Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sairg

Sairg

Sairg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sairg/Archive.

16 September 2020

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

Ballav saikia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

Ballav saikia (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was created close to when the a previous sock of Sairg, SashankaChutia (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was blocked and now has become active on Chutia kingdom (semi-protected). This user is very focused on Chutia related articles (Chutia kingdom, Chutia people etc. and pushes a Chutia-related POV.
A very keen interest in presenting an expansive boundary of the kingdom:
- u:SashankaChutia: [1]
- u:Ballav saikia: [2]
u:Ballav saikia: Acknowledging the discussion as u:SashankaChutia in edit summary [3]
Insist on using primary and non-WP:RS sources
- u:Ballav saikia: [4]
- u:SashankaChutia: [5]

Chaipau (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I am unaware of any such previous users. I have not removed any material from the page. I have merely added new and proper sources, not violating any principles of Wikipedia. It seems the previous user was also involved in a similar edit war with @Chaipau, but his edits were different. My edits include creating a new section and adding new sources for previous data. I am not sure what this user @Chaipau is talking about. Some edits made by @Chaipau are disruptive, like removing an entire new section with multiple sources.Ballav saikia (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for editing pages on Chutia community, that is my personal interest. A person in Wikipedia is free to edit whatever he or she wants, provided there are sources cited along with it. If this user @Chaipau has a problem with my edit, he could use the talk page and sort out the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballav saikia (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to initial report

Soon after the sock SushankaChutia was blocked, two other socks became active and that took up the cudgels on their behalf. JojoRabbitParadise (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Bodo53.cn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). These were identified as sleepers by JzG [6] and blocked as per WP:DUCK [7]. Since Chutia kingdom is semi-protected, the new account, created soon after, had to wait for a period before editing the article.
In the discussion on the kingdom extent SushankaChutia maintained that Sisi river could not be considered as a boundary of the kingdom ([8]). Ballav saikia picks up the argument on behalf of SushankaChutia [9].

Chaipau (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the previous comment

I don't understand what this user @Chaipau is talking about. My edit is completely different([10]) from that made by the previous user([11]). As it is evident, the previous user seems to have been deleting the content from the page. On the other hand, I have added new content, while keeping the previous one intact. Besides, I have added new material to the article as well([12],[13],[14]), expanding the article to its current form.

The user Chaipau seems to not be pleased with the sourced edits as it goes against his POV. In one instance, he tried to remove sourced material. In this case, I had mentioned three references to the content on the "Rebellions" section, out of which one of the references seemed to be less reliable. But, instead of removing the problematic source, the user Chaipau tried to remove the entire section from the article, although there were clearly two more well cited sources available.([15]). The user also had added unsourced material at one instance, which was removed later ([16]).Ballav saikia (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]