Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amrit914/Archive

18 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I just protected the page Mata Amritanandamayi due to a content dispute. In the related discussion at Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi,, an account created in March 2010 whose contribution history suggests a single purpose account, gave a detailed rationale for his removal of content.

Subsequently, two new SPAs appeared on the page to agree with him:
 * Pritivarma1985 (created a few days ago) whose only edits have been to this discussion.
 * JamesRoberts1949 created today 8/17, who also filed a 3RR report against the opposer in the discussion (see WP:ANEW).

The SPA activity of all three accounts and the apparent collusion on the talk page, plus the fact that one SPA appeared to be trying to get an opposer blocked, leads me to suspect that there is some sockpuppetry going on. It doesn't quite rise to the WP:DUCK level so I haven't blocked anyone, just protected the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

As a long time admirer of Mata Amritanandamayi I have checked the Wiki page from time to time. I'm not the type to get involved in the editing process. But as the so called controversies section grew and grew, I couldn't keep silent. If you look into the editing of Sreejithinfo who has been editing this page multiple times a day day-after-day and not allowing any other user to edit the section with their points of view, I'm not an expert on Wiki policies but this doesn't seem appropriate to me. I believe this user is using every possible case that is somehow loosely connected to Amritanandamayi in attempt to slander her.

I'm not a meatpuppet. Since the Hugging saint is reported to have hugged more than 30 million people, you shouldn't be surprised if people are interested in keeping this page accurate. - JamesRoberts1949 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As reported by many users from time to time (even from 2008 - evidence the Talk page of the said article), any information that neutralises the article has been smothered by certain people. The interesting fact I noticed is that the content which can be termed as "praise" is not touched upon even though it is clear that the contents are mostly lifted from the websites of the person about whom the article is written. Even the sources of most of those information were either her books or her own organisation links. In order to balance the article, as per the BLP standards, I also added information on the largely known controversies about the subject of the article. Contrary to the SPA suspect accounts claim, all those information are properly sourced and the sources are authentic. But it was being deleted without discussion everytime and the user JamesRoberts1949 even issued a warning on my talk page. One SPA suspect account attempted vandalism by changing my edits so that it looks like the controversy was about the organisation and not the person. For the edits made by me, I was even legally threatened by the user LanceMurdock999. The tone in which I wrote the controversy section, as you can see, is neutral. I have also included the versions of both sides and have referenced them properly. I suspected the SPA case with these accounts and had stated them clearly in the Talk page of the article and I was challenged again by the user PritiVarma1985. It may be worthy to note here that an earlier IP that used to disrupt my edits was blocked by the user DMacks. Contrary to the behavioural traits of the SPA suspect accounts, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for more than 5 years and have received a Reviewer status two years back. I also have 3300+ edits on Wikipedia. I strongly believe in the neutrality of articles and would like to humbly point out that Wikipedia should not be a place for veneration or hate speech. The BLP guidelines clearly state that the positives and the negatives can be included provided they are properly sourced. In this case, the hospital in question is owned by Amritanandamayi, it is in her name, and is working based on her principles, and even the hospital states she is the inspiration. I am surprised to see that the same SPA suspect accounts do not delete the sections of the article Charity and Bhajans as these are also done by her organisation and not directly by her. The sections 'Teachings' and 'Books and publications' have contents based on the opinions of a few disciples of Amritanandamayi (who are her close aides and organisation members) and these are not neutral views as well. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * LanceMurdock999 is ❌ to everyone.
 * Pritivarma1985 is also ❌ to everyone.
 * ✅ the following are the same:

-- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed master to Amrit914, the oldest account Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked confirmed sock and sleeper, 2 week block on master. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)