Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sajjad Altaf/Archive

08 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The two suspected socks first contributed on 8 March 2014 and 27 February 2014, the suspected master on 21 December 2013. The master had created several articles, including one then titled Professor Iqbal Azeem and one about their village in Pakistan, Noor Pur Baghan. The master has shown considerable ownership of those two articles, as reflected by the numerous reverts to poor versions and discussions on the respective talk pages. The discussions have involved a number of experienced editors, all of whom have aligned themselves against the master.

At first, one would AGF and bear in mind newbie status but as things have developed there have been suggestions of sock- or meatpuppeting from, for example, (eg: here), while  has brought up the issue of WP:ROPE here. I'm pretty sure that has commented somewhere also but can't find it.

DJBaghi seems to edit quite a lot from a mobile device, as does Bhatti Rajpoot and the suspected master. The latter two have also engaged in disruptive behaviour at Dulla Bhatti - again, I acknowledge that this may reflect newbie status.

The village article is particularly interesting. Its creation by mobile (and its creator) was featured in a news story, as noted at the head of User:Sajjad Altaf. The village is a tiny, obscure place even by the creator's admission but it is possible that the news item caused the suspected socks to arrive at the article. That said, their arrival was a month or so later than the publication and that three newbie/disruptive contributors all using mobiles should appear there seems statistically odd to me.

I think it would set everyone's mind at rest if we could nail this issue because things are becoming increasingly heated. Sitush (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

This is ridiculous, I have no relation to those other two accounts and also argument about editing from a mobile device is ridiculous as well, a lot of people can edit from a mobile for different reasons, I only followed the link from newspaper and decided to check the contribs of page and found gross irregularities. I have nothing else to add to it, you can continue with the investigation but I will like to get a final report before an action is taken against me. DJ Baghi (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Sitush's version. I need to suspend good faith in viewing the edits of DJ Baghi and Bhatti Rajpoot; I don't believe either are new editors. DJ's initial run of edits was the removal of unsourced content from multiple articles, a rather sophisticated starting point. As noted above, Bhatti early on entered the fray at Dulla Bhatti, with the appearance to this editor that warring could be conducted by separate accounts, evading a block. I'm also seeing marked stylistic and typographic similarities between the three accounts at the Noor Pur Baghan talk page; again, that two new mobile accounts appear in short order and lengthen an already interminable discussion about a small village is a coincidence of grand order. An example of likeness in style:, , . The new accounts were quite familiar with what had transpired at the page. As background, I first noticed all this through COI concerns, wherein Sajjad was attempting to write a promotional piece about his hometown, and adding the glancing mention both he and Noor Pur Baghan--actually, that the article about Noor Pur Baghan, not the town itself--received in the Times. I think being thwarted in this determination has helped to engender much of what's followed here. JNW (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Would this matter be decided by vote here? Did I ever claim that I was am a new contributor, I have been an anonymous contributor before. Also definitely I got familiar with what was going on when I checked the contribs. Since I have reviewed contribs of Sajjad and Bhatti both, I can definitely give my opinion about contribs of them both, while I can see that Sajjad was relying on mostly unsourced contact which was silly but I don't see Bhatti supporting Sajjad, he came with sources and improved the article a lot but his valid sources were removed, when I came to the article, I saw all this happening and decided to help, now this might be an article about a small town but it is in news and anybody can get to it, review it and make improvements. I did not myself support Sajjad's point of view but Bhatti's off course because the guy helped a lot with sources and it would be pitty to see any of these accounts blocked. The intention to improve must be considered. DJ Baghi (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * & are ✅.  is .  Tiptoety  talk 02:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Master and confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. Possible account blocked per behaviour. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)