Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seal Boxer/Archive

12 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

, previously (legitimately) is a new editor who is dividing opinions at present as to whether they're WP:NOTHERE or not. As I noted yesterday (my talk), "Three hoax articles: two deleted already, one userified and still advising the sending of seals by post. Two nonsense redirects, which at RfD were advised as "should be speedy". Some simple vandalism to an existing article. An attack page and a retalitory AfD. So far I see one positive edit alone. How much clearer a sign would you like?" Admittedly they seem to have made some legit edits today.

I've recently nom'ed an unrelated article, Horizontal versus vertical at AfD as crackpot science and WP:OR. Its creator is another new editor, but appears to be a sincere new editor, unfamiliar with practice here. However at that AfD, today two newly created accounts appeared and went straight to AfD to support this article.

As Anthony Seldon has already been arguing at AfD and has created a bad faith AfD of one of my unrelated articles (speedy closed), then my suspicion is that he's still favouring AfD as a troll's playpen and has switched to using socks.

I may of course be entirely wrong here, in which case I apologise to Anthony Seldon sincerely for suggesting that he would sock. However I think SPI on these accounts is justified by reasonable suspicion and may be an effective resolution to issues involving both the AfD and possibly his bona fides as an editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Related SPI opened independently at Sockpuppet investigations/Shanker Pur Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * and a third shiny new spa   Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm of the opinion that these two accounts are more likely to be the puppets of Shanker Pur. The interaction between the three seems to highly suggest that he is the one switching accounts in this case. Whichever scenario is true, I would agree with the nominating user that these two accounts seem to be under someone's control. Ducknish (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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) 23:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely sure what is going on here. It would be courteous in future to inform me (I have a talk page for this purpose) if you intend to have discussions about me on this website. I understand that Andy D has some issues with me, as is evident in his crusade to name-drop me on many pages across the enyclopedia. It seems that this has now led to him believing I am some kind of spy-master of a kind, tugging at multiple strings on a spiders web. I have no idea who any of these other editors are, and believe the discussion about Horizontal versus vertical is something I am not qualified to comment on, nor would I choose to. But I assure you that if I did, it would be with the same account with which I have made my other edits. So go on, Andy D. Have your witch hunt! Seal Boxer (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've already demonstrated vandalism, hoaxing, IRL impersonation by username, trolling and abuse of AfD. Your track record and this temporal synchronicity is the only reason I have to connect you with a flurry of spas at AfD, but I consider that's enough to justify CU. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So essentially you're saying there's no evidence other than the fact that you don't like my contributions, and that other people have created articles that you don't like, so you assume we're all the same person? You can keep adding things to your charge sheet (although when I did, it was deleted) - but it seems to me that you're just fishing around for another way of making trouble for me after your repeated requests to have me blocked haven't succeeded. And as I said above, in future could you let me know when you're opening some kind of investigation about me? I note that USER:Ducknish informed USER:Shanker Pur about their case on their talk page. Seal Boxer (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I am of the opinion that, regardless of Seal Boxer's conduct anywhere else on the wiki, it is simply more likely that Shanker Pur is behind this. The SPAs that have popped up display a devotion to the contested article that would be more expected from Shanker, the articles creator. Regardless of whatever concerns you have with Seal Boxer, Andy, I think Shanker really is the one that needs to be looked at here. Ducknish (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this is an ill-advised case based on an ongoing dispute between the case opener and the accused sockmaster. I would recommend that the CU clerk deny this case as unfounded and an abuse of the SPI system. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Keegan and everyone, I am Shanker Pur, not Scotpina. My IP address is used by others. Shanker Pur (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ that User:Shanker Pur is User:Scotpina. The other two accounts appear ❌ to User:Seal Boxer.  Keegan (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action as this will be actioned in the other case Sockpuppet investigations/Shanker Pur. Rschen7754 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

01 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Obvious trolls at Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (2nd nomination). No idea which sockmaster they're related to, if anyone (well, I have an idea of a user, but I'm unconvinced, so won't name them), so CU requested. Diffs: Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this still not dealt with? CU was completed 13 days ago. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Dan the Fish Man from Oxford does look very strongly like a sock of someone. The other two I'm not so sure; they could be canvassed from Wikipediocracy. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The clear-cut cases first:
 * is ❌;
 * and are ✅.
 * And now the others:
 * and (a.k.a. ) are a  match;
 * these three are and are a  match.
 * Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, closing. Leaving master unblocked as it is fairly stale, and blocks are not meant to be punitive. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)