Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pushkraj.janwadkar/Archive

Report date June 13 2009, 00:05 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Both users main editing habits center around adding links to http://www.sandtesting.com in the foundry sand testing article. Note that the Kiranisht user was created after I warned Pushkraj for adding link spam. Also, the Kiranisht user added a new link to http://www.sandtesting.com/refdocs/b719c96b30f7f236179847c0ccc94a1f8040689.pdf which is a document that cites its author as Pushkraj Janwadkar, so he probably made a new user to get around COI problems. Wizard191 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Wizard191 (talk)


 * Update - User:Vertical.limit (Pushkraj.janwadkar) blanked the user and talk page of User:Kiranisht. See & . Wizard191 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wizard, I can understand what you are saying. Pushkraj Janwadkar is my boss and we both work together on research in the field of testing of foundry sands. We site references from sandtesting.com since its our own work and can authorize public usage from the same. We also share IPs since we work from same office. Your claim is obvious yet is most definitely is not correct. I hope you shall appreciate our sencere effort to dessipate knowledge which we have accumulated over the period of time. Kiranisht (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, Kiranisht is my subordinate and research assistant who looks after R&D of sand testing equipments. We operate from the PC in our department which has a net connection. His edits he posts from his own id and I do from mine, since its not allowed to share id and password. but since we regularly interact on day to day basis more or less our thought process works in the same way and edits are intended in same direction. Thanks Vertical.limit (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * user:Vertical.limit as stated on their talk page "Vertical.limit aka pushkraj.janwadkar (Name has been changed)" - I am confused by these logs; the account Vertical limit has contribs from 2007. Also I cannot find a record of the name change. Could someone please clarify? 龗 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The account was renamed. When that is done, the edits under the previous account name show as having been done by the new account name. The prior account is recreated to prevent impersonation. Nathan  T 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * I've requested checkuser as there is a suggestion that those two accounts may be different people behind the same network that I am inclined to possibly believe. I've currently not checked the quality of the circumstantial evidence, but if it is insufficient to point these accounts to the same user I would suggest a code F checkuser. This would assist in ascertaining if the two different accounts maintain different workstations (if technically possibly) as the users involved have suggested that they exist in a boss/employee arrangement. The request would also have the purpose of finding any more sockpuppets, if it is suspected. I leave a decision judging the validity of my request up to any other clerks or CUs. ~ fl 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion a checkuser for this case is unnecessary; activity doesn't suggest the presence of other accounts, and a CU is not likely to be able to disprove the explanation given above. A better option would be to explain the conflict of interest policies to both users as well as give some ideas on other means for providing references (in particular, that references don't need to be within the public domain in order to be cited). The standard warning on meatpuppetry (and the treatment of these accounts as a single user for enforcement purposes) also seems warranted. Nathan  T 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to concur with Nathan on this one. For the moment, the situation doesn't seem to have come to the point where a checkuser would be likely to disprove the defense or to resolve the issue in the first place. Some discussion would be needed first on our policies on COI and meatpuppetry, and then we can see if the behavior persists.  bibliomaniac 1  5  16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved to non-CU SPI queue. Nathan  T 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Warning sent. No further action taken. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)