Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thommuvtt/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I recently removed a large chunk of poor material from the Kottayam article. At 10:45 today I was messaged by User:Thommuvtt and again at 11:19 in which, whilst displaying a tendency towards ownership, he informed me that. At 10:53 today, User: Pondssandal was created, and their first edit THREE minutes later was to revert me and restore the chunk of material. Muffled Pocketed  11:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

I claim that the contents removed were not blunder, but informative content about the city Kottayam. Being aware of the problem of reverting multiple times, instead of reverting the content for the second time, I asked my friend who has the user name "pondssandal" to revert. But right now it is being said is sock puppetry. But isn't there any problem for the vandalism committed by User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi on the Kottayam article ? The edits by him on our article is very harsh. They are making the article meaning less and less informative. Now User:Chaheel_Riens and Sro23 are reverting our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommuvtt (talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll comment here as it makes sense to do so rather on a respective talk page - but for the benefit of Thommuvtt, if the above is true (although account creation and edits by Pondssandal make this a dubious claim) and you asked your friend to weigh in on your behalf, then this is called Meatpuppetry and is frowned on as much as sockpuppetry is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Me and my friend reverted the article because we know our Kottayam and know that what you deleted were unnecessary. Well we may surrender about Meatpuppetry but in this case please stop deleting load of data from Kottayam. Sorry about all the indecent expressions from me. But I still request User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi,User:Chaheel_Riens and Sro23 to stop reverting it. Because I can't find anything wrong. I you feel something is violating laws in the article, please make it to my notice so that I can edit with my rich knowledge abut my city Kottayam. After all I know more than you about Kotayam. So, can I re revert it tommorow with all the edits you suggest? And I would say that I never have a feeling that I OWN the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommuvtt (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admin action needed - . In addition to the diffs provided by filer,, at this very SPI, modifies 's comment: . If it's not socking, it's meatpuppetry for sure, and I think it's a distinction without a difference here. Enlisting friends to help in a manner similar to sockpuppetry is "meatpuppetry", and several users with similar editing habits may be considered a single account for these purposes.
 * Admin: Please indefinitely block and block  for two weeks. You may also want to consider any longer block for Thommuvtt based on any behavior/editing habits outside the scope of SPI. Based on the above, I think CheckUser is unnecessarily and so the CU request is . Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked as requested.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)