had multiple socks, now am I a sock too in your book? Then hypothetically I'd take pride humbly accepting the adjective which you conferred me with: "The Master." [LOL] I'm sure there are numerous more examples I could pull out to make myself appear sus. But all of them are nothing but cherry pickings and outrageous allegations. Tame (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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


 * I'm continually surprised by sockpuppets who I've come to know on Wikipedia as editors. I guess I don't have a good nose for sniffing them out. I came here because I found Tame's article contributions tagged for speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So, now that I'm reviewing their articles, is there a suspicion of paid editing here? Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m here out of surprise as well; I noticed the deletions of June Melville and June Harrison, stubs to be sure but both long-deceased women described by the Dictionary of Women Worldwide and of interest to Women in Red. I’m not certain what commercial gain there could be (not to say I doubt the findings of the investigation, just that motive mystifies me.) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They spent most of their early time as a sockpuppet writing articles on early 20th century women, lots of Swedish and Danish women who were beauty queens, actresses, teachers, all sorts of ground-breaking women. I'm not sure where this pursuit fit into his other interests. I'm not sure about any procedure in restoring articles deleted as CSD G5s but we have this policy on not rewarding the work of sockpuppets in order to discourage sockpuppetry. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is suspicion of some paid editing, but most creations are likely not paid. AFAIK any editor in good standing can ask for undeletion of specific articles. MarioGom (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - additional information sent to paid-en-wp. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidence received, and it's convincing enough to me (checkusers: 2022042810008445). Further, they are to a past account based on CU data. . GeneralNotability (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - there's paid/COI editing involving specific subjects, but not all of their creations are problematic. It's not uncommon to encounter paid editors who create articles on notable, non-commercial topics in addition to UPE. Sometimes this is done in order to build up a more legitimate-looking account history or to qualify for permissions such as autopatrolled. In these cases, I don't think there is a compelling need to delete the articles that are obviously not spam, such as biographies of historical women. It appears someone went and tagged them all anyway, so what's done is done. While policy allows for this, I sometimes wish people would exercise more discretion when tagging for G5. Spicy (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
similar username to the first set (random letters + q), recreation of Avik Anwar as Draft:Avik Anwar PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:08, 8 September 2022 (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

 * Seems very likely to be the same person based on a number of hints. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Recreation of same Draft:Avik Anwar as other sockpuppets of Mostly Shoaib have done. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2022 (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 draft looks pretty similar to socks' versions of the article. However, it's possible that this could be a different COI/PAID editor working from the same script. The distinction is relevant in this case because Mostly shoaib has a pending unblock request. Please compare to previous accounts to confirm. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spicy I'm confused about the "pending unblock request". As far as I can see, they haven't edited in over a year.  Where is this request? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Jgqdg. Spicy (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The only non-stale account I see is Jgqdg, to which Bangladeshbatelion is -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, closing without action given the CU results. If someone wants to pursue the COI/UPE angle, that's fine, but I don't see that as a huge priority since they are sticking to draftspace for now. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
"User:Bangladeshbatelion" uploaded File:AvikAnwar.jpg as own work. If they don't have any relations with the subject, how they took the photo! I will note, same article previously created by Tamingimpala who is now block for paid editing, sock puppet etc. Usually new editor struggle when they first edit wikipedia, but Bangladeshbatelion was able publish the article with one edit. That's impressive (& "hmm"!). On my talk page Bangladeshbatelion said "I've attained the auto-confirmed user right, as a result I'm not under obligation to submit my article in Article For Creation", usually new editor do not know what is "user right" but not in this case. It seem they know how to bypass 4 days & 10 edits restriction. I am suspecting the user might be sock. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The user was blocked by 331dot at same time i created this report. As there is no need to check now, please close this SPI. Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (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

 * User blocked by, nothing left to do. See also filer request. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Pro-forma per below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2022 (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 can only describe these as all confirmed to each other, and belonging here, though it's not absolutely clear if there is more than one person. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to tag the accounts. What tag or tags would be best?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't know how to answer that. The original account is stale, and I don't have continuity going back to it. You can consider them all confirmed to each other. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * - Could a clerk please double-tag them as confirmed to each other and suspected to the master? Thanks. Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagged as requested, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Continue from User_talk:Bbb23. And another user joined today and started editing Draft:Nuhash Humayun. It's suspicious and most likely a sock. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2022 (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

 * seems to be the best I can do from a technical standpoint. They're not using the devices we've seen them use recently, and the IP range is different, though it matches the same Internet service provider we've seen the previous sock use. Mz7 (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a bit odd, but the overlap and similarities such as 1 and Special:AbuseLog/34020154 have convinced me. as proven to  and suspected altmaster to, as with the last batch. Two sockmasters have possibly been mixed together, unsure. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I think they are back. Shortly after Nuhash Humayun was accepted, they started editing the article and added same text like previous sock did (later reverted by Onel5969). On other hand, "It's Keya" added a photo of Nuhash Humayun which was upload today by another new user (File:Nuhash at SXSW 22.jpg). They aren't suppose to know that. I find it suspicious. Also i saw their other edits, as one month account they are too experienced IMO. Although their editing pattern are little confusing, sometime they have interest on Bangladesh related article, something they don’t and edits other things. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You specifically choose new article which has questionable notability. I don't think it's coincident. Going through your edit, i think i found another one and i added that above. Junayed hossain siam has same editing pattern as Mostly shoaib. They created the account and translated some article from Bengali wikipedia. Then they started publishing some article with questionable notability. When they published the articles, mysteriously an account upload a photo about the subject on commons. E.g. they created Mufassil Islam and someone uploaded a photo on commons (much like Nuhash Humayun). Then an IP (103.162.56.132) added that photo on the article. Today that IP edited Elita Karim, which you also edited some hour later. Some days ago, that IP removed notability tag from Asad Noor, today Muntasirmamundh did same thing. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @আফতাবুজ্জামান, (courtesy mentioning @DatGuy, @Spicy as you two have previously had multiple interaction with my case). Okay this is seeming pretty repetitive now. Just like the old times, what's the point awaiting.
 * Confession: This account, and Muntasirmamundh, and IP 103.162.56.132 are mine (I'm the sockmaster @Mostly shoaib). I do not own or am not associated with the other account listed, however.
 * I know I've violated so many rules again and again but can't help coming back to this project, because I started it out of passion. I got banned at first for using and abusing multiple accounts (at that time I wasn't aware of sockpuppetry and also, I was experimenting, trying to add my name to as some company's CEO and whatnot.).


 * But then I started contributing out of passion and none can deny that I contributed a lot this project. But I take full responsibility of trying to self-promo and make articles about myself and my magazine. I've apologized for those and said I won't ever do these, and keep me under observation, monitor my edits. From my accountTamingimpala, I contributed so much. I was an AFC reviewer, a new page reviewer, I won multiple WIR competitions, and all. But a few editors said that I made those contribution and was waiting for the perfect time to self-promo. I know it might appear like that, but it's quite opposite.


 * I was genuinely editing, and at one stage I had an urge to misuse and take advantage of my power (for which I'm sorry and take full responsibility). But no matter how much I say sorry I know Wiki won't unban me at this stage, cause so many times I broke rules. But I come back and fill my urge and passion to contribute to that project. Sometimes it used to make me angry (which drove me even more adamant, that I'll keep continuing coming and start contributing again no matter how many times they blocked me), that after so so many passionate, genuine contribution, and I lose it all due to some mistakes and breaking some rules, it gave me anger, and kept urging me to come back. It's like imprisonment. But I know only I'm to blame, and I shouldn't have misuse my power.


 * Anyway, it appears, I always can't help but make the same mistakes, going back and editing previous pages of my interest. In the very beginning, they ranged from pages like Justin Lockey, Slowdive, to Laksam Upazila, etc, and every time these would hint or trigger my pattern of editing pages, I have interests on. Then more recently pages like Asad Noor, or similar atheistic pages of my interest (me being an atheist). This time again Asad along with Nuhash Humayun caused the blunder.


 * Asad Noor being one of my personal idol and interests, I tried to imitate the original creator of Asad Noor User:মহিউদ্দিন শরীফ by creating a similar account (now blocked obviously) pretending I was the real user. I added 1 after the username, this way I thought if I contribute to the page, it'd look legitimate.
 * I got the pics of Nuhash Humayun (big fan tho) by knocking him on Instagram, and asked you have an article and its missing photos, and then he shared his photos ( https://wetransfer.com/downloads/6f33e9c401e05e670912e77b1f7c0fe520221201131232/9eb685 ) which I uploaded. But the page got deleted, and then another user created it and I reuploaded an image out of the 8 pics which he sent me. And uploaded that from a new Commons account. Also, I reinserted some lines (which I previously wrote but the page got deleted) using Muntasirmamundh. But those edits were reverted. So, I knew I can't just redo those edits with this account (Keya), because it'd be sus. So, I just brought the image back using this (keya) account. And I added the image and made some minor tweaks to the page using this account (Keya).


 * I became familiar with performance artist Reetu Sattar (hence discovering and creating a page on Sujon Mahmud, another prominent performance artists from BD) from Nuhash Humayun's page as his series from last year, along with Reetu Sattar's film are going to be featured in IFFR. The page was created by another user (junayed hossian siam) whom আফতাবুজ্জামান mentioned above. I noticed a reviewer tagged it with "might not be notable", but she definitely seemed to be, so I added some sources and removed that tag. Then I noticed that user (junayed hossian siam) newly created page Mufassil Islam at WP project Bangladesh, and it picked my interest, and I reached out to Mufassil Islam on Facebook, and asked for his picture. And he sent me those (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-CkeGA3j3bOd0t-sh_roUJ5yxWIJHJU6?usp=sharing). Then I uploaded 1 pic to the article, also made some minor tweaks in the article, like adding category, source, etc. I also import Wikidata description (an attempt to increase edit count, I do that a lot to gain extended confirmed editor tag faster).


 * I also knocked Ana Kasparian who's an atheist, on Facebook, and said if she'd like anything changed on her page. She didn't like an odd-looking image which was at the bottom, I replaced it and also, she said she'd like elaboration on her political views. I did similar edits to Slowdive and Rachel Goswell way back in the days. I knocked them on Facebook, and they asked if they'd like their images updated. Then I uploaded a bunch of Slowdive pics on Commons using Fadew wiki and Tamingimpala and other Commons accounts. I've done similar edits on many more occasions, and they did not appear to me as any direct COI, as I was out of passion adding images to pages. But there were occasions when I disclosed those image upload edits, such as in now deleted Think (organization). It&#39;s Keya (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this is getting so long and repetitive, and I'm just bored and fade up, so just ask me anything about anything, I can't do this like this. Just the hell with it. I'm spilling the beans. Muntasirmamundh (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zzuuzz you deserve a courtesy mention too. Muntasirmamundh (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Worldbruce, how can i forget you. you were the first. Muntasirmamundh (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously we're going to be blocking some accounts, including your current one. You can make life easier by telling us which accounts need blocking. A WP:SO seems like your other best option at this stage. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zzuuzz, Re accounts needing block, I've mentioned above (This account, and Muntasirmamundh, and IP 103.162.56.132 are mine. I do not own or am not associated with the other account listed)
 * Also to the WP:SO offer, I'd definitely take that. I'd like to be back on Tamingimpala someday. Keep me under observations, or just ask me to refrain from any certain type edit or just ask me to whatever, I'll do those. I just want a new start. like a nuke, I will wait six months or anything that you ask, if I can get a fresh start and unban on Tamingimpala. I take the offer.
 * It's 5am btw here, Thanks and good night. It&#39;s Keya (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the SO is not a promise, not a guarantee, and not an easy road either. All I can guarantee is that it will be refused if socking continues. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zzuuzz, socking stops, period. I had enough and spilled the beans. It got so repetitive. I just want an end to this. I'll do whatever, if I can get an unban on Tamingimpala. Any conditions, tasks, I'll comply. going to bed. Thanks again. It&#39;s Keya (talk) 22:55, 15 January 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
"Muntasirmamundh" and "It's Keya" are confirmed to each other and previous "Mostly shoaib" socks. Blocked. "Junayed hossain siam" comes in as, which is quite a large space and not the same as likely. . Obviously there's some serious COI and meatsock going on generally around these parts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged Junayed hossain siam as a suspected sock based primarily on the crossover with It's Keya. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Previously Eliza Binte Elahi was created by a sock of Mostly shoaib, I just noticed same article has been created under the title Eliza Binte by "Samir2823". I think the user is a sock:
 * 1) Last time It's Keya said: "Anyway, it appears, I always can't help but make the same mistakes, going back and editing previous pages of my interest.... and every time these would hint or trigger my pattern of editing pages, I have interests on". I think they know if they created the article under previous title, they might get caught immediately.
 * 2) I remember, previous article also had this exact same photo. As new user, they are not supposed to know that.
 * 3) Their editing pattern suggested they are experienced at editing. They seems to able to create article with very edits (usually new user struggle to edit).
 * 4) Same interest. Article (e.g. User:Samir2823/sandbox/Kabir Chowdhury Tanmoy) related to Bangladesh, blogger, secularism. (From Keya: "Then more recently pages like Asad Noor, or similar atheistic pages of my interest (me being an atheist). This time again Asad along with Nuhash Humayun caused the blunder") আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:19, 19 January 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

 * Already blocked as suspected, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
WP:RFU request for Mufassil Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 29 January 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

 * I agree that asking for RFU from such a new user raises flags, but the CU data says at best for Xkalponik.  The account also goes back to 2015.  There may be some COI that got an 8 year dormant user to come out of hibernation, but I'm not seeing any reason in the CU data to call them a sock.  Closing with no action. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
The account was inactive for nearly 6-7 years. Then few days after the last block, account started editing. I don't how they got 8 years old account, I am suspecting for few reason: Editing behaviour doesn't suggest they are new user. Same interest (article related to Bangladesh, blogger, secularism, human rights activist). E.g. they created Mufassil Islam (same as previous sock and interesting thing is, like their previous sock, they ask for help on helpdesk about publishing article and then referencing those discussion, they moved thier articles to main namespace). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Note: A checkuser investigation has been recently done on this same user, and results were "no action", as there was no CU data to call them a sock. 2400:C600:3341:16E7:31FD:3FA8:1354:A028 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand CU data doesn't match but we should consider their behavior. Another example, like their previous sock, they also translated article from Bengali wikipedia. If you consider everything, behaviour matches. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've checked their full list of contribution, however, they do not have any translated articles from Bengali Wikipedia, although checking an AFD, they created an article on a college "based on" a Bengali wikipedia entry. Judging from the investigation archive, previously, they usually used to translate articles from Bengali wiki as is, but this one seemed to differ. As you also stated above, that you do not know how they got an eight year old account, nor do I.
 * An admin snipped them as a sock and reported here, and CU said "There may be some COI that got an 8 year dormant user to come out of hibernation, but I'm not seeing any reason in the CU data to call them a sock", this could be case as well. Cause, it'd really take a lot of explanations on how they got a 8 year old account (who wasn't very flag raising, their past edits were constructive, although short in numbers).
 * They edited briefly in 2015 in English Wikipedia, and also in the Bengali wikipedia. Then they came back again in 2016 in that wiki, and overall their past edits seems constructive. They came out of hibernation on January 20, starting with Bengali Wikipedia. They made some edits there, and then came to English wikipedia, and was editing on and off with minor stuff, for a few days. Then they started working on the draft of Mehzeb Chowdhury. Up to this point, this user seemed very reasonable and constructive, until they posted an RFU for Mufassil Islam, stating: "They've requesting to revive this page as a draft or in their userspace. It got deleted due to some internal evading of blocks and stuff, but they're an independent and unrelated user and they'd like to create an article on this, but would be so much better if they didn't have to start from scratch, but rather had some sort of already done materials to begin from."
 * An RFU from an inactive user definitely raises some flags, and an admin (@UtherSRG) requested CU, and CU closed the case raising probable COI concern. They brought back Mufassil Islam as a draft, and after an admin suggested for not to move it directly to mainspace, and rather wait and have some experienced user review it, they complied with that proposal, and moved on. They started editing quite frequently. Most of them were copy edits or tweaks, and then they started creating pages. Couldn't find a pattern there though. There were pages of politicians, college, human rights defender, and CEOs, and more recently, an actress and comedian.
 * You stated your reasons of suspicion are: they created Mufassil Islam (same as previous sock and interesting thing is, like their previous sock, they ask for help on help desk about publishing article and then referencing those discussion, they moved their articles to main namespace".
 * I'll note however, none of these except one, truly indicates anything suspicious. Creating articles on Bangladesh, or asking help on helpdesk, or creating articles on humanists, these things on their own do not constitute anything wrong or suspicious (these are very abstract and general, a fact which calls your assertions and accuracy into question.), in fact I'd take it as a good thing if new users asks for help.
 * But IMO, one thing that truly puts this account under the radar is Mufassil Islam. I'd agree with @RoySmith, there could be a possible COI angle. Or as the accused stated here, " They've created article on Mufassil Islam, as it fell under their radar, and they discussed with admins before creating it."
 * But truly, COI or UPE angle is to be looked up here, if anything.
 * But truly, COI or UPE angle is to be looked up here, if anything.

2400:C600:3347:7DB7:31FD:3FA8:1354:A028 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @RoySmith, I don't really see much have changed since then. My best guess is, the user who asked for CU, didn't notice that there's been already a closed CU recently with no actions been taken. In my evaluation, most of their past, and present edits seems constructive, although a handful of them might raise some probable COI flags. But calling them a sock, would really take a lot of explanation, and I think I'd go with your previous consensus, that there's not really much substance to call them a sock, but there could be some possible COI involved. 2400:C600:3347:7DB7:31FD:3FA8:1354:A028 (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please see 29 January 2023 in the archive. At that time, I ran some checks and concluded no action was justified.  What has happened since then which might change that?  PS, I've only briefly skimmed this.  Please try to be (much) more concise in your response. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - Nothing for CU to do here. I'm not sure if there's anything for SPI in general to do here, but I'll leave that to a clerk to figure out if there's anything else worth persuing. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some similarities when compared to Tamingimpala, but nothing unique enough. . MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This may be tenuous, but hopefully worth looking into. I was going to decline Draft:Lutfor Hasan at AfC, when a message popped up saying this was previously created by a sock of Mostly shoaib (Trilokadiponglar Bhilku) and consequently G5'd. This latest draft has been created by a new SPA Enwiki23. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 17 April 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

 * Enwiki23 is ❌ -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)