Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oriental Aristocrat/Archive


Oriental Aristocrat

Oriental Aristocrat (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)

20 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Similarity in reverts: [1] & [2] also similarity in blanking talk page notices [3] & [4]. I reached to the article history by coincidence. Two opposite sides may be in edit wars. Did not study likelyhood of socking by opposite side for want time and searching socks was not my focus as such and also I am still not confident in assessing likely hood of sockpuppetry.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@Blablubbs, GeneralNotability, and RoySmith: Oriental Aristocrat and War Wounded look same. They falsely claim others of providing "misleading edit summary"[5] and "unexplained violation"[6] as reason while themselves failing to provide any reason for mass revert.
I note, that Depressed Desi with his earlier socks was also making the same edit on Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, [7] just like Oriental Aristocrat[8] and War Wounded[9] are doing.
Looking here and also at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi, the behavior is clear enough to warrant a WP:DUCK block because CU conclusion by GeneralNotability and Blablubbs already say "possible". It is becoming harder to delay because this sock, Oriental Aristocrat is already getting out of control. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, the only reason I restored content on Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article was after seeing User:Dhawangupta who had no previous edits to the said article making mass removals (see: 1 and 2) with false edit summaries. I suspect that Dhawangupta, OP and Aman are themselves part of a WP:MEAT WP:CABAL, if not socks of each other. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Can you take a look here? This is a case of WP:DUCK given the above comment further proves that this sock is exactly mimicking behavior of previous socks to the extent that he is now making absurd counterclaims of sockpuppetry,[10] just like he did with earlier socks.[11] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - CheckUsers cannot link IP addresses to accounts per the checkuser policy. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passerby note: I haven't run any checks, but Oriental Aristocrat looks behaviourally similar to War Wounded (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki), who is currently reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran a check to compare the two accounts. I'd say they're  Possible to each other, and that Oriental Aristocrat looks consistent with what I can see from the logs for the Depressed Desi case – more consistent than War Wounded. I'll leave the final call to someone else because ARBIPA behavioural evaluations aren't really my forte, but I'd suggest that whoever handles this case also evaluate the behavioural relationship to Depressed Desi and War Wounded (see the shared interest in, and similar edits to, Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – [22][23][24]). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). --Blablubbs (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've spent a couple of hours looking through the behavior here, and I see no similarities strong enough for a block. The clear-cut similarities are restricted to Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which is a known POV-magnet, and has seen slow-moving edit-wars over India's alleged support for the insurgents for a long time. As such I believe it's more likely this is garden-variety pov-pushing, and possibly off-wiki coordination, than outright socking. I'm particularly reluctant to block because the two established sockfarms discussed here and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi (Depressed Desi and ShahabKhanJadoon1) have very obvious behavioral similarities within them. I agree with AKG above that Oriental Aristocrat is being disruptive, and if they do not mend their ways a sanction will likely be needed, but I do not see enough for a sockpuppetry block myself. No objection to anyone more experienced with ARBIPA socks placing a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aman.kumar.goel: I'm afraid it doesn't convince me: those are similarities, but not obvious similarities. The Taliban vote is another that brings out nationalist POV-pushing. The 15th assembly is the current assembly; and Asad Rauf was an internationally famous (or infamous) figure. I am not willing to place a block based on behavior alone. I have no objection to a CU placing a block based on the combination of technical evidence (which I cannot see) and the behavior, and if that is an option I would note that I find the evidence marginally stronger for Oriental Aristocrat than for War Wounded. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the case under the named account per convention and I am closing without action at this time based on Vanamonde93's comments. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

First edit was to ITN, an interested shared with all his other socks.[25][26]

"Maharaja" means Emperor. He created account with same name before too, which was "Emperor of India".

I note the suspected (not convicted) sock to this sockfarm, "Oriental Aristocrat" failed to get himself unblocked,[27] thus he must have made this account to evade block.

119.153.38.84 is making the same allegation here (on Hindu terrorism) of "cabal" as Oriental Aristocrat recently did.[28] This is crucial because when Oriental Aristocrat was also opposed to moving this page.[29]

RoySmith found violation of logged out editing last time.[30] It probably makes sense that logged out editing violation is happening now as well.

Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: But what about the logged out editing? Apparently, War wounded made a comment,[31] and then the IP left the comment.[32] War wounded was warned last time over logged-out editing.[33] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no No comment with respect to IP address(es) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


09 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar specific interest in creating India-Pakistan conflict stub articles and edits to cricket related articles. The editing pattern is similar as well (see for expample the use + in edit summaries). This sock was further created on the same day the last one was blocked.

Asking for a CU to further confirm this and check for other socks. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


07 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Exact same editing style and disruptive editing in the WP:ARBIPA space with very specific interest areas as of the previous sock Shaheen of Iqbal: recent India-Pakistan even articles, ITN, cricket; see also backing edits prev sock, sock, sock.

Asking for CU to further confirm and check for sleepers (also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi which this SPI is likely related to). Gotitbro (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added another sock with the same ARBIPA disruptions and edits in the niche topic areas, the IP 182.190.205.163 sock also backing the latter. Gotitbro (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

are  Confirmed to each other. The other accounts are stale. Blocking without tags. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


19 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Since October 2023 (the last SPI) this account is making same suspicious edits as other others.

[Here] he is telling to " Please check talk page discussions at the insurgency of KPK article or insurgency in Balochistan articles."[34] That is indeed about Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, his largest obsession on his earlier socks.[35][36]  Looks like a duck to me.

Ping RoySmith and PhilKnight. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Ridiculously report. This user doesn't even look anything like me + why did you wait this long to file this report despite the fact that you've known me for around a year and have interaction history with??? Please know that fish CheckUser is not for fishing and cannot be used to solve your content disputes with other editors that have just recently arisen.

Anyways, don't know if I should bother explaining the circumstantial evidence presented (that seem to look like intentional cherry picked edits in order to frame me) as I doubt CU would show any positive results but just to make things easier for the reviewing admins:

1) [45] This edit is obviously me reverting the sock of User:PrinceOfRoblox, around half of my edits are reverting socks of this user at this point.

2) You are mistaken here. I did not update about India in the edit you've mentioned, I actually updated about Afghanistan at the Terrorism in Pakistan page. I did however revert edit warring afterwards by multiple users that followed on this page

3). At the Turkey-Syria earthquake response page. Are you seriously going to use editing a page that was a global ongoing event at the time as evidence??? That page was hitting millions of views at the time and undergoing rapid expansion.

4). [46] This is just me reverting a suspected sock as clearly explained in my edit summary. There was a lot of content in there than just "Hindus".

Anyways, goodluck fishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiu99 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


26 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Account reactivated after 4 months to vote on this RfC.[47]

This account has also made significant contributions to Lal Haveli,[48][49] (both added dawn.com link) 2024 Pakistani general election,[50][51] and more similar articles just like earlier socks. Capitals00 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Appreciate your work. Lal Haveli is obscure article thus we can conclude that behavioral evidence is conclusive. Thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and Philknight: Reminding. Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


12 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

lots of behavioural edits with User:Oriental Aristocrat and User:Pirate of the High Seas within a short span of time. They exhibit similar interest in editing and are highly active in the "in the news" section. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 17:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • You're reporting an editor with over 20k edits who has been active for 7 years with the scantest of evidence. You will need to be much more thorough and include specific diffs as evidence if you intend to make such accusations. Closing without further action.-- Ponyobons mots 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 June 2024

 Clerk note: Copied from a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335

Suspected sockpuppets

An article was created @ Draft:Na Baligh Afraad on 6 June - I draftified it because it failed to meet GNG. A few days later, @Mfarazbaig re-created Na Baligh Afraad. I draftified it too and clearly mentioned to submit it for review before moving back to main NS. Today, @Mfarazbaig unilaterally moved it back to the main NS without making any effort to address my concerns, saying that “Anyone who disagrees can take it to the AfD”. The similar type of editing behaviour was recently noted by a blocked IP of master account 39.34.135.244 (talk · contribs · 39.34.135.244 WHOIS). It's worth noting that Draft:Na Baligh Afraad has been edited by socks of master account. Moreover, @Mfarazbaig has been previously accused of engaging in UPE by several admins and was a suspected sock of multiple sock farms. In-fact he remained blocked from 2017 to 2023. Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also recently created a PROMO article on SadaPay which was previously created multiple times by UPEs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Technically  Possible. Behaviourally they don't quite match Nauman335, other than the recent common draft targets, probable undisclosed paid editing, and persistently moving rejected drafts back to mainspace. They have a device in common with the case history but are not confirmed to any recently active socks. They also have been logging out to edit in ways that violate WP:LOUTSOCK, which isn't great since they were fairly recently relieved by Arbcom of a very long block for sockpuppetry based partly on the same behaviour.
However, they are also  Likely with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oriental Aristocrat, based on info from the wiki, but that case has been stale for a while. Mfarazbaig's initial block comes from a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital - the case is noted in their block log but as far as I can interpret that report, they were not Liborbital; that report was more like there were a bunch of accounts obviously socking and there was little value in determining which accounts were which users' socks, so they were blocked without a tag. But buried in that report is a user Nauman147, who was determined to be  Possible to Mfarazbaig.
For some more background: that report led to Mfarazbaig being blocked indefinitely on 16 October 2017. Oriental Aristocrat came along a long time later, 17 June 2022, and was blocked as arbitration enforcement for disruptive India-Pakistan editing on 1 May 2023. OA's last known confirmed sock was blocked on 7 November 2023, and there is data from those checks on cuwiki which I would call "technically indistinguishable" with Mfarazbaig now, if not for the time gap. Also, Mfarazbaig's appeal to Arbcom was accepted on the same day that Pirate of the High Seas (OA's latest sock) was blocked. Mfarazbaig was checked at the time but the appeal went through, so I assume Arbcom didn't see what I think should have been apparent at the time (courtesy ping @Izno:). Maybe they were using a proxy at the time? They have used proxies in the past.
I feel that Mfarazbaig should be blocked for logged-out socking and probable undisclosed paid editing, and their probable connection to Oriental Aristocrat, but the successful Arbcom appeal is tripping me up here. I'm going to leave this for more opinions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, your email should contain some brief discussion on the appeal we (former me + AC) got. If there is fresh evidence to indicate continued socking, and moreover, continued socking that established a clear link to Oriental, I'd say you're empowered to issue a new block. But you can get a 2O from a current CU or AC about it given the timing of some things. I'd tend toward AC's inbox. Izno (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Izno, I forgot about that conversation. Seems we agreed then, and agree now, that notwithstanding their successful appeal they should be blocked as anyone else would be if they continue socking.
On that note, in addition to the incriminating technical info, Mfarazbaig didn't edit at all after being unblocked until March 2024, just long enough for the former account to expire from the checkuser window, where their very first edit was restoring a merged-by-consensus article 2023 Zaman Park raid, which had also been repeatedly restored by the OA sock Pirate of the High Seas. Pirate used edit summaries like "passes GNG" and "the scope of this article is different"; Mfarazbaig's edit summaries were "satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT" and "this re-titled article is about the police raid and not the protests". When they hit 3RR there, they created a copy of the article at Zaman Park raid, and then continued edit-warring to keep it separate, noting again "Easily passes GNG and NEVENT". Pirate also had a history of moving drafts to mainspace against AFC advice, such as Khalistan Tiger Force, which is one of Mfarazbaig's behaviours noted by the filer. Add to that Mfarazbaig's recent checkuser-confirmed logged-out edit warring (also over restoring a redirected article) which I can't elaborate on by policy. And for the last thing, the timing of the SPI where Pirate of the High Seas was blocked versus the timing of Mfaragbaiz's Arbcom appeal suggests they may have been trying to get an old account unblocked as they knew their current sock was about to be canned. Mfarazbaig is blocked pending tagging, a status I think I just made up; this finding also makes Mfarazbaig the master of the Oriental Aristocrat case, and I need to think about how to handle that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Started editing days after his another major account was blocked.

His name, "Mister Banker" matches with one of his past sock "Addict Banker".

He updated Ammad Butt,[52] which was created by Mfarazbaig.[53]

Same updates to List of international prime ministerial trips made by Shehbaz Sharif,[54][55] and Shan Masood.[56][57] Capitals00 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


14 November 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

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

  • 58.181.101.0/24 was already blocked when I got here. The other two ranges are anonblocked, 119.155.128.0/17 for 1 year given its history, the other for 2 weeks as it's quite busy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]



28 November 2024

Suspected sockpuppets


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


10 January 2025

Suspected sockpuppets

Restored same edit as the last confirmed sock[80][81][82] also edited Ammad Butt[83][84],a favourite of this sockfarm [85]. Today an IP from this range accused a number of editors of meatpuppetry like their previous sock Mister Banker did [86][87].- Ratnahastin (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think you misspelled the ip address. – Qxvaa (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the IP address but a range of IP addresses. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • A few edits within the range match Oriental Aristocrat's activity, but the range is busy with what appear to be unrelated users. The last edit that's obviously them was five days ago, and it was already reverted. Closing with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18 January 2025

Suspected sockpuppets

They are back to restoring their article again [88][89][90][91] - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also delete Draft:Ammad Shakeel Butt (it has been created after the page was protected) ,if this IP range is blocked due to this SPI. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Note to admin: the OP has to explain why they are redirecting an article edited by multiple editors. Also, I see it was created by some editor (Mfarazbaig) when they weren't under any block or ban sanction. 39.34.145.168 (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments