Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babanwalia/Archive

12 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

WP:DUCK, these 'new editors' have made their only edits in an RfC to support Babanwalia. They are familiar with wiki formatting and possibly acting: Harvard2014 says he has a PhD from Harvard. Soulmine22 says he is a film maker. All six editor display the same impatience to get the RfC to close in thier favour. All five Sockpuppet accounts were formed after the discussion began, and take the same side and have zero edit outside this RfC. AmritasyaPutra T 09:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , the latter three IP addresses, which I just listed, also seem to revert to User:Babanwalia's preferred version of the article. --AnupamTalk 00:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You just have to see the discussion and the resources cited, and the steps taken thereon to see the desperation of the users in favour of inclusion of the Devnagri in the language, which by any means is a far - far fetched hypothesis. When the arguments against the idea started to look strong, someone seem to be calling wolf. To back my hypothesis, I just have to refer the reader to the quality of arguments and citations on both sides. RfC Also from the discussion below and I quote "Then coming to Canvassing, it is as clear that user Anupam has canvassed people too and moreover he is even doling out [barnstars] to other users who are editing towards his preferred versions."  Sirdaar (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * May I ask on what basis are you convinced that (and I quote from below) "I'm convinced that these five accounts are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Babanwalia. I'm going to indef-block them all."? What convinced you? Duck test asks for checking "handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable")" but I don't really think any of these new users (and especially I) made any such bad arguments. I gave references and i think in plenty and didn't just go on ranting about "what I feel or what I don't like"! Nor was the argument approaching one direction so that I had to recruit new people. The sources provided by me and other users are way more credible than those given by the other side. The duck test in a nutshell states that "Administrators may take action against sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry if there are obvious correlations in behavior." What obvious correlations in behaviour were there other than the same opinion expressed? Or were those correlations invented by those with opposite views in the Rfc! This is nothing but a clever trick to discredit the dissenting voices in that Rfc, including mine. I would really like to know the criteria (besides the gut-instinct) you adopted and on what instinct, gut or rational, did you act as such? --Babanwalia (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I will request that User:Jimidar maybe unblocked, if the block is due to sock puppetry (not canvassing). It is clear that Babanwalia may have canvassed these users here. Jimidar have made some edits to Panjabi Wikipedia in the past and to some other non-wiki forums. I have edited Panjabi Wikipedia for a year and know him from there. In short, I have a strong belief that Jimidar is a different user. I can't say about the rest. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this info. I have left a note on Jimidar's talk page on the Punjabi Wikipedia, explaining the situation and asking him to contact me.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

So, the case has been open for more than 10 days and I am informed now on 24th of November? I had hoped for an impartial procedure at least, here on Wikipedia! Now coming to defend myself, I am an active editor and an administrator at Punjabi Wikipedia and certainly know how gravely the matters of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry cases are taken. I do not need to recruit people to my cause when I have provided literally scores of credible sources to prove my point. So just because people are coming up to oppose Anupam's and AmritasyaPutra's point of view doesn't automatically mean I have been canvassing them. Even I am not as active on English Wikipedia as I am on the Punjabi one. In fact, I categorically assert that I don't know single one of them personally or otherwise. I only know users Guglani and Itar buttar, that too since they are active editors on Punjabi Wikipedia. Even I suspect might they have been canvassed but rest assured, I am not behind that! Can you present any conclusive evidence other than they being supporting the same view-point as is supported by me? Our IP addresses don't match. There is no suspicious pattern you could unearth (again other than that of these users, sockpuppeted or not, opposing the inclusion of Devanagri). What I definitely did was re-position their comments since they were commenting here and there on inactive discussions. These accusations by certain users seem to be made in bad faith and for besmirching my edits done i god faith, nothing more than stooping to a new low and I hope an impartial authority would take cognizance of the same and put the matter to rest. In fact, I sent an email ( I can present you with the snapshot of how I innocently asked him/her to put his comments in the relevant section through the Wiki messaging system since I didn't them personally) to one of the user to ask him to keep his comments in the proper section, before I did that myself. Very disappointed with the bullying behaviour shown by some users here and it is certainly beginning to reek of collaborative harassment. :( --Babanwalia (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Moreover, this user Sirdaar, you have so hastily blocked, seemed to be have started taking interest in other discussions on the page in which I did not even participate or was interested in. It is evident from how they are giving their views retrospectively on certain issues. So, that needs to be considered too. Perhaps in bid to paint everyone with he same brush, you are scaring away some new users! --Babanwalia (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't blocked, and neither has anyone else. As for the accounts which have been blocked — if they are in fact different people (not sockpuppets), and if they are prepared to assure us that they will stay far away from anything even resembling meatpuppetry, then I would see no objection to their being unblocked.  They can still edit their respective user talk pages to post "unblock" requests; if they need help formatting an unblock request, I will be happy to assist them.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad but you did block and as it turns out, he is a genuine user. He explained it on his talk-page at Punjabi wiki. The reasons given by him seem genuine enough for me to believe how other users like Harvard et al came here. I don't know anyone of them, not even Jimidar even though he had been somewhat active at Punjabi wiki. I don't really know? Did you give them a chance to explain themselves before imposing a block for indefinite period? Oh, they need to explain themselves? Did you leave a message on their talk-page? You did not think it apt to leave one on mine either. Or are you still convinced that just because you informed me, I will log-in through these accounts and start defending myself? I'm not really sure how blocking works but is this responsible behaviour or just acting on the whims of others especially those who have fabricated this whole case out of malicious intentions and to divert attention from their own shady edits. Yes, it seems something fishy is going on between the said users and those overseeing this investigation. --Babanwalia (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As I am reading more and more about the whole procedure, I'm appalled at how much this investigation is being carried out in bad faith esp. by some if not all. Wiki says "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only" and this evidence is certainly amiss. Then coming to Canvassing, it is as clear that user Anupam has canvassed people too and moreover he is even doling out [barnstars] to other users who are editing towards his preferred versions. Coming to quick assumptions now, WIki states "It is important to assume good faith whenever possible and not jump to the conclusion that sock puppetry is occurring just because one or more signs are present. Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sock puppet investigation." When were the edits disruptive. Even now Anupam's version holds on the page and other versions have been repeatedly reverted by Anupam and other users (possibly canvassed). It goes on to state "Don't automatically cry "sockpuppet!" when a brand-new account simply and solely shows proficiency.  In years gone by, when Wikipedia was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it is now 2014." But this is what is happening here, unfortunately! And then it states "When an account is brand new, it is possible that it has been used initially to edit just a single page or a group of related pages. But in the future, it'll be used to perform other edits that are barely related or not related at all. Such an account is not a single-purpose account. And there is no deadline to perform that edit that makes it no longer appear as one." But no, even when users like Sirdaar have started editing  elsewhere too, there's hue and cry of sockpuppetry. Biting the newcomers much?! Of particular interest is this "But every time it is put up for AfD, quite a large number of users come to the article's defense, and there is no choice for the closing administrator but to keep it. And every time it is up for AfD, it is the very same users who come to its defense.

"Sock puppetry", you may think, as you see those names over and over. These accounts are surely operated by one person. Or they are friends of one another in real life. Something is fishy.

But maybe they do not know each other at all. Maybe each one is a real, individual person, and they have never interacted with one another.

It is possible that each of these people has the page on their watchlist, and whenever it gets put up for AfD, they will know, so of course, if they want it kept, they will come to its defense." But no one considered that possibility. It was a block and slash spree after all, wasn't it? --Babanwalia (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have filed SPI reports earlier and notified users, I avoid it when I feel it may create drama. The accounts were created after the RfC began, the new accounts come right to the RfC and comment with correct syntax and brag about their personal qualification. I considered that a strong reason for SPI. --AmritasyaPutra T 05:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But did I make a similar claim? In fact, I am neither a scholar nor a professor of Punjabi. Nor am I the POTUS. But I certainly am a native Punjabi speaker and know about the ground realities in Punjab and India, if not Pakistani Punjab. Would notifying me have created less drama and ruckus than was being created at the talk-page itself with all the erroneous evidences and spa templates. What clear evidence did you have except the personal impression (and accusations) you formed since the new users were going against your view and thus slighted you. I am not even gonna resort to name-calling or slanderous accusations. In fact, I'd let the facts speak for themselves against this clear misuse of authority and the preposterously biased actions. --Babanwalia (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The watchlist theory probably doesn't explain what has been going on in this case, because the accounts in question (with the apparent exception of Jimidar) are all brand new and had made only a small handful of edits each before being blocked. Sockpuppet investigation is, admittedly, an inexact science, but it has to be done.  I stand by my conclusion that there was (and perhaps still is) reasonable cause to conclude either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry was going on in this case; however, that conclusion can be reversed if sufficient additional info comes to light.  As I said earlier, I'm already trying to contact Jimidar — though in order for what he says to be considered here, he is going to have to make contact here, on the English Wikipedia (he can still edit his talk page despite the block), and he is going to need to use English (a language which his user page on the Punjabi Wikipedia says he is proficient in).  Same goes for the other blocked accounts — if they are genuine, and if their owners can satisfactorily explain what has been going on and assure us that Wikipedia's policies will be followed from now on, then they can and will be expeditiously unblocked.


 * As for what happens in the discussion about Punjabi writing systems, that has to be determined based on policy and sources. Pointers to reliable sources (see WP:RS) saying that Devanagari is (or is not) used to whatever extent to write Punjabi are helpful; comments based on the personal experiences or knowledge of Wikipedia editors are generally classifed here as "original research" (see WP:NOR) and are barred from consideration by Wikipedia's sourcing policies, even if lots and lots of different people independently decide to weigh in on the matter.  I, myself, have no opinion on this question, one way or the other; I have no ties to the Punjab region, I don't speak Punjabi or any of the other languages of South Asia, and I am neither pro- nor anti-mention of Devanagari in connection with the Punjabi language; I got involved here solely because it appeared (and, I must say, still appears) that either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry has been going on.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Now this line of argument is even more absurd. You are just going back on what you wrote on the the user page of Jimidar on Punjabi wiki. He has replied there, IN English. And I have also requested them to respond on this page. But you should consider talking to them on that page too so as to ask them to discuss it here. What sufficient evidence did you consider before passing judgements for this investigation, might I inquire except possibly being being over-the-top sockophobic? I have already explained using the Wiki guidelines itself how this how whole case has been manipulated by few vested interests to divert the attention from the main issue. All of my comments pointed to reliable resources which are plural in number and not an isolated mention in a single book or website. So I am not really interested in amassing votes for myself. --Babanwalia (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Babanwalia, it is not over the top sockophobic behavior. It is normal practice here (i.e. WP:DUCK). When a chain of new users come and start defending a position in an AfD or RfC etc, right from there first edit, they are bound to be considered socks/meats. If not you, then someone else certainly have canvassed these users here. In case of Jimidar, this was his first edit on en.wiki. Admins on en.wiki are not bound to check other wikis or other website to pass a judgement. A little good faith on your part is required too. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Being suspicious is alright. That there was a suspicion that concerned users were canvassed, is alright. But what made you all think it was I who was the recruiter and start this mud-slinging in form of the SPI? Why was I singled out? What was the basis of thinking that it was I and not Guglani or itar or Jimidar or someone else from third street? What it because the this nexus was too irked by my numerous reliable sources? My editing style did not even resemble any other's. It might not be sockophobia but it definitely is an unprofessional and unwarranted conduct on part of fellow editors and on the administrator who, in haste has blocked everyone with a single stroke. If we are talking about canvassing, why is nobody giving any notice to how Anupam has awarding those who sided with him on their talk-pages and is definitely bullying anyone who dares to go against their view point? Now Jimidar has rested his case. If you had given others an opportunity, I'm sure it would not have come to this. There certainly has been offsite canvassing and nexus-formation going on with respect to this whole investigation. --Babanwalia (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Moreover, Vigyani commented "It is clear that Babanwalia may have canvassed these users here". How preposterous and assuming of you to accuse me of that? On what basis are you saying it is "CLEAR" that I have done it? Did I confess to you about that while talking on phone about it? If canvassing was clear how did your wise decision-making led you to believe it was me? Did I use the same editing style or same IP address. or just because the opinions were accumulating towards my view-point? Is this some personal agenda of yours to besmirch my name for I might have slighted you on Punjabi Wiki. Some good faith is demanded of you too. --Babanwalia (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Why SPI was filed on your name" should be perhaps answer by, who filed this SPI. But I guess it is because, you were the main users involved from that side. Why is giving barnstars, he should answer. Well, I have also voted in the RfC against inclusion of devnagari, but I don't feel bullied at all. I had edit conflict with you, so now I am answering to your 2nd part. From my comment, you can remove clear. What I meant was that you may have canvassed (i.e. it is also possible that you didn't and someone else did). Nothing preposterous, in fact a common routine. And you don't need to shout. I am sure, everyone can. As far as your argument about same editing style is concerned, same editing style is to prove socking. Canvassing is to ask others to comment in your support. Since those all others will be different users. So they will have different editing style. I am not not aware, where you slighted me on Punjabi wiki. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nobody is shouting here. I am just showing you the mirror and how saying "good faith" is easier said than done. Clearly, without providing evidences, users here (including you) have resorted to accusations. And now this canvassing theory has potentially shifted from me to this mailing group concerned with some users. If in next few hours, someone else makes a new comment, you all would take arms against him/her. I want to ask some other third-party overseers and SPI clerks how professional this is on part of editors, to hastily block new users and accuse someone without even informing them or providing them with a shred of evidence! No wonder, Wiki has an explicit page on not biting the newcomers --Babanwalia (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Writing in capital letters is online equivalent of shouting. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Said who? Mark Zuckerberg? Oxford University? It couldn't get more absurd than this! Writing in capital letters is writing in capital letters. Don't read into syntax and such. What's next? Not ending with a period is a mark of disrespect? Since when have the facebook legends become writing rules. I emphasised the "clear" so as to make you realise how you accused me with so much certainty without a shred of evidence. --Babanwalia (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any point in me wasting time on you. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks a lot! So I take it that no more unfounded accusations and personal attacks on me from your side then?! --Babanwalia (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didnt made any accusation or personal attacks. I merely said that you may have canvassed some users here, a possibility which I still dont deny. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As Babanwalia mentioned that the canvassing theory might shift to the mailing list i mentioned first, I have a question to ask. If no one has ever demanded or asked me or any fellow from wiki to vote in support of their point, and someone on his/her own wish came and commented as per their knowledge and given evidences, then why it is the question of their accounts. why the evidence is not considered as our main concern is whether to include Devnagri as a Punjabi script or not. Just because one side has strong argument and emotions must not be the reason for other side to say it is cheating. It is seems that by objecting the age of some accounts and not investigating the facts raised by users, some people here are trying to silent the truth (i. e. Devnagri is not Punjabi script at all). If a Punjabi lover on his/her own wish comes at wiki first time to support the fact, it does not make him less savant than the others. by creating controversy I can see some people are eager to pollute the facts. and that must be stopped. otherwise I don't think I or anyone from Punjabi domain ever be able to cite Wiki as credible source of information. Also I again request you all to read my words in my comment at my gurmukhi page "And anyone who commented there against the inclusion is almost from our Punjabi community." i never said that the users are from mailing list. Punjabi community is very wide. so please think/read before you assume. don't misinterpret. if you have doubt ask me. i might be short at vocabulary but still be able to help you understand my comments. thanks Jimidar ਯੋਗਦਾਨ (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jimidar, to your question: It is highly unlikely that as many as 4-5 newly made accounts will come and support an argument. This happens many times that an army of new accounts come to support a particular arguments. It is not a new thing. Rest regarding arguments at RfC, I think closing person will see the valid arguments. Sock accounts are blocked to stop any disruption. Regarding mailing list thing: "you said that you can check on our mailing list", which make one think that that mailing list could have been used for canvassing. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read User:Jimidar's comment at Gurmukhi Wikipedia and he stated:
 * This party admitted to using a mailing list, which constitutes canvassing here at English Wikipedia and it has certainly skewed the the RfC. These aforementioned users have certainly commented there. . --AnupamTalk 06:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This party admitted to using a mailing list, which constitutes canvassing here at English Wikipedia and it has certainly skewed the the RfC. These aforementioned users have certainly commented there. . --AnupamTalk 06:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I had heard a lot about why users were fleeting Wikipedia, this is a classic example. One user with a certain ideology comes in a suggests a far fetched hypothesis. Few contributors working in the domain, comment on it, oppose the hypothesis and talk with others working in the domain for a long time. Other users, who have love for the language and years of open source work join the discussion and provide some highest quality, articulated, highly cited opposition to initial hypothesis. What happens? First their cited arguments are opposed with the ideas of how new their accounts were. What if it was an argument, which made them come to Wikipedia in the first place, the starters? No, not welcome. Instead of discussing based on the facts presented, the discussion turns into banning all new accounts. Then calling it sockpupetting and now the outing of contributors by some above. What about the arguments presented? Do they have any validity? This is gone way beyond absurd. The question is how does the community keep scaring away actual contributors, when a barnstar holder with a narrow field of vision calls "wolf". For other admins joining this discussion, you just have to once read through the discussion being referred to see, that is exactly what appears to be happening here. Sirdaar (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You only took the part of my comment which suited your opinion and argument. but i think you have not read the lines "but we have a history of working for our language. Let alone the ---, The guy is in L10n and L18n domain for a decade. check Zanata, transifex, Mozilla, Android, Red Hat, you name it and he is there." That mailing list you have reffered is not for sabotaging Wiki, and is not recent too, but it is made to work for Punjabi projects on other platforms. But as we individually keep an eye on the issues we r facing in our language we feel it is our duty and right to come to front and comment as our individual responsibility. so if you check that mailing list archive you wont find any mail or conversation asking people to come and comment here on wiki. Stop quoting the parts of my comments. let it be whole. Jimidar (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked Jimidar, based on his comments on his talk page at the Punjabi Wikipedia. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you unblock User:Jimidar as a result of his willingness to admit that an offsite mailing list is being used in the RfC. However, IMHO, it's probably best that you inform that user that on English Wikipedia, that's a canvassing violation. --AnupamTalk 06:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anupam, unblock is not "as a result of his willingness to admit that an offsite mailing list is being used in the RfC". It is because Richwales thought of him to be a genuine user. I will ask you to be careful with comments, as lot of bad faith is being assumed. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richwales, and, to that user who quoted my comment to prove his point forgot that i also mentioned 'almost' not 'all' of the users of punjabi mailing list came here to comment. So be responsible and next time care to read and understand the context and meaning of the comment. Thanks but no thanks. Jimidar (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me clear some air. It doesn't matter if it is 'almost' or 'all'. The fact that some users came from that mailing list to defend a line of argument, is enough reason for it to be considered a case of canvassing. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I would also like to know how many. Coz as i said we individually feel it is our responsibility, so I'll be happy to know how many of them proved themselves responsible. Jimidar (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had left a reply on your talk page. Dont know if u have seen that. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Anupam and RichwalesAnupam is suspecting convassing on a reason that bla bla users appeared at Rfc suddenly.i bring out few points about manner of User:Anupamwhich exhibits bullying manner to bring consensus of Rfc in his favour


 * 1) It is false that I appeared suddenly as falsely accused by Anupam.I was participating in discussion even before on start of RFc see here andRFC added by Anupam 0n22:34 IST  1.11.2014 after my comments] I have a global account and have a long editing history at Wikipedia projects.
 * 2) Anupam encouraged User:Stemoc,to revert edits done on file punjabi examplewithout any discussion on talk page of file in spite of notice on talk page of that file here since 26.08.2013 , by me ,for not to revert without discussion at talk page of file ,by awarding birnstar. He did not ask any explanation from Stemoc for edit warring, which he did ,and that too, without any discussion on talk page of said file.
 * 3) Anupam called for explanation from Babanwalia while starting this discussion by deliberately false accusation to him, that he had removed certain authentic references ,which he had only repositioned look[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjabi_language&diff=next&oldid=631274336 here.]In spite of explaining by Babanwalia, Anupam repeated his removal of reference charge as if to bully him.Incidentally this quoted citation has proven to be, contradicting ,own statement of same contributing author in his own another  book ,refer my comments, No 4 dtd Nov, 2014 here

@AmritasyaPutra similarly manner in which AmritasyaPutrastarted SIP without informing against new users, this SIP started after he failed to provide a single citation for Manuscript in Devanagari see his comment dtd.11 NOV. 2014 on this talk pagehere, on argument brought by a new user shows his bullying tactic in bringing SIP in his favor.

So in conclusion whole SIP is framed by above users to gain favor and should be immediately dropped .Further administrator Richwales has acted in much haste without giving any hearing to all concerned users, It gave impression to proponents that his decision b, quickly blocking new users, will influence  outcome of RFC. I have noted with happiness and appreciate his wisdom in unblocking Jimidar. I hope he suo moto reviews other blocking and unblocks those as well.--Guglani (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to review the other blocks, if and when the blocked users request unblocks and provide reasonable explanations for their actions. They can request unblocks on their respective talk pages (they still have the ability to edit their own talk pages despite the blocks).  If they don't trust my judgment and don't want me to be the one to decide whether to unblock them, they should still request the unblock on their own talk page, and I will stand aside and allow the question of unblocking them to be decided by other administrators.


 * As for the RfC, the blocked accounts' comments are still on the article's talk page, and the people who are debating the matter are free to credit (or ignore) those comments as they see fit. I have no opinion on the Punjabi writing system issue as such, but I will repeat my earlier statement that content decisions must be based on Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:NOR) — and RfC comments based on a user's personal experience or understanding (but without citing a reliable source) are considered "original research" and may not normally be taken into consideration no matter how many different people may speak up for or against a given position.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Involved administrators, User:DeltaQuad, User:Mike V, User:Bbb23 and User:Richwales, I'd like to refocus this discussion to address the mailing list that User:Jimidar stated he was using to canvass the SPA accounts to the RfC (the link to the mailing list is provided in his comment). I don't care what consequence you all decide to administer (it could be a gentle warning or it could be a block)--I'd like for this issue to be addressed. One of users mentioned in the mailing list (User:Punjcoder/User:Sirdaar) just removed himself from a quote of User:Jimidar's comment identifying himself as being a part of that mailing list. --AnupamTalk 16:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Anupam When you quote my comment you forgot or did not care to see that I never said that people commenting here are from the mailing list i mentioned. what is said was I think, First you missed to read 'Period' between both the lines, second you did not try to interpret the definition of 'Community'. Community has a wide definition people like you who are born in internet age only know online communities. But in the time i was born, we used to refer community as a whole race or nation as in this case is Punjabi Community. and who ever has commented against the inclusion of Devnagri is from Punjabi community. Coz only a punjabi knows it is wrong to include a foreign script as a Punjabi script. Your intentions for adding Devnagri as Punjabi script are not good. and everyone can see this as you are trying to create a chaos when you see your argument not winning. and yea wiki is not someone's property anyone can come and comment what (s)he thinks. Read my comment again both line has a period in between and the mailing list was an example of us guys working for the language apart from wiki. Wiki is not ONLY place to serve for the language. so grow up buddy. and learn to read someone's comment properly before interpreting it in your own way. stop accusing people when your argument is not winning. the examples i gave were to tell that only WIKI is not the ambassador for Punjabi, people also have other places to work for a language. and about the excluding the name from my comment i must tell you that if i mention someone's name or reveal someone's personal information without thinking then (s)he can exclude it from my comment as it is their right. So please stop spreading nonsense and come back to issue that Devnagri is not Punjabi Script. admit it.  Jimidar (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear administrators involved, User:DeltaQuad, User:Mike V, User:Bbb23 and User:Richwales, in response to Anupam time and again resurfacing the identifying information, is a soft form of outing, that I do not see adding any value to discussion here. I removed references of two names outed as well as other identifying information as the policy on the very top of this page specifies Do not link to or include material that may reveal personal information about an editor. Doing so is outing and will be dealt with accordingly. I did not come to the discussion here based on any list, but from a water cooler discussion. However lets talk about the list . Even if, and there is a big if, the issue was discussed on the language group, should we take a moment to check what the list is about? To me it appears to be a list of people working in Open Source on Punjabi language, and the list seem to have been started a decade ago. So now the question is, if we do not welcome experts at-least some of whom seem to be coming in with strong well cited arguments, against an admin hell bent to twist his/her idea into a far fetched domain. If not, who else is welcome? Do we want to make Wikipedia a propaganda tool by a few influential admins, or do we keep it a democratic encyclopedia? I can cite other such one sided agendas implemented on other pages, but would like to keep the discussion focussed.  Actually to their favour, none of the people opposing the argument with citations got a [barnstars], which the user in favour seem to be doling out. So while we discuss the mailing list to language open source contributor issue, lets also discuss the behaviour which to me seems a form of bribing to support a view point. Sirdaar (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
due to the possibility of more than one account per user at the discussion page. Mike V •  Talk  05:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After checking 3 of them and getting a clear ❌, i'm declining to check the rest. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUCK and WP:MEAT, I'm convinced that these five accounts are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Babanwalia. I'm going to indef-block them all.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * two questions: (1) why is there no sanction or comment on the master account and (2) why is this open? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't finished yet. I hope to wrap things up in a few hours' time.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No rush, I just didn't know you weren't done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , it might also be helpful to note that User:Sirdaar, User:Guglani and User:Itar buttar appeared at once to comment at the RfC after months of inactivity, an observation that makes me suspicious of canvassing. --AnupamTalk 00:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I must not comment on behalf of someone but I must say that people have their own life and other important issues to handle than only sitting on wiki all the time. so if some old user comes and comment on some issue does not mean he is brought here. we all are volunteers, wiki is not paying us a penny for our contributions we all make our living by private jobs or by some other means. so inactivity is normal. we are not paid employee or slaves that we are bound to come and contribute here on regular basis. period. Jimidar (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a note just now on Babanwalia's talk page, explaining that an SPI is going on, what the issues are, and asking him to please comment on the matter ASAP. A notice about the SPI really should have been posted on his talk page when this investigation was first opened; "my bad" for not checking for that earlier (when I first started working on this case).  I'd like to give Babanwalia a day or two to get back to us on this; if I don't hear anything from him in two days or so, I'll assume the worst and will probably go ahead and block him for a week.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * has asked to be unblocked. I've posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) — see [ here] — asking for an outside review of this unblock request, to make it as certain as possible that the process from this point on will not only be fair, but will be seen to be fair by all involved.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've left notices on the talk pages to the involved accounts in regards to the mailing list canvassing concerns. (Satdeep gill, Sirdaar, Jaskaran singh sachdeva, Soulmine22,72.190.51.174, Harvard2014, Jaspr8, Itar buttar, Guglani, Babanwalia) Mike V  •  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As the accounts have been blocked, Harvard2014's unblock request has been declined, warnings have been issued to all involved parties, and no further evidence has been presented, I believe it's appropriate to close the SPI end of the matters. Notes have been left at the RfC in regards to the accounts and this SPI case. Mike V  •  Talk  00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)