Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AwardPunjabi/Archive

24 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Recreated Amandeep Singh Suniara after being blanked by User:Amandeep Singh Suniara which seems to be an autobiography; may be attempting to hide the autobiographical/promotional aspect 331dot (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I added who was also engaged in blanking and recreating of Amandeep Singh Suniara.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:13, 25 February 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

 * - please, compare those three accounts.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The three accounts are ✅. Courcelles (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

19 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Recreated Mandhir Singh Chahal, like the past case. It has he same "modest family" quote, and I suspect it is mostly the same content. This may be AwardPunjabi instead, based on username similarities to past socks. Sorry for the accidental SPI filed under this sock. GABHello! 13:35, 19 April 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

 * Harvindersingh2092 is to previous socks of .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock of based on the likely CU and behavioral evidence. Archiving clerk, please archive this report to: Sockpuppet investigations/AwardPunjabi. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

20 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Harwy134 first added this entry for Mandhir Singh Chahal and then Teshanchd recreated Mandhir Singh and repeated the same thing here. Thank you – GSS (talk) 07:13, 20 April 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

 * - This case should be compared with Rahul0500 (Sockpuppet investigations/Rahul0500). They were all (re-)creating page Mandhir Singh Chahal.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * is very a sock of  (I used blocked sock  for comparison). They are  related to Sockpuppet investigations/Rahul0500.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, closing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

A newly registered user mostly editing the pages created by the master and another sock Harwinder1341699 such as this and this possible sock has listed some articles in his/her userpage as created by him/her but some of the articles are originally created by the sock and master such as Sukhdeep Sukh and Nav Bajwa also the username HarwinderSingh is very similar to User:Harwinder1341699. GSS (talk) 19:00, 20 September 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

 * the accounts in this case's archive are stale, but I happened to notice that edits on this account's user page (e.g. ) closely match some I saw in a different case this morning. Please check against Sockpuppet investigations/Itsmukeshhere. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * HarwinderSingh is ❌ to Itsmukeshhere.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to HarwinderSingh:
 * Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems that the farm is related to AwardPunjabi and not Itsmukeshhere. I'd blocked HarwinderSingh as a suspected sock before I saw this. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems that the farm is related to AwardPunjabi and not Itsmukeshhere. I'd blocked HarwinderSingh as a suspected sock before I saw this. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems that the farm is related to AwardPunjabi and not Itsmukeshhere. I'd blocked HarwinderSingh as a suspected sock before I saw this. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The possible sock recreated Mandhir Singh (Chahal) by repeating the same behavior they do in article title (adding surname in brackets e.g. Harjinder Singh (Kukreja) and Amandeep Singh (Suniara)) to trick NPP. See other case Sockpuppet investigations/Rahul0500/Archive as well. GSS (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This might be a case of mere suspection. This user has contributed to Punjabi Wikipedia as well unlike the other user who has only made some contribution to English Wikipedia only. The block should be lifted so he can keep contributing.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 08:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It must be a case of meat puppetry or undisclosed paid editing because this user repeated the same trick (adding surname within brackets) which earlier used by other socks on multiple pages and I don't think any normal new user do that on the particular name which already has a deletion log. GSS (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Samdeepsinghone was registered on Oct 6, 2016 at Punjabi Wikipedia and made only 8 edits so far (verify). GSS (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a new user on Wikipedia itself but I just wanted to point out that there is a difference in the activity of this user. A normal new user would not know the gravity of creating an article that has already been deleted. Can someone please check the unblock request from the user and ask for more clarification if required ? --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think its really unusual a new user repeat the same thing that master and other socks has done. This user added surname in brackets and I don't think any new user do that rather than naming it simple. Am also not getting why you are very much interested in his/her unblock I never saw you doing this before on any SPI, earlier you said this user is active on Punjabi Wikipedia where s/he only made few edits. GSS (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am requesting for unblock because the article has been restored and that we can let the user contest the deletion of the article. I just said that this user has contributed to Punjabi Wikipedia which makes the activity different from other editors. Although it is unusual but we should also not rule out that the use of brackets might just be coincidental. This is causing harm to Wikipedia as other articles created by the user are also up for speedy deletion. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 04:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well likewise the master AwardPunjabi has contributed to Wikinews which can not make him unrelated/different to other socks. There are some more coincident you may look. Samdeepsinghone repeated the same contents at Giddarbaha which earlier made by and other socks see diff here and here. Samdeepsinghone also repeated the same behaviour Irregular punctuation see here by Samdeepsinghone and here here and here by others. GSS (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. There are some similarities here. I would like to see what the user has to say about this.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 12:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure take your time and let's see if s/he tell the truth. GSS (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Found some more behavioral evidences, Samdeepsinghone repeated the same thing which did at the time of his block as when Bbb23 posted block message on Rahul0500 talk page he then requested unblock within the same template rather than adding the   template at the bottom of his talk page and Samdeepsinghone also did the same mistake (See diff here and here) also the use of very is common in both users (e.g. user Rahul0500 said from this very moment and Samdeepsinghone said At that very time see here and here). GSS  (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah as per the behavior of this editor seems more related to the group and last night I realize one more thing about Irregular punctuation which Samdeepsinghone denied on his talk page by saying I cannot distinguish a irregular punctuation mark as it was a mistake made by me  but I saw his Facebook profile and almost on every post he added Irregular punctuation which are more related to the group Rahul0500 (e.g. this post). GSS (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand now that there is a lot of behavioral evidence in this case but I would just like to ask that how can a user contribute if he has been wrongly blocked ? I mean what is the enwiki policy on this ? And do we insist that users once blocked must not be able to contribute ever ? --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 06:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If a user been blocked they can request unblock by simply adding  at their talk page along with a explanation please read What to do if you are blocked and WP:BANHAMMER. You can also read  Defending yourself against claims at SPI. GSS  (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note: Since this SPI is closed I have moved the above discusion with Sandeep Gill on my talk page. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you – GSS (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * BLocked and tagged as a suspected sock but I think CU is needed as there are usually multiple socks. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The account is ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . It's a bit weird though. THere's a lot of behavioral evidence beyond what was provided above that led me to the suspected sock block including this thing around PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab which is where AwardPunjabi gets his name from. At the least, I think it's meat puppetry but I'm fine with any admin overruling me on this. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if a CU determines they're unrelated, that's only from a technical point of view. Behavioural evidence can tie the accounts together through evidence as technical measures can be taken to defeat the CU process. I've looked over the evidence and it seems substantial. I'm inclined to leave the blocks and address any unblock requests then if they're filed. Mkdw talk 22:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted on Satdeep Gill's userpage here, in response to his concern that the article for Harp Farmer shouldn't be restored because the CU results did not come back as positive. The gist of what I wrote is that CU results aren't the only thing that SPIs should be decided on - the people who make the ultimate decisions also need to look at behavioral evidence, especially as it's actually relatively easy to mask your IP or do other things to give off the impression that you aren't editing from the same computer. While I like that he's trying to assume good faith here, the behavioral evidence seems to be overwhelming in this situation, especially given that AwardPunjabi's actions appear to be quite distinctive. Something that I'd wager is that this might be a case of undisclosed paid editing - the editor was blocked for many reasons that include promotional editing, so it stands to reason that they would possibly hire someone to create articles in their stead, in the hopes of evading detection. I've seen it happen before, where the new person is given the content and told to post it exactly as was written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

SPA user registered today to recreate Rini Chandra which was earlier created by a confirmed sock HarwinderSingh. The article was started at draftspace as Draft:Rini Chandra (Singer) by adding "Singer" in brackets to game the system which is really common in this group as per my past experience. The user also made some edits at Yam Hain Hum where earlier HarwinderSingh linked Rini Chandra. Am unable to see the deleted version but this looks like a copy of that. GSS (talk) 16:02, 25 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

 * blocked as a suspected sock. Behavioral evidence seems sufficient. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)