Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SyedNaqvi90/Archive

Evidence submitted by User:Fastily
Similar userpages (see and  ). As of 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC), SyedNaqvi90 is currently running for adminship at Requests for adminship/SyedNaqvi90. Mohsin Ahmed, who has been inactive for some time now, conveniently returns to !vote support. Both users have exhibited similar behavioral patterns (e.g. editing same articles/topics, uploading files with missing copyright status). -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
No brother i ain't any sockpuppet, i am his cousin, he requested me to support him hence i did my job to satisfy him and since i consider him to be the right guy for Shia related-articles, thats all.Mohsin Ahmed (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
An old version of SyedNaqvi90's user page claimed his name to be Mohsin Ahmed. He changed that a few weeks later through several intermediate stages: Huon (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought it seems probable that in the edit given above SyedNaqvi90 copied Mohsin Ahmed's user page in its entirety. Older versions of SyedNaqvi90's user page give his name as Monamin Ahmed, and he again changed it to that version immediately, while the last step to the current name version happened a few weeks later. I don't think that we can conclude anything based on those edits. Sorry for not being thorough enough when I first posted here. Huon (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

decline SpitfireTally-ho! 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given what Huon has said above, the support in the RfA, and these edits  I'm endorsing this for checkuser, as it would appear that the accounts are related (and not in the way they're claiming). Even if the results come back negative this would still appear to be a case of meat puppetry. SpitfireTally-ho! 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ that the are editing often from the same IP on perhaps the same machine. With the admission of meatitude above, they-or-he probably needs a strong discouragement from this behavior, especially on applications for adminship. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * == ** (see
 * == ** (see
 * == ** (see

-- Avi (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Two sockpuppets blocked; SyedNaqvi90 warned. NW ( Talk ) 19:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by AllahLovesYou
SyedNaqvi90 was blocked on 31 August 2010 because he violated Wiki-policies according to him. He was unwilling to accept major academic and government sources that may show lower percentage for Shias in Pakistan.


 * 1) After SyedNaqvi90 was blocked Humaliwalay began removing sources from the same page, unwilling to accept major sources such as Library of Congress. Humaliwalay: "Libraray of Congress is not as authentic as PEW and other reliable sources"
 * 2) From the tone of their language I noticed that SayedNaqvi90 and Humaliwalay are showing Shia nationalism and dislike toward Sunni Muslims, they are engaged in some sort of anti-Sunni propaganda, falsfication of sources and ridiculous POV-pushing. I understand that there are differences between people all around the world but that doesn't mean Wikipedia (encyclopedia) should be used for openly attacking a billion people by writing stuff like this about others (basically nonsense).
 * 3) For example, among many other nonsense, Humaliwalay inserts in articles: "The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine", which is backed by these fake unverfiable sources: Fatmaada Aalamgeer Vol.5, Page 134. Fatwa Siraajiya, Page 75. http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg
 * 4) Both of these users have been leaving messages on my talk page in a very similar way, and both even use very similar wordings (i.e. they both often use the word "hence"). I hope this is enough evidence needed. Thanks! AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
The evidence complied above is pretty convincing and well laid out, just a couple of notes; firstly, this section on SyedNaqvi90's talk page: user talk:SyedNaqvi90. And secondly, it's worth noting that the Humaliwalay account was created before the last check on, but didn't turn up in the sleeper check. Neither of these points refute the accusation of sockpuppetry per-se. As AllahLovesYou points out both the users make extensive use of the word "hence", and the edit warring at Shi'a Islam in Pakistan should be noted. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparison of geolocation could be useful in this case, and the behavioral is admittedly quite strong. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Behaviors are similar enough to warrent a CU to confirm the suspicions, especially as we are dealing with a former socker here. ( X!  ·  talk )  · @183  · 03:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically ❌. -- Luk  talk 07:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * closing. Not enough behavioral evidence to justify a WP:DUCK block. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

30 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

After reverting an improper blanking, the user approached my talk page, ostensibly seeking assistance. Based on the block log and creation log, the evasion aspect is troublesome. The user is expressing remorse, blaming youthful indiscretion, and stating a desire to remove "personal information". If they are serious about "coming clean", they should be forthright with any other accounts that may exist, and if he deserves a revdel somewhere, I'm sure this office will know the best practice. —John Cline (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2013 (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 on a purely technical basis - this is clearly block evasion. However, it may have been with good intention, so I don't think this should be held against him if he wants to appeal for an unblock. I have also deleted the page in question per his request, since I don't see any reason to deny that request.  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing this case. should request unblock using the normal procedures.  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)