Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SHRIPADVAIDYA/Archive

20 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Sock replaced content previously posted by master and removed as self-promoting. Sock proceeds to post the content more widely. Joja lozzo  19:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

As a comment from an uninvolved by-stander, I can see why this has come to SPI, and I confess that I was tempted to do the same. However, it is the case that I advised SHRIPADVAIDYA in a template message about possible COI issues with that user name and he/she wasadvised to change it. If that is what he/she has done, it would unfortunate to then block him/her as a sock. There is no obvious socking behaviour, no stacked votes, no edit warring. The editing behaviour is unfortunate, to say the least, but blocking through an SPI probably isn't the right course of action.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That does change things some, but restoring the old account's deleted posts under the new account still "walks like a sock". I'm happy to withdraw this request if such behavior ceases. Joja  lozzo  04:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my comments above. Now clear evidence of socking with one restoring the content put there by the other. I concur with Joja  Velella  Velella Talk 07:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The connection here is rather obvious. I have indeffed the secondary account, and blocked the master for one week. AGK  [•] 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)