Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shanker Pur/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Shanker Pur

Shanker Pur (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Two freshly created accounts showed up to comment on an AFD about Horizontal versus vertical, an article created by the potential puppetmaster. Between the three account, the discussion has been spammed with duplicate !votes that create an illusion of greater support for the article. For Johny the jump, a few suspicious points are when he replies to Shanker only 7 minutes after Shanker comments on the AFD thread, and a habit both users share of editing comments after the fact (see 1 from Shanker and 2 and 3 from Johnny.) The resigning of comments after fixing them can be seen as a behavior exhibited by the both of them. As for Scotpina, there is only one comment to go off of on the AFD thread, but it fits the profile of an account created for the express purpose of adding support to Shanker's troubled article. Both potential socks lack userpages and seem to have no inclination to edit anywhere outside of the article and its AFD discussion. Ducknish (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Another potential sock SPA jumped in with a keep vote. His only edit. Ducknish (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seal Boxer as well. I would agree that these two new accounts are suspicious, however I don't think Shanker Pur (who seems innocently unfamiliar with WP) is behind them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not guilty. No socketpuppery or sealboxing. No multiple account misuse. No multiple voting. I did vote keep whenever I made a comment in the deletion discussion but that was to indicate a no change of mind. Only one keep has been kept. I hope the article can be kept.Shanker Pur (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say is true, then what, if any, is your connection to these three accounts? I find it unlikely that several new accounts are created with the sole aim of defending your article without any outside involvement. Ducknish (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been finding out about sockpupetry and its complexities. I have only used one account to make my edits and there is no multiple account misuse. As regards any other contributors to the AfD discussion, I cannot answer your question because of Privacy considerations. (I wonder if the question is not inappropriate from that point of view). My IP address is sometimes shared with other users but I don't think I can or should give details here. Nor is that up to me. I have not kept my relationship with the article Horizontal versus vertical a secret. I trust the contributions made on the AfD discussion page - for deletion, for keeping - have been made in good faith. What I can say is that I have not controlled anyone to vote for "keep" or "delete". The article for deletion page invites people to leave their comment even if they are not wiki editors. In any case, the votes of the new editors are not counted, so, I do not think, anyone is guilty of sockpuppetry. Shanker Pur (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not inappropriate to ask whether you operate these other accounts, or whether you have some other connection to them. No one is asking you to reveal your or anyone else's personally identifying information here; we just want to know the nature of the relationship between the accounts. Please note that the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy is quite clear that you may not "recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate". If you asked anyone to create those accounts in order to vote in the deletion debate, then you have violated the rules here. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. I am Shanker Pur. Regarding the accusation of sockpuppetry, I offer the following 10 points for your consideration.

1. On the AFD page (article for deletion page re Horizontal versus vertical) my edits are signed "Shanker Pur" and those are my only edits. None of the other edits are mine. I have not used multiple accounts to enter the AFD page. I invite you not to waste Wiki money and effort trying to establish anything to the contrary. But that is up to you.

2. At no time, did I tell, control, recruit, influence, bribe, pressurise or otherwise attempt to persuade anyone to vote ‘keep’ for this or any other article

3. It is not a rule of Wikipedia that one should keep one’s user identity secret. I have not kept my identity a secret. I have no means of knowing who knows my identity, friend or otherwise.

4. It is not a rule of Wikipedia that one should keep one’s edits secret. I have not kept my edits secret.

5. I admit fully and frankly, and gladly, to having encouraged (many) people to contribute to Wikipedia.

6. I have assumed good faith on the part of those who have voted to delete, keep, or merge the article, that they have given their honest assessment. For instance, Andy Dingley has variously expressed the view that the article was “badly written”, “crackpot”, “ inconsistent”, and “nonsense”. I actually think that he has confused some issues but I believe he is acting honestly and straightforwardly in his expression of opinion; I assume the same for his relationship with other editors. I am also assuming that the others who have disagreed with him are expressing their honest view.

7. I now come to a matter of some legal complexity and it is do with Privacy. The issue is whether it is consistent with Wiki Privacy policy to make public the relationships an editor has with other editors. Consider the following scenario: suppose I reveal that another editor – say Psychonaut1 - is my father. Then, people who know my identity would know that my father is Psychonaut1. In my village, everybody would now know what my father has been saying on Wikipedia. I would have compromised my father Psychonaut1’s privacy.

8. It is not a Wiki policy to stop new editors from entering and editing the AFD page. In fact, the newcomer is invited to leave a comment. New editors are often experienced users of Wiki and can well assess whether an article is nonsense or not.

9. The AFD page makes it clear to everyone if a contributory editor is a new editor with none or very few other edits. One freshly registered editor who has contributed to the article for deletion page has frankly declared that he is a new editor on the page itself. His declaration is there to read for anyone. I do not see how he is trying to mislead the process. Ducknish has accused him of being a sock puppet. Not a very nice welcome to a new editor who has openly declared his status. I note that Ducknish is on the Welcoming Committee of Wikipedia.

10. I think a Wiki adminstrator needs to look into this discussion. Shanker Pur (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanker, you are making an overly detailed interpretation of my statement that we're asking you to disclose your "relationship" to the accounts. No one is asking you to disclose any information which would expose the identity of yourself or third parties. We just want to know whether the other accounts are operated by you, or if not, whether their creation and participation in the debate is a result of your direction or encouragement. It would be good if you would familiarize yourself with our guidelines on canvassing; in particular note that canvassing has occurred if you ask only those people who are sympathetic to your argument to participate in a discussion, even if you don't explicitly tell them what contributions to make to that discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seal Boxer has just confirmed that User:Shanker Pur is User:Scotpina. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Scotpina. Reeat, I am not Scotpina. As I said before, others use the same IP address as me. This needs an adminstrator. Shanker Pur (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of contacting Wikipedia via email to see what can be done to refute the claim that I am Scotpina. Shanker Pur (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted User:Keegan the checkuser to see what can be done about the mistake that User: Shanker Pur is User: Scotpina Shanker Pur (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shanker, In my village we have a saying, "When you're already in a hole, stop digging." Scotpina is connected to you. We have some fairly strong technical indication of this. Now wiki editors are still allowed to share IPs, so there is a chance that you and Scotpina have no disallowed connection. However this still isn't the best situation to be in. Scotpina had only one edit when this CU was started, to the AfD on your article. This is not a long-term editor with other wide interests: they're an editor who only signed up after your Afd, and their only edit was to support you. That's too great a coincidence to be credible, even though we can't strongly claim that is was you making the edit, rather than a family member etc.
There are two actions you're not permitted to do: sockpuppeting (you create other accounts) and meatpuppeting (you influence other people's accounts). You are still permitted to have other people edit on your behalf, if they do so independently. As we can't technically tell this apart from meatpuppeting, per WP:AGF, we give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are innocent here.
Yet your actions here have not been above board. If someone sharing your connection suddenly decided to join WP, and to comment at this AfD, then that is only credible if you had discussed your WP article with them (which is perfectly allowed for both of you). Yet when you're then at CU, you deny that there is any such thing going on! This might still be innocent, you appear concerned about privacy and you're allowed to be. Yet if you'd said early on, "This is my cousin/grandmother editing, they also think that my article is good", we would (per AGF) accept this. Instead though, you make it appear that there is no connection with these accounts, hoping that we wouldn't notice! That is permitted too (it's not forbidden, it's not incontrovertible evidence of socking), but it isn't encouraging. With hindsight, your wording is also careful so that you never say "there is no connection", merely that it's not a forbidden connection as socking. It looks as if you were indeed aware of this, but didn't want to mention it because you thought it wouldn't be seen as good. Now, it looks worse.
As always with AGF, I'm happy to accept that this account isn't acting under your instruction, but please be aware for the future that things which look like socking are seen very badly at WP. Things which look like attempts to deny the CU results, or to explain them only after you've been caught out, look even worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear up one thing, let us leave my grandmother out of the picture. I don't want to say anything more because of Privacy considerations. I know of no one who acted in bad faith and I believe that Andy Dingley's choice of the word "nonsense" to describe the article was provocative. Shanker Pur (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, play it that way then. You wrote a nonsense article of crackpot science, a mix of original research, overlap with other existing articles, abused references and logical inconsistencies. When that article was raised at AfD, your response was to fabricate new accounts to sockpuppet in support of it. When caught out by simple technical evidence, your reaction now is to still deny it, to hide behind Privacy (capitalised, no less!) and to start attacking other editors as it's all their fault and you're completely innocent.
Rubbish. You're yet another sock. We've seen them all too often before, and you're no different. Block. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not attacking any one. I was actually trying to explain that the word "nonsense" can be provocative, but never mind. Your strong dislike of the article comes over very loud and clear. The view is clearly not shared by every one but you are welcome to yours. Shanker Pur (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • no Declined, per the related case. Shankur Pur is not Johny the jump or DonaldAGilles. I am, however, 100% certain that the same machine that was used to edit the Shankur Pur account was the same one that that created and edited with the Scotpina account. Keegan (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked master 1 week, sock indef. Please see WP:BROTHER. Closing. Rschen7754 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shanker_Pur/Archive&oldid=545825348"