Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarower Sigh Bhati/Archive

22 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Clearly related accounts.
 * Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati - subject of article
 * Sarower Sigh Bhati - father of subject
 * Dr Meenakshi Kanwar - mother of subject

Also see Sockpuppet investigations/Sudeepgangal

Relentless and disruptive advocacy to introduce uncertain facts and outright puffery to article, (basically the entire current talk page and half the archive)

Has ignored requests to stop posting so much (this was followed by five more posts in a row) and has accused other editors of "degrading" the subject when told behaviour was inappropriate ,

Because of the massive amount of WP:COI and disruption involved, I'm asking for a topic ban for these three and all related accounts. If this is too harsh, I would ask for a restriction of making one post from one account per week.  Neil N   talk to me  14:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The DRN Kanwar speaks of is here Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_77. Note the final section. The wall of text below just reinforces my belief that she and the related accounts are totally unsuited to be participating in discussions about her son's article. -- Neil N   talk to me  17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Add an IP: 122.161.75.79. Indicates they have access to subject's birth certificate/passport/PAN Card so very likely family member. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Respected All : First of all This was expected by  Neil N   talk to me  Sir as my husband has filed dispute resolution Moreover i have raised a new section against dictatorship going on talk page of the subject Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati. First of all, i request you all to please check the talk page of the subject that too verbatim and as a whole to know the vendetta against the subject.  Neil N   talk to me  Sir: clearly mentioned, "Every link claims for father", then i made him realized that reference 3 mentions the same with out father and it already exists in his reliable list. Further the reference 1, his point to prove that the subject does not deserve, Youngest patent holder" also turned out to be a big blunder or false excuse by Ihardlythinkso (talk Sir . Further it is shocking, few more editors were there to encourage each other to cover up their own wrong doings. This discourages very badly and proves Vendetta. He told that he was not able to see the later half of the reference. That too he mentioned after i made him realized by writing in bold words. This all was happening in front of rest of the Wikipedia editors related to that article. Yes i have also raised a section as i also believe it as pure vendetta. Every thing happened in front of all. What does that prove Sir. I am 100% Sure the environment is biased and against the subject. Yes my husband was correct in going for DRN  "Talk page of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati", Talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article, NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso, Myself, Subject."

'''Who will answer to these questions, which we faced along with the subject. (Very Important Note: Every question to be followed has evidence on the talk page of the subject. Please analyze the talk page carefully and ask me to submit the same if there is no evidence for any of the following questions)'''

1. Does Wikipedia allows their editors to use the words, " Bogus DRN Filed" (Does the person involved in the dispute has right to declare the DRN as Bogus. In that case no one will dare to file DRN and consider these editors above Wikipedia)?

2. Does Wikipedia allows their editors to use the words, "notoriously eager", " Bogus at its face", " Incompetent", "Talk from India as bad at a page", " You and your Company", " Threatening",ie insulting people, abusing them. Do not you feel this will lead to discouragement of editing by others?

3. Is it justified to first accept certain aspect of the subject and later on start debating about, why it should not be removed as the DRN is filed against them?

4. Misleading other editors by giving false information due to wrong intention or lack of competence and that too with full confidence and insulting the people That too forming a group! who tries to give the right information. Which was proved later on?

5. Why NeilN sir said that my husband has taken the DRN back, when he never did same. He is still seeking Justice.

6. When DRN filed by my husband clearly wanted the analysis of sections as evidence, in that case was NeilN Sir valid in asking Sections related with subject should go to archives, if no one objects! Obviously it was objectionable according to the nature of the complaint.

7. Why the sections of the subject has gone to Archive, when many evidences exists in those links also.

8. If few editors are not able to see the references properly or they ignore them intentionally. Do not you feel that it is the duty of every person to make those editors realize it? It happened on the talk page of the subject. How to realize if they do not listen or behave like incompetent or biased? Then we need to show them the links again by making them bold. I did the same and i have no regret. This is not Sock puppet..Rather i am happy i did my duty according to Wikipedia policy.

9. If few editors insults us, turn down our suggestions rudely that too with insulting words that too when they are proved wrong later on. This is pure incompetence or Vendetta against people by few Wikipedia editors.

10. No one cooperates or guides to collect evidences? Even after asking lot of times no one responded. Yes they will not ask for the evidences to be send but degrade the subject due to lack of same evidences

11. Does Wikipedia allows their editors to make fun, mockery, insult the subject or non Wikipedia people who participate on Wikipedia in their talk pages

12. Does Wikipedia encourages their editors to discourage and insult the parents of the subject? '''Advocacy on consistent basis is very important and that too on repetitive basis to send a truth message, when people are insulting you and proving you wrong again and again for their ulterior motive of vendetta sometimes or to cover the in-competencies sometimes. No regret rather i am proud that i behave in a true Wikipedia spirit. Yes i will also go till last stage to seek justice. If i am banned then i will write to " Arbitration Committee". I ask all the editors, if they really feel that they are correct let us get our words on talk page analyzed verbatim in present talk page and Talk page in archive. Even our talk pages must be checked properly. Who knows it will reveal lot of bitter realities?''' Dr Meenakshi Kanwar (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My Husband Sarower Singh Bhati and the my son and Subject of the article, " Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" had already quit Wikipedia so they will not reply anything here. The only point that still remains is DRN Dispute filed by him. Otherwise he had already quit Wikipedia for ever including my son. Dr Meenakshi Kanwar (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I have blocked the two puppets indefinitely and blocked the master for two weeks. At this point, the blocks are for meat puppetry. It would seem that as soon as one family member promises not to edit any longer, another family member crawls out of the woodwork. Moreover, some of these promises have been violated. The disruption and advocacy is blatant, despite strained claims to the contrary. As soon as I complete this message, I am endorsing for a CU to make sure these accounts are indeed unrelated and there are no sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can not confirm that Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati is part of this trio, though there is a significant possibility it is (Possilikely: Mix of and ) I can confirm that the other two accounts though edited from the same IP and same type of computer/software. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the outcome of the CU, I have tagged the two puppets as sock puppets. Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

26 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Meatpuppet  Neil N    talk to me  04:39, 26 September 2013 (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 blocked, closing. Legoktm (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

25 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obvious sock is obvious.

More IP's that have been blocked:
 * User:
 * User:

Neil N  talk to me 13:49, 25 November 2014 (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

 * IP blocked for 2 weeks for block evasion. Mike V  •  Talk  21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

26 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Yet another SPA concerned solely with bigging up Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati... Yunshui 雲 水 08:57, 26 November 2014 (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 blocked by Bbb23. Mike V  •  Talk  19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)