Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thommuvtt: Difference between revisions
+ |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
||
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 ? |
|||
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== |
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== |
||
Revision as of 11:43, 16 September 2016
Thommuvtt
- Thommuvtt (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Populated account categories: confirmed
16 September 2016
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Pondssandal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 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 I will change it if it is needed to be so. 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 ?