Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adityashashtri/Archive

08 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

All three new accounts are interested in making this edit.  Two are interested in same temple  Neil N  talk to me 22:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And now two IP's floating about
 * --Neil N  talk to me 23:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * --Neil N  talk to me 23:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * --Neil N  talk to me 23:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Copying from a duplicated SPI report I had just created: Obvious sock accounts, tag-teaming and edit-warring to add disputed content at . Master account created on May 2nd; first sock on May 3rd after the master account was first reverted (by me); second sock account created today after the master and sock edits were reverted (by three other editors User:WikiDan61, User:Qwertyus and User:NeilN). Also overlap between edits related to Brihadeeswarar Temple in edits by Adityashashtri, and by Yes Siva. While this is a duck-case, requesting checkuser to see if there is an unidentified master, or other latent accounts. Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My friend is vexed with repeated undoing of his good work in the page "Lord Shiva". He asked me to create a new account and help him. Whats the problem? We all are room mates and class mates from PSG College (Tech). How can we prove us? video conference call? Iam D.Sivakumar. Even Siva Aiyar is different.kindly guide me.

My question is can you point a single wrong sentence in his edit. Everything is sourced well. why do you want to repeatedly undo all the good works, pictures?
 * Self-admitted meat puppet. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:WikiDan61, User:Qwertyus and User:NeilN) you should challenge the content. Instead you are taking short cuts to implement what you like. You can discriminate us because we are new users but there is truth in our work. What you are doing is organized vandalism. Just look into the content what you are deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityashashtri (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Also overlap between edits related to Brihadeeswarar Temple in edits by Adityashashtri, and by Yes Siva" Abecedare Oh dear what is that overlapping? is truth hurting anybody? If it is so let it be. FYI there should be atleast 30 plus experienced wiki admins in our college. If you repeatedly vandalise the page we will seek their help too. You may have to try and block entire range Indian IPs to fulfill your false propaganda. We wont give up the fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Siva (talk • contribs) 00:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilNyou administrators are doing organized match fixing among yourself and doing Sock puppetry in a sophisticated manner. we will mail to all the authorities in Wikipedia. You biased admins should be banned from those pages. If three of us editing a page is sock puppetry yes we did it, go block us. But you admin's cunning "Sock puppetry" which was to hide truth and promote sectional interests motivated us to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Siva (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Adityashashtri (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To keep it from degrading, especially as it's a good article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Adityashashtri (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the article's talk page. Which you should have posted to before engaging in edit warring and sock/meat puppetry. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I wil add that i refered after they emailed me asking for help. <span style="color:#000000; font-family:Courier, sans-serif;">Lor <sup style="color:#556B2F;">Talk 03:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Alright, so let me step in here -- sockpuppetry or not, it is evident to everyone that Adityashashtri needs to be blocked -- they have done nothing constructive and edit-warred their non-constructive edits, they are unable to engage in meaningful discussion, and are thoroughly non-neutral in their editing. So: indef-block for all these reasons, and now per the fact they had admitted the other accounts were used in tandem. (Also for 2 weeks.) I'd be willing to consider unblocking the main account if they are able to demonstrate that they understand why their editing is inappropriate and how they will go forward from it. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

11 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK - Same IP range, same desired edits. Canvassing via pings. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:44, 11 May 2015 (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

 * ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

11 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Brand new editor, first edit was to restore sock's post. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Adding one, Fghtrden, for creating Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER NeilN- obvious WP:DUCK. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * IP with only edit here (on same page, similar content) added. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

is a duck sock but the IP looks to be uninvolved. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * WP:DUCK but  CU anyways to look into a possible rangeblock (and/or sleepers). This user has been bombarbing my e-mail (and others, I assume) even though their on-wiki e-mail is blocked, because my e-mail addresses are public. I've advised them that I've setup rules in my Outlook to filter them towards Junk mail.  ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Fghtrden. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: their first e-mail to me was a forward of an e-mail they had sent to philippe@undefinedwikimedia.org & arbcom-en-c@undefinedlists.wikimedia.org also, so it's possible that someone else higher up the wiki-food-chain is already looking into this abuse. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, range blocks aren't going to work at all here. I've semi-protected the Shiva talk page for a week to help stop any further issues. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

12 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Making more of an effort to hide their fingerprints, but the same issue and sources (cf. say this). WP:DUCK in my opinion, but others may wish for a CU. Abecedare (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging who may have the previous sock from yesterday still fresh in their memory. Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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


 * I wasn't pinged, but this was on my watchlist. Very similar edits to one of the socks. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

saw similar message in my page before 2 days, did not understand it earlier. I registered with wiki initially to edit 3 pages which i felt important. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design) No open Source software detail available in article. Other than marketing, this page had nothing for common man.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-eluting_stent)  This is edit by someone way back in 2007. There is truth in it, but never included in article.  This is my edit before 3 days, adding few reference. This debated and included in the article. Again other than marketing, this page had nothing for common man.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartikeya) FYI, the sources and extracts are available in FB with more than 40,000 likes. I referred wiki page Shiva and the same is there in that page. Is it wrong if we include it in another page?

"Very similar edits to one of the socks." There are other edits i did in that page. If we consider "Very similar", in In what way it is disruptive? The first two pages are dominated by corporate lobbyists. The third one i leave you to decide. Thanks --Meenakshi023 (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * can you point to the Facebook page from where you picked up the (incorrect) content and (unreliable) sources for the Kartikeya edit (that you re-added today)? Also be aware of wikipedia's policies of meatpuppetry, and the recommended bold-revert-discuss edit cycle. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drug-eluting_stent Check page bottom of the link. Another editor deleted my contribution (sourced). He took it to the talk page gave the following reason.

"language violates NPOV ("whopping") and needs to be professsionalized. who was quoted in the NY Times? etc. Don't have time to do this now myself but this is not ready for publication. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)"

I replied him "Hello Jytdog, You have deleted my edit "Marketing Controversies". I read your explanation and corrected accordingly. Refer the following. May i proceed?"

He replied back "thanks, i fixed this up more and added it. thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)"

But you have deleted without providing the reason. I did not write something seeing an FB page. I went into those sources and verified before writing in wiki. AbecedareAre you saying Yajur Veda is incorrect content and unreliable source? Than should we scrap Hinduism? By any chance if you haven't read those sources kindly go through them again. I am taking it to talk page as you said, if you can defend your claim please do intimate there.

Just now learned about meatpuppetry. Thanks for the information. I say India got Independence in 1947. To avoid meatpuppetry can you write the same info differently?Meenakshi023 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare I just saw another editor reverted your contribution.. This is not a WP:COIN  ? Meenakshi023 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Just so we have a record of the checks...
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)