Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JainPlanetism/Archive

15 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

JainPlanetism is, for all practical purposes, the sole editor of Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma, an article up for deletion. About 15 minutes after JainPlanetism first commented on Articles for deletion/Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma, Sges774 was created and made its first and only edits—one to the AfD and the others to the article itself. A few hours after that, 64.138.219.85 added their two cents to the AfD—their first and only edits. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 16:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * JainPlanetism also asserts possession of Sges774's "contact information", making me think that Sges774 is at least a meatpuppet, if not a sockpuppet proper. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 16:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I am not familiar with the formatting of how to dispute this claim but I did read up on what I am being accused of. I have only one account which I created when I found out about an article of interest being tagged for deletion. I am familiar with the topic and created this account so that I may post information that would be helpful in verifying information on the topic. Yes I know Jain Planetism. Yes I notified them when I noticed that the article was up for deletion. Yes I let them know that they can contact me if they needed anything because I support the philosophy. There is nothing wrong with that. I know that wikipedia says not to take this type of accusation personally but I do. I am offended by the term and it's implication. What is important is that an auhor of an article is being told that they are not worthy to have information about their philosophy added to wikipedia because apparently others do not agree with it. There is tons of information all over the world that supports his article that is verifiable by many people who do not know him if anyone takes the time to look into it and research it. I defend his case because I have researched some of that information and am instantly accused of being him. Let alone the fact that I am not even a him, would anyone who posts for the article to stay have to deal with similar accusations? Or is it just because I also made edits to the article page in order to improve the article and help make it fall into standards? I am a supporter of the topic not the man and have attempted to show my support of the topic and should not be made to feel as if I had done something wrong.--Sges774 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

People make mistakes often. Wikipedia will fix this. Very sorry Sges774. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Named accounts appear ❌ on technical grounds. No comment on IP, of course. Frank &#124;  talk  18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tag this one to check the two named accounts. To me, behavioural evidence isn't quite clear cut here, and the reasoning provided by the user makes some sense to me, but I think a CU could confirm in regards to the named accounts, one way or another. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)