Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umair Aj/Archive

14 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

All accounts (two of them recently activated) engage in an identical edit-warring pattern on Babek (ballet), in an apparent attempt to avoid breaking WP:3RR and/or bait others into breaking it:, , , ,. --> Parishan (talk) 17:15, 14 October 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

 * The following 3 accounts are ✅:


 * I've blocked the socks and issued a 2 week block for the master account. I've also semi-protected the page under edit war for 1 week. . Mike V • Talk 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recent revision history of page Arijit Singh


 * Diff : Check this same pattern of deleting references and vandalizing contents on the same page by two different accounts -,

The page was initially persistently vandalized by the master sock account e.g- deleting references and replacing it by citation needed tag (disruptive editing). Removing direct quotes violating MOS:PMC policy. Intentional acts of removing contents and justifying it by misinterpreting policies by master sock account. It's quite interesting to note that the suspected sock account Intoxicatedmidnight was created in June 2017, when the disruptive editing by the mastersock begun. Recently the suspected sock Intoxicatedmidnght vandalized contents on the same page. It is to be noted that the suspected mastersock Umair Aj was previously blocked for edit warring and multiple abusive use of accounts. Anoptimistix  Let's Talk  04:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)  Anoptimistix   Let's Talk  04:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I have reported User:Anoptimistix for sockpuppeting a few days ago because being a fan he was vandalizing Arjit Singh. The article resembles a fan site and me as well as other editors removed the promotional content as it had serious issues of impartiality of tone, undue weight, peacocking and overuse of quotes. My removal of POV content was not objected by any editor less Anoptimistix and here is the evidence of his false claims. So logically speaking being well versed with the consequences of sockpuppeting, I have no need to create multiple accounts. Moreover, he has reported me to WP:ANI several times but did not get the desired results. My best guess is Anoptimistix himself created his sock and just trying to put all this on me not knowing that such actions cannot remain hidden from an SPI clerk.-Umair Aj (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply : Well Umair Aj thanks for sharing SPI report, where I was proved as innocent. But you really need to understand what is vandalism WP:Vand defines vandalism as any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, which you are doing since many days admins and other users too warned you on your talk page for vandalizing contents many times. Anoptimistix  Let's Talk  15:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Anoptimistix, Please feel free to start a fan site for Arjit Singh but you just can't add promotional content on Wikipedia. Please go through Arjit Singh's talk page where every editor raised concerns over your promotional content and no one reverted my edits. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with impartiality of tone, undue weight, peacocking etc. And please do not be sarcastic here because this forum is only meant to investigate sockpuppeting. So wait for SPI clerk's decision as I think that you have created this account to accuse me.-Umair Aj (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved editor comment: the diffs provided above by Anoptimistix are not very convincing, and I can't see any similarity between Umair Aj's edits and those of the two purported socks. Neither the editing pattern nor the writing style is similar. I also don't see any vandalism from Umair Aj in the edits to the article in question (certainly not in the diff given) - this is basically a content dispute between two editors editing in good faith, from what I can tell. As a matter of fact, UA is the one who sticks to policy here, in trying to make a very promotional article a little more neutral. Don't throw the word "vandalism" around when it is eminently clear that there is no deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. If you disagree with the interpretation of policy, discuss that, not the other people (and that goes for both sides here - saying to your opponent "you are taking things personally" doesn't usually make people more willing to collaborate.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have removed personally as per your objection. Actually this guy does not understand a word and has been reporting me on vandalism charges for the last many weeks and now for sock puppetry. He is a die hard fan of Arjit Singh and does not leave any stone unturned when it comes for adding promotional content. Anyways, I am grateful.-Umair Aj (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply by Anoptimistix - Well I do not intend to interrupt SPI investigation or comment in other users section but as the suspected Master sock (who were also previously blocked for sockpuppeting) are making personal attacks on me, I have no option except reply. Firstly the page of Arijit Singh was not created by me, secondly trusted prolific and great administrator who is also a checkuser who goes by username Materialscientist visited that page several times for reverting vandalism, they never raised any objection on any contents which were edited by several editors over years, much before I joined wikipedia. And recently administrator Hyacinth made edits on the page like fixing inlinks when the page was admin protected, but didn't removed anything and also administrator CambridgeBayWeather fixed the vandalized direct quotes by observing the original wording policy, the original quotes we're smartly twisted by Umair Aj. These admins are respected, prolific and have decades of editing experience. I still stand by my checkuser request, as checkuser can only check how many accounts were used by a single person for editing Wikipedia. Anoptimistix  Let's Talk  12:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's suspicious, but I'm unconvinced by the provided evidence. If these were edits to obscure articles then I might be convinced by the diffs alone, but these are articles on celebrities in a populous country, and articles like that can often attract a lot of editors with strong opinions. There's also a bunch of stuff here that doesn't add up; you'd expect socks defending each other to have a large number of articles in common, but they've only got three articles in common with each other, and many of the edits to those articles are innocuous. Given the lack of other similarities, it's looking to me like these are unrelated accounts that happened to align with each other on a few articles, which is odd but not unprecedented. are there any extra diffs you can provide showing more similarities? --Deskana (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No more evidence has been provided, so closing. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

'Sunrays21' was created by an IP(and other IPs) after semi-protection of pages they were vandalizing. Both 'Sunrays21' and 'Umair Aj' are stalking my edits since last couple of days, it can not be a coincidence. Both these account edit only those pages I have edited earlier. Earlier they were using IPs, one of which was blocked earlier. DHSULP (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC) DHSULP (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Currently there is a sock puppet investigation going on against this user here and he has been previously blocked here. I have also reported him at WP:AN/3RR. This might be a counter attack from the sock.-Umair Aj (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * my exact thoughts. the articles in discussion are sort of heavy traffic articles. But the overall activities with these two users (Umair Aj, and DHSULP) are fishy. — usernamekiran (talk)  14:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked Sunrays21 for a week for disruptive editing, and have told them to contact me privately about it. That's all there is to be done here for now. --Deskana (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)