Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mayasutra/Archive

30 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Diff of Mayasutra's edits in the Iyengar page -. Diff of Fastnfurious's edits in the Sri Sampradaya page -. Comment on above diffs: The users have made exactly identical edits across two closely related pages. Diff of Mayasutra's edits in the Sri Sampradaya page -. Comment on above diff: Now the suspected sockmaster has made edits in the "Sri Sanpradaya" page itself, by removing links to "Vadakalai and Thenkalai". A previous data dealing with the two subsects was removed by fastnfurious, and now a link to the "same data that exists in another page" has been removed by Mayasutra(just 5 days after fastnfurious's edit). Diff of Mayasutra's edits in the Vadakalai page -. Comment on above diff: User had removed the whole section along with its sources by giving a false edit summary. No one disputed the contents other than this user. Diff of Fastnfurious's edits in the Vadakalai page some time ago -. Comment on above diff: Both users seem to have problems with the same section of the page(although the edited data in this case was slightly different, the user is uncomfortable with the section and was causing diruption). From the above mentioned diffs, especially the first three diffs, there seems to be obvious sockpuppetry. Also, the pages they are operating in are subject to "General sanctions"(pages related to castes/communities of India). Considering the seriousness, please look into the user accounts of both the suspected sockmaster and the suspected sockpuppet. Hari7478 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I find this hilarious. I have nothing to say in defense. I leave it to Fastnfurious to respond. Am willing to contact admin to confirm my real time identity if they require so. Admin is free to check IPs and whatever details they want as well. I have a suggestion for Hari7478 though -- better you spend time on the ANI page and explain why you misquoted sources, instead of trying gimmicks such as reporting me for page protection, vandalism and now this sockpuppet report. You are stretching your ways of intimidation too far. But do not think you can get away with all this. You still are answerable on the ANI page. I do not mind reporting your falsification of sources to pass off your silly ethnic / race theories again and again, until the admin relent and pass a verdict. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * Kindly note I am not using the ID Casteeditor anymore: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Casteeditor&diff=530978045&oldid=441845793 Thanks. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - What is suspicious to me is that both these editors tend to go through long bouts of inactivity, but whenever Fastnfurious suddenly reappears, so does Mayasutra, even if not at the same article. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Casteeditor ✅ with Mayasutra. Otherwise ❌ IIRC. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action as no pattern of abuse has been proven. Rschen7754 04:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User Mayasutra received a block on 11 August 2016. User Anon=us came on board on 23 April 2016, and became active on similar pages, mostly related to the Balija caste. After doing edits quietly for a while, they have now turned extremely aggressive, writing over 100 talk page posts in the span of a week, including a WP:DRN case. Other then the common interests and common user interactions, as well as the fetish with the = sign (&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; and Anon&#61;us), at least in one instance they signed as "Mayasutra". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest there was any block evasion. But coming back to the same old pages with a new user id is problematic. The argumentation and tactics are similar. Besides, I don't see a good reason for a new user id. A prior approval by ARBCOMM would have been necessary for a WP:clean start. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The comments in the section below ("Kautilya need not do X", "Kautilya need not do Y") suggests that the old behaviour that led to the user's block on 11 August 2016 is very much alive. It has been the same language in pretty much all his posts in recent days, including at WP:DRN (,, , etc.) Badgering Sitush on his talk page until he told him to stop , which only caused IDHT  and then sent him to my talk page. We have been putting up with a lot of these antics, assuming he was a new user, still getting up to speed. Had we know it was Mayasutra in a new avatar, he would have ended up with loads of warnings by now. This is an instance of WP:SCRUTINY. I would like to request that this account be blocked and the user asked to use his old account. Pinging and  for their input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Hello. Please see mentioned this on Neil's page. Kautilya need not make a big issue of a temporary block for any user when account is active. Thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * There is no need for Kautilya to assume good reason or not; or try to allude to block evasion or opposite. Trying to figure out how WP:Vanish suggested by Neil works. If Neil had suggested whatever Kautilya is saying now, arbcomm, etc, would have followed it. Did not know about it. Thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * In case this helps. This laptop was hacked. Thankfully its not mine but my kid's and there is no personal info on it. We chose not to remove malware. I still use it as it is; for non-personal stuff. The cursor moves, opens folders, etc; which we are told comes from remote access. Previously too when was typing, the cursor moved and words changed. I did not sign in as mayasutra. Some people appear motivated to go a great distance politically or otherwise. Anyways, we had an IP dump done, network admin look in and there is cooperation going on from where it matters. Thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Well spotted, Kautilya.3 I couldn't put my finger on it but I think you are more likely correct than not. The responses above from Anon=us don't actually seem to deny the claim and are written in a style that certainly seems to be similar to Mayasutra. The common interests might speak for themselves. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Kautilya is in DRN. Sitush on balija talk page seems like he wants to approve content, not just sources. Teaming up and stonewalling is expected; even though sitush claims to be confused and excused himself from DRN; but common interests? Well, i maybe quarter balija, quarter kamma, one-tenth iyengar, one-tenth vaidiki or just anything. How does it matter? When we speak of an article we bother for the numbers they represent, in this case balija being half of AP (with kapu/ reddi, munnuru kapu, ontari, telaga, all kapus, all reddys all coming under one block of kapu), large number in tamilnadu and practically all of lingayaths who make up minimum 9% of karnataka population. Do note i have nothing to lose or gain, since none of us live in india and are not affected by reservation policies. If Kautilya really proves all balijas in tamilnadu are gavara/gavarai/kavarai then really many people will thank him. Am their villian actually; by being factual. As for blocks, really, again, i have nothing to lose or gain. If we move to an other place soon in any case will get a new ip. so how does it matter anyways. If wiki does not want my contribution, i gain or lose nothing. thanks guys, hope better sense prevails. thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * to NeilN: We do not know what personal safety issues will be involved in future yet, thanks to elements / stalkers who do not seem normal really. As mentioned in your talk page last week, i do not wish to use old username anymore, and wanted it blocked it indefinitely. But since you gave option of WPvanish, was trying to figure out how it works and this happened. I would like to use this user name. Please block other one. Thanks. Is it compulsory to put a link to old user account on current user page? please guide.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * to NeilN: When I wrote to you about having an old username last week itself you could have informed me about Scrutiny. Had no clue. If I wanted to make another account, or evade scrutiny, why would i ask you how to delete old username. If I could email you, would have been so much better. Anyways, its done. Again, I have nothing against Kautilya and Sitush; nor do i stand to gain or lose by contributing to wiki. Its not going to figure on my resume nor help me gain anything in anyway. Nobody owns an article here. I believe I have been more civil than others who resort to accusations here. Thank you.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * to Kautilya: When you revert, you provide no reason on talk page. When I ask on your talk page, you do not reply. From Jan to now, you had the opportunity to, but you chose to not reply. One great man gathered a group of fighters from different castes for dharma. He made the mistake of giving the group a cover-title name. Now the cover-title is considered a caste mired in current exigencies. But you wish to say everyone belongs to one subcaste alone. You want your POV. To hold on to that point, you file this report. BTW, my ip is different now due to issue mentioned above. I need not have said anything. Yet, I asked Neil how to delete old username last week. Thanks for bringing up the conversation with Sitush and yourself with claims of antics, badgering, and so on. It shows how civil it has been; despite my frequent thanking to both of you. It is also good that you brought out previous issues. Guess people know things they read on the net is not always factual and should be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, it is possible some editors have not given up their own caste bias, and react in certain ways when anyone contributes to articles like ezhava, kayastha, pandit, etc. Thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Final Note
Contributing to wiki is not a paying job for me. Its an expenditure job, using electricity, internet connection-charges, etc. With the hope that being factual may make a difference somewhere. For being the buddhist karma follower that i am, such is the life approach. I thot writing here is a nice pastime too.

Its my worldview that though religions fight, they accommodate; just as vaishnavam accommodated shaivism, buddhism, jainism (despite persecutions), etc; allowing for movement. Same way I believe humanity allows for movement of people through their aspirations. Dealing with casteism, that too in current times, is something am sufficiently experienced in. However, am not prepared to pay a price for it.

I thot everyone starts somewhere, and then merges into this vast ocean of humanity when their role is done. I did not know people liked brackets for a purpose of a very different kind i cannot deal with. It is not in my blood to be dishonest. If I wanted to evade something, I would not have asked Neil how to delete old username last week. If I wanted to use one more ID, I would not have written this or said this.

I do not find the need to have agendas, work in convoluted manner, allege, or feel a proprietary right for words.. It is clear this is not the place for me to contribute. I would not like to continue on wiki anymore. Kindly delete this username. Leave it to admin to decide if they want to keep or delete all contributions made so far. Thanks.

--Anon&#61;us (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * Boing!_said_Zebedee -- For whatever reasons you choose, whether i use different non-compromised laptops or not, what have said above is clear. No need for notification alerts. Removing email too. No communication please. Thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * Regentspark -- Above has been said. So also this "we had an IP dump done, network admin look in and there is cooperation going on from where it matters". We have a good idea what is going on. I moved on to the other laptop anyways. Using what i wrote selectively, assuming things and piling on by buddies is unnecessary. I request the admin to close this asap please; as have already requested deletion. Thanks--Anon&#61;us (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * May I have an indication, for how long this will be kept open? Can not the admin just delete the account as per request above; and close this? --Anon&#61;us (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * Accounts and their contributions cannot be deleted. In some circumstances, you can vanish and in some circumstances it may be necessary to hide specific contributions but they're still not actually deleted. If you want to stop contributing then just, well, stop. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not know Sitush is the admin :) Thanks. BTW, I thot this report is meant to be closed. I request the admin to answer when it will be.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us


 * NeilN - Who said I wanted history of the previous account to be wiped/deleted?!! When did I ever say so? I said delete this account (anon=us). Hope you are reading before you write in your comments. What do you mean "compromised account" block will theoretically allow the editor to create a new account if they fix/wipe their laptop? Why are you casting aspersions? Do you seriously think your old boys club will allow a new editor to survive? Then why do you assume I'd want to come back? Please read the final note above, very carefully. If you want to ask questions, please do it here, not on my talk page. I'd rather have a proper record of things you, the admin, says in this report. Thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I did not know why Anon=us wanted to disassociate himself from his old account - we did not get that far. As the reason does not involve personal safety issues, WP:VANISH does not apply. Anon=us, I see you have an email attached to the Mayasutra account. You can either use that account, using password recovery if you've lost the password. Or you can use this account, putting a link to your old account on your user page. Either way, one account will be blocked and you will not be able to create a new account again. --Neil N  talk to me 02:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By all accounts, I should be indefinitely blocking your current account and giving your old account a good long block for evading scrutiny so you're getting off really lightly with just having a link on your user page. Please remember no more new accounts and tread carefully as you'll face editing sanctions sooner rather than later if you do not. --Neil N  talk to me 04:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the claim, above, that "This laptop was hacked. Thankfully its not mine but my kid's and there is no personal info on it. We chose not to remove malware. I still use it as it is; for non-personal stuff. The cursor moves, opens folders, etc; which we are told comes from remote access. Previously too when was typing, the cursor moved and words changed. I did not sign in as mayasutra.", I'd say the User:Anon=us account should be indef blocked as compromised. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Boing. Moving cursors, ghosts typing stuff. Recipe for wiki-disaster. --regentspark (comment) 11:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to do a "compromised account" block as this will theoretically allow the editor to create a new account if they fix/wipe their laptop. As it is, they're one disruptive edit away from me blocking them under caste discretionary sanctions. --Neil N  talk to me 13:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine with me, happy to leave it to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I'm not sure I understand everything said by the editor above, but it looks like they want to stop editing. Perhaps a note that, if they do return to editing, they should do so using the Anon=us account or face an indef block? --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They want the history of their previous account to be wiped/deleted. Which obviously isn't going to happen. --Neil N  talk to me 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Anon=us, I apologize for misunderstanding you. All your previous requests directed personally to me were about your old account. is correct. Just stop editing with this account. If you ever wish to return to editing, you must do it using this account. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've indef blocked for continuing personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)