Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saaduddin20/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All these accounts have been making the same types of promotional and unsourced edits to See TV. Seetvpakistan is already blocked due to username and Shams.zamtv has been blocked because it's an obvious sockpuppet (compare Saaduddin20's edit to Shams.zamtv's edit). New user Saaduddin2016 appears to be related as well, what with the similar username and making this edit which partially reinstates what the master had been adding. Sro23 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually I think Saaduddin20 may have simply abandoned that account and moved on to the Saaduddin2016 account, and I guess that's not such a big deal. User:Seetvlahore does seem to be unrelated, although their username might be problematic. Is it possible to withdraw this report? Sro23 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2016 (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

 * Case withdrawn by the filer.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Saaduddin20 account created 21:29, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * Shams.zamtv account created 01:39, June 19, 2016 (UTC) a mere 4 hours after Saaduddin20.
 * Saaduddin2016 account created 21:55, July 10, 2016 (UTC) - Duck per username.
 * All have intersections at See TV
 * Shams.zamtv and Naeem.zamtv appear to be related by user name. They might be two different people. In this edit we learn that SeeTV used to be called ZamTV.
 * This edit by Zamtvnetwork.wikipedia contains the summary "seetvpakistan". This edit by Naeem.zamtv contains the summary "seetvpakistan".

They appear to be engaged in problematic editing, like posting articles on talk pages (Saaduddin2016), removing talk page comments (Shams.zamtv).

I just noticed Seetvpakistan might be the oldest of the obvious socks, but See TV also has edits from Musa Raza, who created the article. Musa wound up being a sock of Mnaqvii, so that might wind up being the master here. Also found Seetvlahore, which is thematically similar to Seetvpakistan in user name.

Pretty ducky, but I think a CU would be good, considering how many accounts are operating here, and since Shams.zamtv was created so quickly after the Saaduddin20 account. And the other weirdness. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2016 (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

 * - Katietalk 13:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These accounts are ✅ to each other:


 * is ✅ from this group.
 * The remaining accounts are . to determine who is the oldest and if it's related to any other cases. Katietalk 14:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the remaining two stale accounts as suspected socks based on behavioral evidence. I haven't tagged the ones confirmed above by Katie. Leaving that to the discretion of the archiving CU/Clerk. Closing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Looks like this sockfarm is back in action again. Yunshui 雲 水 07:51, 2 April 2019 (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 listed accounts blocked, logging here for the record. Yunshui 雲 水 07:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Drafting the article Draft:Muhammad Saad Uddin, which has been deleted in the past after being created by other socks. Also, username.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  10:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to admins: The user has admitted to sockpuppetry on my talk page and claims he was socking due to inexperience with Wikipedia policies. He is interested in setting things straight; please explain to him the conditions for seeking an unblock legitimately.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  10:38, 1 April 2020 (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

 * Sock indeffed. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - In the cleanup I see was blocked 6 days ago as a byproduct of an RFU discussion at Special:Permalink/948499540, and that they were a sleeper for 4 years. With two fresh accounts to look at, one of them a long term sleeper, I'd like a CU for other sleepers please. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , sort of. There's one account with similar UA but the name doesn't match the pattern and it has no edits. I'll keep an eye on it.  Maxim (talk)  13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks . So we're back to Closed. Cabayi (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)