Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaistakausar.pk/Archive

09 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Muhammad Farooq never edits about himself. Shaistakausar.pk edits about almost nothing else. MF creates a template. 2 days later SP adds MF's name to it and adds it to MF's article.

I tried to get some clarification back in November. SP's contributions show he was back on Wikipedia in December but he didn't engage with the question.

I don't think it's the most heinous bit of puppetry, but I hear quacking. Bazj (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , As I indicated above I've tried engaging with the users for an explanation of the behaviour, and User:Shaistakausar.pk has edited since, so must have seen, and ignored the message. As far as I'm aware there's no halfway point between that and an SPI.
 * As you say, they're not prolific editors. It's taken nearly 6 years for the pattern to arouse anyone's suspicion. Looking through the edit histories I've found (my apologies for not doing this for the original report),
 * create & add
 * create & add
 * create & add
 * create & add
 * and the ego-massaging FA nomination, Featured article candidates/Muhammad Farooq/archive1
 * If there's not enough there to justify any action then it may be as well to pull the plug on the investigation. I for one am not going to obsess about (or watch out for) the activities of a single autobiographer for the years it'll take to catch him actively puppeting. Bazj (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'd have to agree with an NFA closure. I don't think any further misdemeanours would emerge even from the most rigorous scrutiny of his edit histories. It seems to me that editing the same articles/templates defeats the purpose/justification of any legitimate alternate account. Impersonation seems unlikely as any impartial editor would have no reason to split the two sets of edits into two edit histories. The split only makes sense for an autobiographer. Given the limitations you've outlined, the stale evidence, and the vanishingly small probability of catching any new evidence while it's fresh, NFA closure seems the only viable option. Thanks for your time, Bazj (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2015 (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
First, I need evidence of abuse. Second, and only if you can provide the first, I need more diffs. The master hasn't edited in over a month, and the puppet hasn't edited since last July. At this point, I don't have a reason to block either.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional evidence. Policy is a bit dicey on the point of alternate accounts. Some users understandably believe that creating multiple accounts without disclosing them is automatically blockable. That's not true. WP:SOCK doesn't require a person to disclose. Rather, it urges them to do so. Thus, the issue of whether to block a person at SPI hinges on whether the multiple accounts are acting abusively. Here, what you're postulating is kind of a partnership where the user who supposedly is the journalist adds shells for the other user to promote the journalist, thereby appearing not to promote himself. It's a bit unusual, and, in my view, it's borderline abusive.
 * Therefore, I'm not inclined to block without some technical evidence, which would be impossible to obtain because Muhammad's account is stale. Another option for Muhammad only is to question him on whether he is in fact that journalist. WP:IMPERSONATE permits the blocking of a user who pretends to be a notable person but in fact isn't. However, unless he starts editing again, I don't see that as terribly useful at this point.
 * I'll leave this on hold in case you have any additional comments (please put them in your section, not in this one). Otherwise, I will probably close this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)