Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hanuman Das

;Suspected sockpuppeteer

{{user5|Hanuman Das}}

;Suspected sockpuppets

{{user5|Danuman Has}}

;Report submission by:

BostonMA ^talk 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

;Evidence

Evidence of alternate account by same user:

• {{user|Hanuman Das}} states that he/she interprets the result of an RfC as permission to use sockpuppets. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMattisse&diff=92217520&oldid=92202488]
• {{user|Danuman Has}} account is created and replies immediately on the RfC page with

:"Me, too. I completely agree with Hanuman Das. That's exactly what it means." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse&diff=next&oldid=92217520]

• The names clearly suggest the same user.

Evidence of abusive use of alternate account:

• Please see below why this report is being filed. There is a technical violation of engaging in discussion on an RfC talk page using two accounts. However, it should be obvious that no deception was intended, as the name of the alternate account was chosen to be similar to that of the main account. Nevertheless, for the sake of dotting the 'i's, the technical violation is using two accounts on the same RfC.
• The technical violation is not the reason why this report is being filed. Rather, there is concern that the user has threatened to create sockpuppets in the future [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMattisse&diff=92217520&oldid=92202488] This report is intended to serve as a warning against such a course and a reminder to observe WP:Point.

;Comments

I have already indef blocked {{user|Danuman Has}}, but as BostonMA states, this is relevant to get on record because {{user|Hanuman Das}} has essentially stated his intent to disrupt using sockpuppets since he perceives that {{user|Mattisse}} has gotten away with it. --Ars Scriptor 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This report and the blocking were a policy violation: An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint —Hanuman Das 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke. Too bad Ars Scriptor does not have a sense of humor. Not a single policy violation was committed by User:Danuman Has. It was simply used as an excuse to harass me by User:BostonMA. If this is the wrong place for this comment, please move it. Also, please delete the user and talk page of User:Danuman Has and lock the account if you are afraid (without cause) that I will abuse it. You guys need to lighten up. —Hanuman Das 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence or even suggestion that Hanuman Das has actually sockpuppeted except for this one making-a-point occurrence, is there? And I'm not sure that that was actually a case of disruptive sockpuppetry, since it was deliberately obvious and not doing anything destructive. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

;Conclusions

MER-C 03:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

----