Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/पाटलिपुत्र/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

पाटलिपुत्र and Wienerbund (may be more), have a dormant-reactivated style of disruptive POV-y editing. They are: [a] Active in the same articles: 1 and 2, 3 and 4; [b] Wienerbund restores पाटलिपुत्र versions in various articles: 5 (Article 1 history), 6 (Article 2 history) e.g.; [c] their cite and editing style is same (7 and 8); [d] both have used inscriptions and artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles, pushing fringe and discredited theories such as Sharma's "Greeks devastated/pillaged ancient India centuries after Alexander left" (9). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2017 (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

 * ✅ plus:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Stopped making edits on 1 November 2016. Last CU check was conducted in mid December 2017, so "Goldsmelter" was stale. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Same target articles
 * EIA shows massive overlap on a large number of low-profile articles.
 * Same habit of using specific one-liner edit summaries, such as "box", when they both want to add infoboxes (Goldsmelter, पाटलिपुत्र), and "coin" when they want to add images of coins (Goldsmelter, पाटलिपुत्र)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Absolutely, this is a name I used in the past for a few edits, but I believe this is now all behind since I served time and the case was closed, as I promissed to use only one account from now on . Could an admin also close two remaining accounts: User:神风 and User:Tahar Jelun so that I can put all this behind me? Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * can you please login into en-wikipedia as User:Tahar Jelun, User:神风 and User:Goldsmelter to confirm you were once these accounts and you are not falsely misrepresenting and co-opting someone else's accounts? The evidence suggests that some of these accounts with the same password have been recently active in wikimedia commons though that does not affect the पाटलिपुत्र account in en-wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, I have actually promissed (above) not to ever edit again with these accounts here, so I am sure you will understand that I am a bit reluctant to respond to this kind of prod. Things can be misinterpreted easily.... Furthermore, the recent consensus of administrators regarding your request seems to be that leaving these accounts alone is quite acceptable: why go against the opinion of those you consulted and still file this request? On other Wikis, I have voluntarily disclosed my accounts so as to avoid any further issue and put this whole thing behind me. Again, no hard feelings, and, as you know, we can make great articles when we work together. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You do not have to edit, just log in and then log out. This will confirm that you are not falsely accusing User:Tahar Jelun, User:神风 and User:Goldsmelter to be you. My motivation isn't to have all your accounts blocked, but apply our policies without selective discrimination or favor, which I hope you will realise is an important principle in every work environment. Further, it will confirm that you can be trusted and are open to complete scrutiny of your editing since at least 2012. Yes, we have had our repeated conflicts and you persistently pestered/harassed me and threatened me despite other admins and editors such as Fæ telling you that I have not violated copyvio guidelines and to let it go in the past. Yet I have forgiven you, and for now I support that at least one of your accounts remain open and available to you to contribute to en-wikipedia through the second chance given to you by Yamla. Your logging in and then logging out with these three accounts in en-wikipedia will help confirm that you are not falsely accusing User:Tahar Jelun, User:神风 and User:Goldsmelter to be you, that you indeed are a trustworthy editor of good standing who accepts the due scrutiny. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah. Only a relevant Admistrator could direct me to do something like this, and it seems they have already told you it is not necessary . You can freely check my edit history in these accounts anyway. The "pestering" you are mentionning was only me asking you to please respect the copyright of photographers, and you were indeed (and are still) infringing copyright in these cases as was confirmed by Administrators on Commons, but you refused to take action, they didn't wish to bother with enforcement, and I gave up. Since it seems you are first and foremost willing to be trading niceties here, anybody will notice that your request is seemingly retaliatory in nature, especially since I have been foolish enough to challenge your WP:OWN behaviour in the Sanskrit article in just the last few days (anybody can check on the Talk Page, as well as your systematic deletions of my small but well-sourced contributions ). But again, no hard feelings, let's cooperate and respect each other's contributions. For the sake of harmony, I do not intend to further respond to your proddings on this page. Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र: you misrepresent what happened in wikimedia commons and Jim/Fae/Guanaco's comments there for which you pestered my en-wikipedia user page, you misrepresent what has happened in the Sanskrit article, and you misrepresent what Yamla and Ivanvector have stated about the 神风 account. Yamla has proposed to block 神风, with some clarifications. Ivanvector states "for blocking in this manner there needs to be a technical confirmation or an admission from the accounts themselves. Otherwise I could say any old account belongs to me and ask for it to be blocked for whatever reason". In other words, you "पाटलिपुत्र could be saying 神风 belongs to you because you want to have it blocked". Ivanvector insightfully points out that we should not do so because we need a technical confirmation or an admission from each account. An easier compromise would be for you to disclose on your user page, in the spirit of inviting full and frank scrutiny for your past and present edits, a list of all the past accounts that you have edited en-wikipedia with. Indeed, I am not an admin and I accept you not responding to my suggestions. My options are then to review the procedures, the paperwork involved and the next steps. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No edits since being unblocked. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)