Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khalsaburg/Archive

Report date January 16 2009, 22:10 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Roadahead

Both Khalsaburg and  Singhvikram1 have the same editing style and interest in stubbornly pursuing exactly the same pov on a very specific issue, specific community and on specific articles. Please see and. This message could be a ban evasion tactic to make others feels that another editor was invited to comment (though the suspicious edits were already made before this message). May borderline with these earlier vandal IPs; not sure, but worth checking. The style and language seems familiar, somewhat similar to a banned editor Satanoid -- Ro ad ah ea d  &#9733;  06:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Not sure what is going on here. After this report as has been closed as "no action", Singhvikram1 is back today with exactly the same edits as user:Khalsaburg. Please check these most recent ones: - diff-1, diff-2, diff-3, diff-4, diff-5, diff-6, diff-7, diff-8. -- Ro ad ah ea d  &#9733;  18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

X clamation point  04:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)    Requested by  Ro ad ah ea d   &#9733;  06:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

It is fairly that these users are related. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Case merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Khalsaburg (page history). Tiptoety  talk 22:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No action taken. Tiptoety talk 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 1 2009, 08:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by --Sikh-history (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This user has tried to out me before. He also kept leaving abusive messages on my talk page. See the WP:OUTING here and a similar case here --Sikh-history (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Points to note above:


 * If you look at Satanoids WP:OUTING before he made specific references to one "Randip Singh" who he thinks I am and references www.jattworld.com and www.punjabi.net. I cannot show you the links because of the WP:OUTING case deleted these references from my talk page. If you note Khalsaburg has made references to these websites. How would she/he know that "Randip Singh" posted on these sites, because admins deleted it? You can easily check this through admins. This is the most compelling evidence, because ONLY Satanoid would know what he would have written on my talk page. Read this and this again. Note specific references to www.jattworld.com and www.punjabi.net. This fellow is obsessed with "Randip Singh" and he thinks I am him.
 * Note the similar comments on Sikhism and Vegetarianism here, here and here.
 * Note obsession with Sikh related issues in same vein here, here and here. Every time his/her views cause controversy and refers always to others as vandals.
 * I am considering contacting the Police over this person too.


 * Look, this is simple. I am not asking someone to go through all the links. All you have to do is check the WP:OUTING case here and compare with the comments here (I have highlighted the comments in bold). In the WP:OUTING case Satanoid made comments about www.jattworld.com and www.punjabi.net. These were deleted by the admins and even from my history on my page here (hence I cannot link it). Note Khalsaburg has made the same comments again about www.jattworld and www.punjabi.net. He she could not have know about that (because the histories have been deleted) unless he/she was Satanoid. --Sikh-history (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He Khalsaburg/Khari is pretending to be Sikh with the name Khalsaburg and Muslim with the name Khari Sharif. There are some very contentious areas between the two faiths. Here he canvasses people to make disruptive edits, and here again. The contributions to Vegetarianism in Sikhism, Langar by Khalsaburg, are disruptive and try and take out ISBN references . He seems to want to take out all ISBN references. He wants to skew the view of Sikhism so it fits in with his own belief. Here he pretends to be Sikh and comments on the contentious issue of relations between Sikhs and Muslims  here he states “I know of few Sikh girls who have accepted Islam without being forced” which could be seen as quite an inflammatory statement.     Here as Khari he takes out  Sikh references and says on my talk page here, that only Islamic ones should be used.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PLEASE, when quoting what somebody has said, can you cite the DIFF, rather than linking to the version of the page with the comment in. Trying to work out which bit of the page I'm supposed to be looking at means it takes far longer to review the relevant bits of text than it needs to. Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Mayalld (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC) The evidence of the outing case is inconclusive. Satanoid could have come by that information by various means, including off-wiki conversations with Khalsaburg. However, this is a serious matter, and as such the use of CU tools to check is warranted. Mayalld (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser Requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * please supply specific diffs that show these to be the same user Mayalld (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have generated a report for this case.  Syn  ergy 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the request above was for diffs. Linking to contribution histories, and expecting somebody to go through the whole lot is unreasonable. Mayalld (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkuser won't be useful regarding User:Satanoid. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagged Quereshi Ibrahim, PeterSymonds indef'd QI and blocked Khalsaburg for 2 weeks. Avruch  T 16:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * = = . They certainly share a computer and IP address, if there is duck-like editing behavior then appropriate anti-nuisance fowl measures should be applied.
 * ✅ = .  -- Versa  geek  20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ = .  -- Versa  geek  20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

03 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The user Khalsaburg had a similar style of editing as was warned about his/her behaviour before. He/she seems to like the use of a not commonly used word obfuscation as in here and here. I have had to warn this user about WP:Wikistalking and WP:Harassment. Also see User:Khalsaburg's previous sockpuppetry here. Thanks Sikh- History 19:24, 3 January 2011 (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

 * - As Khalsaburg hasn't edited in more than eighteen months, the data on them is stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked into this a bit more, and I'm not convinced they're the same person. Aside from having exactly zero articles that they edited in common, the use of the word 'obfuscation' is not enough to block someone. Further, I find this a borderline bad faith case, as it seems that Sikh-history has been in a dispute with the accused sockpuppet. So unless there's some extra evidence as to why an account that hasn't edited in 18 months should be tied to a new one, I'm going to close this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright then, closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)