Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantv79/Archive

12 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This request relates to pages involving the Kurmi caste of India, principally Kurmi, Kurmi kshtriya (now deleted, A10), Kurmi Kshatriya, Kurmi History and Kurmi clans. All but the first two were created by the alleged sockmaster; the second was created by an alleged sock; and all but Kurmi itself started life as unattributed copy/pastes of an old version of Kurmi, which has recently undergone substantial edits by non-Indian contributors in an attempt to remove POV, poor sourcing etc. Their primary contention is similar: that the article mis-states the Hindu ritual group of which the caste is supposed to have been a member.

The three accounts involved have each almost immediately after creation targeted Kurmi articles and engaged in somewhat fractious article talk page discussions. They have all also been rather free with their insults of good faith editors, including on those editors' own talk pages. For supposedly new editors, they show a surprising familiarity with WP policies when it suits them, eg; AN/EW.

has adopted the same unusual spelling of "kshatriya" here, and this corresponds to the spelling used in the A10 deleted article which was created by when logged out - see this thread on my talk page.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Sitush: The spelling I used is universally recognized. So, please don't accuse me. If I spell something that is correct.

You have been reporting me and other users as you want to avoid the 3RR rule for making unwanted edits. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sitush_reported_by_User:TomPaul67_.28Result:_.29

Please don't try to trick the system and the helpful admins. This is a total waste of everyone's time. Time is something we don't have in abundance. Thanks

TomPaul67 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC) At least two of the accounts have been specific in saying that they are correct in their view because they are members of the caste - hereand in this edit summary.

Definitely something odd going on, Sitush (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The user User:Sitush has been making unwanted changes on the page:Kurmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi. Though this user has been been warned multiple times, this user is not respecting the guidelines of the forum. Instead of agreeing and getting involved in a constructive discussion, and going through a resolution process, this user has reported me twice for being a socket puppet. I am very unhappy to see such a response from this user. I would like to report this user for violating the policies of Wiki.
 * Additional point: all three of these users have attempted to use a source - Tyagi's Martial Races of India - which has been found on numerous past occasions to be unreliable. This could be coincidence, of course. - Sitush(talk) 09:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I have been reported as I don't agree to Sitush POV. TomPaul67 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I make a sworn statement as given under: I Paul declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 7/12/2011.

TomPaul67 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to agree to any of the sources cited. And rather than looking for reconcialation of opinion on talk back page, you have been making unwanted edits. It seems like a violation of policy.

Apart from that you are falsely acusing people of being involved in some sort of scheme to get to you. As evident from your post on this users page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#Got_myself_a_problem_while_I_was_writing_up_an_SPI

I would like to claim that I am being falsely accused. This user made this SPI after he was reported for violating 3RR rule.

TomPaul67 (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have indef blocked User:TomPaul67 as a blatant sock of User:Prashantv79 - there are just too many stylistic commonalities to ignore the quacking. If I'm proved wrong, I'll apologize and unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'll be happy to provide the duck evidence if anyone wants it - but I don't want to spill too many beans in public -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
TomPaul67 and Prashantv79 are, while Ajneesh Katiyar is ❌ to the other two. –MuZemike 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts are currently blocked, I'll just tag the newer one. Also, if the clerk could move this to Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantv79 and then archive, that would reflect the true master.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)