Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amanharleen/Archive

01 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Like the last 2 sockpuppets of this user, this user is trying to change the history of many battles to decisive sikh victories, claiming the content in these pages is unsourced, and starting all their posts with "Sir, this is falsified content". here, here, here, here. This behaviour is almost identical to User:Ak107839, who is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Amanharleen. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of User:Ak107839 diffs: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here. This is a selection of their contributions, but all their edits were about Sikh battles/falsified content. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 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

 * -, please provide some diffs by to illustrate similarities between Jasmeen-229 and Ak107839.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, and are ✅. I've blocked and tagged the account. Mike V • Talk 00:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

04 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same requests on the same pages in the same style, uding same/similar sources. here, here, here, here. Comparing with the diffs from 1 April investigation (see Sockpuppet investigations/Amanharleen/Archive), it seems like a duck to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 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

 * Account has been blocked by KrakatoaKatie. Mike V • Talk 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

11 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same editing of history to Sikh victory, same sources as the other socks. See for example here, here, here, here. Seems like a duck to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 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

 * - It's not so convincing to call it a WP:Duck, but still enough for a CU (see, for example this and this).  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Account blocked and tagged. Mike V • Talk 05:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

22 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The main account is User:Amanharleen (the sock master). The corresponding account Sukhleenkoyr has already been banned because of using multiple accounts. Now, this new IP address has popped up. User:Sukhleenkoyr had requested me for help saying Wikipedia blocks her again and again. Check this out for evidence - Message 1. Here, she clearly states being a sock puppet user.

Now, why I think this IP Address is a sock puppet- This IP Address had only three contributions BEFORE sending me a message. She sent me a message regarding help (Message 2) to check the truthfulness of the article Siege of Sirhind. Two questions arise here: i) From where did she get my account and trusted me for help when this is a new user and we have never had common contributions, or talks. Moreover, I am not even an admin. So basically, I was the first person the user got for help because she had talked to me from previous accounts. ii) Why did she had same typing, writing or grammar habits as the other two accounts had? For example, in the above two messages that she sent me from different accounts, she had a habit of not giving a title to the message, writing 'Sir' again and again, capitalizing only the first letter of the sentence, writing with the same tone.

The last evidence, all the three accounts have been active mainly on Sikhism related articles. This user must be investigated for sock-puppetry on the evidence above. Thanks! Kashish Arora (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The content of the message on your talkpage seems to be exactly the same style as with other socks, the key similarities being that they start it with "Sir" (which I've never seen another user do), and claims sourced information about Sikh Battles is fake. Seems like a duck to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The user here looks like trying to show respect whenever she wants a favour. I observed this a lot times! When she first messaged me, she was angry and anxious when I reverted her edit. At that time, there was no 'Sir'. The next time when the user knew that I am confident about the reversion, and that User:Richard Harvey had told me about the sock-puppetry, she requested and used 'Sir'. This has happened in many more cases.--Kashish Arora (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Yes, indeed. Her writing style is similar, and all accounts are interested in the Siege of Sirhind (see:, , ). .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a week. Mike V • Talk 15:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

24 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same fake alternative history edits, and also starting every sentence with "Sir", like only the sockpupppets do. See for example here,here, here, here. Seems like a duck to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 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
Again interested in the Siege of Sirhind, again calling other users "sir".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sock is blocked and tagged. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

27 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same made-up/poorly sourced edits as before. See, , , , , Battle of Anandpur (1701), First Battle of Chamkaur (deleted). Obvious WP:DUCK, all these pages have been frequented at some point by Amanharleen socks. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have added another "new user" that has the same editing style. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs for Lolitsmekk:, . WP:DUCK.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffing socks and closing.

30 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same fake Sikh history, editing similar articles to other socks, and creating similar "Decisive Sikh Battle" Pages, and referring to people as Sir. Battle of Sialkot (1761),, , List of the Sikhs Hanged During Indian National Movement, , Battle of Sialkot (1763). Seems like a duck to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Battle of Gohalwar. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Jasmeenkour has been added, diffs are, , ,. WP:DUCK

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocking both socks for now w/o checkuser being necessary and closing. I've set some protections.

03 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Sikh fake history again, see, , , (restoring of sock material this one),  and created Battle of Gohalwar (1757). WP:DUCK Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also calling me sir here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffing and closing.

12 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar Sikh history edits. Created Battle of Gohalwar (as another sock also did), and Battle of Sialkot. Also, unverified, pro-Sikh history changes, , ,. Seems like a duck to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Diffs: Battle of Sarsa: Them:, other socks:, Battle of Bhangani Them:, other socks: , Ahmad Shah Durrani Them:, other socks: ,.

All the pages they're frequenting are the same as socks of Amanharleen, with a number of similar edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to correct a little misconception: If a sock is obvious enough to be classified as a WP:DUCK, then we won't need to use CU. If you really want the suspect to be checked, though, we'll need to see diffs comparing this account to the master and/or some earlier socks. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diffs, unfortunately the CU results are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffing master and closing.

20 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

No CU needed I believe, just fast intervention in order to prevent more damage. I'm 100% sure it's another sock of him. Same exact edit summaries, exact same article interests (Mughals/Indian history), same broken English, and most importantly, reinstating the exact same info confirmed socks of him added.

Two confirmed socks of of Amanharleen added this , And Delhibaghelsingh added this. LouisAragon (talk) 06:37, 20 June 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An admin is needed to block the obvious sock.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffing sock and closing.

18 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Amanharleen has a history of being a sock-puppet on Wikipedia (i.e. see Shah439). The user has a history of using multiple accounts to distort information in the Mughal-Sikh Wars category and articles pertaining to this topic. An example may be seen in the attempt to include the Battle of Basoli in the list, without providing any source to prove that there was any Mughal involvement (see ,,). The user has also published a variety of articles, while making up information that is not stated in the source. See for example. Xtremedood (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Both user:Chotaaman and user:106.192.185.219 are removing 'speedy delete' templates that exist to remove article made by a sockpuppet of Amanharleen. These articles are, , . user:Delhibaghelsingh has been exposed as a sockpuppet of user:Amanharleen. See the diffs here: , , , , etc.
 * Update: The user seems to have made a new account called user:106.192.159.98, as shown by this edit
 * Added new user that started reverting Xtremedood's edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly a new puppet-fest by this long-term vandaliser. Note how user "Chotaaman" reinstated the exact same info here which has been reinstated by at least 3-4 already indeffed socks of Amanharleen on that article.( - - )
 * Btw, mods, could you please list all the articles he has created by his sock armies for speedy deletion? Everytime he gets back one of the first thing this puppet master does is creating a load of articles, that don't get listed for (speedy) deletion.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 21:16, 20 July 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

 * - to compare Chotaaman, Chotarippl and Madhyapak to each other (previous socks are, I believe ). Evidence: and,  and .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅: =  = . No obvious sleepers, and the IP's will need behavioural evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IPs have been inactive for the last two days. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

22 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I came across this while G5 deleting some of the earlier banned creations and the account appears to have been created after CU check. Bringing here as someone with knowledge of the master can evaluate and block and/or do a CU as I've noticed multiple active accounts per past SPI. This, these etc seem to indicate a sock. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:44, 22 July 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

 * is ✅ from the Amanharleen sock set. Note already blocked and tagged by JamesBWatson. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, since the account's already blocked and tagged, I'm marking for close. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging this followup sock. I should add there were no apparent sleepers here either. But no doubt they'll be along soon. -- Euryalus (talk),

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Duck, more fake Sikh history:
 * created Battle of Gohalwar (Amritsar,1757), evidently aiming to avoid detection of Battle of Gohalwar, speedied twice G5 for this puppeteer:, "result = Decisive Sikh victory".
 * changed Sino-Sikh War infobox from "result= Military stalemate, Treaty of Chushul" to "result= Sikh victory":
 * changed victories in Afghan–Sikh Wars from "Afghan victory" to "Sikh victory": OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2016 (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

 * Indefinitely blocked per WP:DUCK. Closing now. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Adding "Sikh victory" to battles, same as sockpuppets in the past would do. Sro23 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2016 (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

 * Sock indeffed and tagged. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)