Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalitshastri/Archive

11 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The accounts are all effectively WP:SPAs. There are other IPs that have been involved but the Singahi Bhiraura article has now been semi-protected by for a fortnight, starting at 12:41 10 March. The problems relate to content at that article, taking a form similar to this by Lalishastri. That contributor claims to be a member of the British Library in London but only re-joined the fray on the talk page after Salvio applied the protection. They had originally done this in January but then went silent until just after Salvio's semi, starting again at 15:12 on that day. In the interval, the IPs were going at it hammer and tongs, hence the semi.

All of the IPs, both before and since, are arguing the same non-policy compliant point on the article talk page, on my talk page and elsewhere ... and all of them geolocate to the BT ISP in London. They are all also arguing the impossible point as the named accounts.

Within a few minutes of Padmanitrivedi saying this on my talk page, 31.55.75.17 added this.

All of these accounts, and more, are adding huge walls of text to the various talk pages; they're all saying that the primary sources are acceptable; they are generally copy/pasting big chunks posted by others; and they're using unusually long section headings. On at least a couple of occasions, they have also broken someone else's sig, eg: here and here.

Frankly, I think this is a WP:DUCK job for the IPs but I'm more concerned about the named accounts and the fact that Padmanitrivedi has only recently been created. Adding in the personal attacks and incompetence, I think a CU is desirable, especially regarding potential other accounts.

Consensus (ie: arguments based on policy) is that the material is WP:OR and this has support from myself,,. Sitush (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the checkuser. I know that you cannot comment on the IPs but hopefully whoever clerks this can recognise that the IPs are obviously the same person editing while logged out. That said, I doubt we can rangeblock BT in London, especially since some of these appear to be mobile edits! - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

All these IP addresses belong to BT but are dynamic when users log into the wifi of the British Libarary London Euston Road

These are Editors of Wikipedia who are readers at the reading rooms of the British Libarary. They do not have to hold accounts in Wikipedia to make edits. No sock puppetry is involved as there are several academics here who support Lalit Shastri and are making comments when they meet for coffee in the central foyer. Many of us our pretty peeved at the way the citations of the original article was rubbished by user Sitush. He removed paragraphs of this article, even though Lalit Shastri is working in the archives here as a research scholar. If you contact BT regarding the servers that use this dynamic range it will point to the British Libarary London By the way instead of investigating the imagined sock puppetry, why don't you investigate the edits to the article on Singahi around which this controversy revolves. The town itself is an obscure little place of no importance with half the people barely able to read and write. However Lalit Shastri researched the History of the lower caste people who were its first settlers along with Muslims, he cited original sources as well as published material from the extensive records and books here at the British Libarary.

But the Upper Caste Hindus of the RSS are busy distorting Indian History to fall in line with their own fascist agenda (google and do your own research) and leading Indian and foreign academics have written about it. This is what Sitush who vandalised the article did not like, history without the distorted RSS version. That the Muslims and India's lower caste Hindus co operated in this town That the Muslims did not discriminate against the lower castes That The Rajputs in the 18th century took away the lower caste freedoms in this little town

RSS fascism in India pretends all Hindus are united, they try and hide the dark underbelly of the horrors of the caste system. India's own slave period and shame. Muslims are demonised what user Sitush could not bear was that the history of the town told the truthful tale of Muslims and untouchables cooperating. And the fact that Muslims treated the untouchable as an equal

This is why a little article on an unimportant town has produced this controversy

I am posting this from they foyer of the Worlds largest depository of knowledge.

If you wish to label us as sock puppets it's your business. Anyone can give their contribution to Wikipedia even with just an IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.106.79 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ - I agree with Sitush: barrage of posts, but no substantial argument on the reliablility of those sources or on original research. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   18:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @86 etc: publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal, and the data can be used. Regarding the RSS: I'm glad to see some opposition here against Hindu-nationalism, but the accusations you're making are ridiculous. your response is far over the top.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Joshua, probably you know now, above part that has been written by 86.174.106.79 wasn't needed here. It is not really a matter what he hates or admires, but he is probably using Wikipedia as forum. Furthermore, his pushing of disbelief that "IPs = Socks" is deliberately nonsensical. Noteswork (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * important note Wikipedia fairness policy

Let it be noted that user Jonathan and user Sitush have both edited  their talk pages. User Jonathan has removed his talk discussions entirely. I have reverted both the talk pages of these users in the interests of full disclosure as it seems they have much to hide. And because the focus is also on them are doing a cover up.

Both the above users work closely together as the historical record will show, the evidence is there for all to see. In the interest of impartiality user Jonathan and user Sitush should not sit in judgement of user Lalit Shastri as they are both party to the dispute with Lalit Shastri.

Independent editors not connect with any party in dispute should arbitrate here.

The talk pages of the singhai page, which is the article in dispute has also been changed by Sitush to hide the comments critical to his edits and also to hide those in support of Lalit Shastri

Please bear the above in mind when reading comments by user Jonathan and user Sitush

Lalitshastri (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've warned this editor about their behavior. I'm off to bed now but will support a block if it is repeated. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Accounts blocked and tagged. And I've blocked the two most recent IPs. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)