Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaipau

Chaipau

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

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

06 September 2012

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• User H tan H epi tas account was created just hours ago before giving third opinion in Assam talk page.
• User H tan H epi tas account became inactive again for few days after complaining against user Bhaskarbhagawati, which shows that H tan H epi tas was created for purposes. Here is his activity log ([1]).
• User H tan H epi tas had threatened as well, "Watch your mouth and accept a third opinion. If you don't, User:Chaipau should file a complaint at the appropriate section" ([2]) - while user Chaipau did file complaint against user Bhaskarbhagawati
• This H tan H epi tas account was created by user Chaipau to resolve a dispute in his favour which is an offense in Wikipedia. I believe indirect and or direct threat is also an offense. 130.65.109.101 (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Please move this page to the WP space. Thanks. Regards, 130.65.109.101 (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this page per the above request in accordance with assuming good faith. I have no opinion or comment on the merits of the report. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Partially withdrawn in light of my comment below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this is payback for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurmaa/Archive. Chaipau (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it appears that I have once again been had. After review, I have the following to say about the reporting user's claims, in order:

• This is not in and of itself evidence of wrongdoing, nor does it indicate sockpuppetry.
• Wikipedia is not compulsory. We are all volunteer editors and we all edit when we can. Periods of inactivity by any user should not be construed to be wrongdoing.
• This is not evidence of sockpuppetry; it just means that two editors agreed that this user's actions warranted a report to administrators (I have no comment on the merits of such report).
• A quick look at the log for H tan H epi tas (talk · contribs) will show that this is not the case.

I recommend closing this report as having no merit. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A reply to Accusations

• Thank you KuyaBriBri. At last somebody reasonable in here. Some people here need to get a life. Fast. Is there any serious administration here or is it a playground? Do you think that we are all teenagers / students with nothing better to do than logging in and editing wikipedia all the time? Or has it ever occurred to you that some of us are multilingual and we edit other language versions of wikipedia too? Since when "watch your mouth" is a "threat"? You need to get out in the real world more.

And FYI, I don't "support" Chaipau. I don't even know Chaipau. I am a scientist and as a third party I supported his version of writing the Assam Etymology, simply because it was better written and better supported with sources. Peer-review is part of what I do in real life too. Have a look at my profile. Why would Chaipau get in so much trouble to build a detailed alter ego? He should be schizophrenic.

Chaipau is also very calm and civil. I am flammable and at the verge of losing my civility in here, because this place is getting out of control. It's full of rules, procedures and regulations that either are beyond common sense or nobody applies.

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

---