Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xinjao/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

At least 9 editors want to see him blocked indefinitely, and only 2 editors are supporting him on ANI. I just saw this small account who supported Xinjao after writing in poor English. It's so obvious that this small account is of Xinjao. Created his userpage today, to evade inspection. In his small editing history he has removed mention of "India" just like Xinjao while marking these major edits as minor. Lorstaking (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Xinjao most likely travelled to other place and took advantage of that trip by using one of his sleeper sock to support himself. It took him 9 hours to return to his main account and edit with it. This is a clear WP:DUCK case. Lorstaking (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well this account has only a dozen edits. Anyway, both these accounts believe Urdu is not Hindustani language. Limiting the scope of Hindustani language while knowing that Urdu should be mentioned along Hindi when you talk about Hindustani language.


 * Emir of Aleppo: "number for "Hindi" in ethnologue is the combined number of both Urdu and Hindi which are standardized registers of Hindustani" (but he didn't added Urdu)
 * Xinjao: "Absolutely nobody in Pakistan/Bangladesh/Afghanistan calls Urdu, Hindustani." And "Should we perhaps accept that there is no bridge between Hindi and Urdu"


 * Both interested in changing literacy rates of Pakistan. (both major edits marked as minor)
 * both put dashes before signing their comment but forget putting full stop.

Lorstaking (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Emir of Aleppo has become 3rd person (out of nearly a dozen) to support unblock of Xinjao, and has called me a "very vindictive person". Who else would want to hate me this much except Xinjao himself?

Both are using same rational to justify actions of Xinjao.
 * Xinjao: "A total of 2 edits prompted Lorstaking to raise an ANI, which is step 6 in dealing with [Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]."
 * Emir of Aleppo: "Lorstaking failed to mediate disputes as per policyWikipedia:Disruptive editing, jumped the gun on ANI"
 * Emir of Aleppo: "should consider following the basics before having come here: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing"


 * Both are alone with their view that this is a "ban".

Given all other similarities above there is just no doubt the person is same. Lorstaking (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment – was dormant since January 2017 and was revived merely for opposing the proposed "ban" at WP:ANI at a point when Xinjao was on the verge of getting a indef block. The evidence presented is strong and convincing and leaves no doubt in mind that . &mdash;  MBL  Talk 06:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * could you take a look, please? &mdash;  MBL  Talk 06:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
* Different UA but same location. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very skeptical, this account has been around since 2014, and I don't understand why creating a blank userpage should be viewed as a countermeasure. However, there is an overlap in the two accounts' insistence on not referring to historic places with wikilinks to modern India, with rationales expressed in edit summaries:  , so . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 07:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking the above. I looked again and they aren't close enough for me to call same location. The master has two different places where his IPs exit 500 miles apart and the named sock's IP exits less than 200 miles from one of them. Although not directly between the master's two locations, the named sock's location is a little to the west. In short, you should make this judgement based on behavior.
 * Closing with no action. Filer's evidence is far too circumstantial. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the additional evidence, but all I see is a WP:WITCHHUNT. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet. Case remains closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Mehtar10, Insha22, and Xinjao modified lead sentence of Porus to remove "ancient India".

Mehtar10, Za1255, and Xinjao removed mention of "India" from lead of Cradle of Civilization.

Mehtar10, Insha22, and Xinjao removed "Ancient India" from Gandhara. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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

There is a whole sock farm having a similar vendetta against the term "Ancient India" or "India". Because they always replace these terms with the motive to get rid of those terms, their position on the alternatiave is not fixated and that is why you see them changing it to something else.

The named accounts have stopped editing because there is a new account created after this SPI that is again engaging in removal of these terms on Pāṇini, just like Xinjao used to do and modifying the same paragraph on History of Afghanistan as Insha22.

With these small accounts, always engaging in the same WP:RGW on the same small set of articles, I don't think a CU investigation would hurt. Orientls (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The diffs provided do not make me think these are the same person (for example, while all three changed "Ancient India," they all changed it in different ways). Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I do not see sufficient evidence to justify a technical investigation here. Please keep in mind that this is one of those very ethnonationalist-heavy topic areas; in short, I think these editors are removing the mentions because they want to give credit to an origin more in line with their preferred version of history, not just because they want to remove "ancient India". GeneralNotability (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)