Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ne0Freedom/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Ne0Freedom adds text to Made Made Snana claiming that opponents are "mostly Atheists and Naxals" which I revert, adding more sourced text, as it is not in the source. 103.227.99.111 reverts me (including my new text) stating that one named person is an atheist.. User:Meters reverts that IP as it isn't in the source. Along come 203.13.146.24 reverting again with an edit summary "If you think something is not general knowledge use citation needed". I revert again. 223.227.36.221 reverts me. The article is now protected with the unsourced text removed. 103.227.99.111 also added a BLP violation to the talk page, stating that Prof.Rao is a Naxalite when he has explicitly stated he doesn't support the Naxals. Note that Ne0Freedom's old (and admitted on his userpage) sock User:Eternal-Entropy was blocked in 2013. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And he is now claiming that he has stalkers and may edit anonymously. Doug Weller  talk 20:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This was after I gave him a warning for adding material not in the text, noting "That was obviously you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the logged out bit,". Which sounds as though he is at least admitting the first IP was his. Doug Weller  talk 20:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Having checked the edits, the edit summaries, comments made by Ne0Freedom about sockpuppets and editing without logging in, and the geolocation of the IP addresses, I have no doubt that this was Ne0Freedom editing without logging in to evade scrutiny. I have blocked the account for a week. 103.227.99.111 is already blocked, and since the other IP addresses have only one edit each, neither of them very recent, there is no point in blocking them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)