Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doorvery far/Archive

Evidence submitted by Deepak D'Souza
When I reverted Doorvery Far's edit, he started a discussion. After facing some opposition, an IP with no previous edits suddenly makes a few good edits and supports DoorveryFar. When i suspected that this was a case of socpuppetry, Doorvery quickly claims that there are two "votes" in his favour and goes on to redo his edit. This is neither proper procedure because there was no vote, nor correct because there were two oppositions, not one.

User:Doorvery far makes a reference to my religion ,claiming it is a case of WP:COI. Anon reffers to the article on my hometown(taken from my userpage) to buttress his case. Too much of a coincidence. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I plead not guilty. The ip is from Mumbai, but i'm editing wikipedia from some other faraway city where I cant trip to Mumbai everyday. I deny any meat-puppetry too. Moreover, I dont need any support of ip for my argument here where the reporter is behaving unfairly. Doorvery far (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional evidence which would require a daily flight by me. Doorvery far (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
It's either meatpuppetry or straight socking. In either case, the IP hasn't edited in about a week, so this is moot. No action taken at this time. Doorvery far, don't do that again, or you may be blocked next time. –MuZemike 20:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)