Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati/Archive/1

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This involves the deleted article DigitGaps, the AfD of which I closed as delete. Brisk.mgt and Abigali970 were involved in writing that article and also promoting it elsewhere. Shortly after the deletion nom, Sallynathalia started going around deleting other data services company articles by blanking. That account was blocked and subsequently Danielgc92 went about PRODding those articles. A COIN discussion was started on this with evidence that there was a related off-wiki campaign. Samwiki2001's first edit was to blank that discussion. There's obviously some form of socking involved, but based on the discussion on the COIN board it could be more than one set of socks and/or linked to other accounts, therefore I'm requesting CU. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:03, 12 June 2016 (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

 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * The oldest account is Noradd.
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ❌:
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Groups 1, 2, and 3 are ❌ to each other.
 * I propose the following. I will move this case to Noradd. I will create another SPI with the socks in Group 2. I’d have to go through the accounts to see which one is the oldest (I’m kinda worn out at the moment after completing this check). After I've done those things, I will block and tag the accounts. Before doing that, I'd like to hear from to see if he agrees with my proposal. As an aside, a lot of the behavior of the Group 2 socks reminds me of Orangemoody.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Egads,, I did not expect such a huge list. I've only seen the OM stuff from the periphery and have been involved in a few deletions and it does look a bit like that from that. At this point I think the approach outlined by you is the best course of action here. I'm also not sure what to make of Group 3. For what it's worth, I think is the oldest account in group 2. Also, while going through the accounts I noticed a pattern -- usually 2-4 accounts are created together (within a few hours of each other), so we're likely missing some more on the older account creation days due to inactivity. I'm also letting  know about this since he was the one that identified the off-wiki problem at COIN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User ImranAli51 has no contribs but asked me via email to visit the article Growth of religion and paraphrase the copyvio content added by User:Karibahar. I replied that was not an admin task and that he would have to do it himself. Now User:Juliandas51 has performed the amendments and posted on my talk page. This looks to be members of the same sock farm as User:Karibahar. Requesting checkuser as there are likely other recent accounts created as well, judging by the extent of the previous socking. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The scope of contributions of the user User:Juliandas51 is similar to Karibahar the sockpuppet Bolialia, he is trying to bring edit that carried out by the preivous users (and now, with misrepresentation of informations and sources), he called me try pushing pro-Christian bias, a language used by the Bolialia. Also a user who has less than ten contributions, I find it exciting attention that he is aware to the encyclopedia rules as DRN or FYI.--Jobas (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth mentioning here that Jobas has been socking here. A CU might be useful. Juliandas51 (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Mike V • Talk 19:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ to previous socks:


 * is . . Mike V • Talk 20:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Juliandas51 based on a combination of technical and behavioral evidence. Behaviorally, the edits to Growth of religion are similar in content and timing to those of previous socks, as well as the tendency to edit-war. In addition, the link to Commons provided by Juliandas51 is to a list of Jobas's socks supposedly at en-wiki. Of course, no such list exists. Indeed, until June 22, the list was of Jobas's socks at ar-wiki. The change was made by, a confirmed sock here and whose only global edit was the single edit at Commons. The fact that Juliandas51 even knew of that edit and used it to smear Jobas is telling. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I noticed similarities between this account and past sock Juliandas51. On Growth of religion, Juliandas51 emphasize the decline of Christianity and the growth of Islam. Koltrevio's edits to the same article are a lot more subtle, but still show a criticism of the Christianity parts. Here are more edits from the same user pushing Islam religion:. Also they've been doing a lot of rapid reverting of edits, some of which do not appear to be obviously vandalism, and I'm not sure why. Looking in the page history of Growth of religion, Koltrevio kind of reminds me of another recent changes/page patroller that would edit the article, User:Drikulaeri, who was blocked for being a sockpuppet. Of who, I don't know, but I assume Anatha Gulati. Sro23 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' All my above mentioned edits were additions of text removed by other editors so please check carefully. I do not know the sockpuppet Anatha Gulati. This is all I can say and this is what the case will hopefully reveal. Koltrevio (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the accounts but intentionally without tags. I'm putting this case on hold while I attempt to sort certain things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Yes he is back. Inserting same entries that he did with his now blocked socks. Capitals00 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * you made a thorough check? I hoped that there could be connection with too though. Its no doubt because such as edit warring on Criticism of Hinduism, restoring BLP violation on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism then canvassing Bonadea  to help him in edit war. Capitals00 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * do you see any similarities with Terabar and this Drivarum? "The edit patterns of User:D4iNa4, User:Rzvas are very similar to User:Capitals00", same nonsense spouted by Terabar "Capitals00 is again using his secondary accounts D4iNA4 and Rzvas to remove edits critical of Hinduism". Capitals00 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * He just left a note on 's talk page detailing history of my sockpuppetry("as pointed out by other editors before me like") similar to what Terabar used to say"User: Zanhe reported the same thing few months ago." Capitals00 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. Because Terabar has enough blocks for edit warring, he resorted to edit warring with this new account on those articles where he couldn't get his version. WP:MEAT is way too apparent, I mean how some user will start editing from 14 May, and claim me to be a sockpuppet of same user, putting up same evidence, pinging same users, with same theories of Terabar? And always trying to justify his disruption because "you are sock", even after being told by an admin that we are not socks, only one specific user can do that, while lacking the ability to understand WP:BLPCAT. Both have problems with WP:CIR. Capitals00 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Drivarum: While the admin later agreed that WP:3RRNO was justified and that I had to describe more on edit warring noticeboard. No wonder admin found your edits incoherent. Yes you said "guess he is using another sock" to justify your disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ivanvector: I understand, but its case of WP:STICK, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR. ArbCom doesn't take these cases none of the SPIs were not mishandled. And ANI will just waste time of more people because normal users have no WP:CHECKUSER to look into technical details. In short all we got is one user(Terabar), who happened to read some SPIs that were turned down then claim them as 100% conviction. See this diff, first time he ever alleged me to be a sock. Like you said you got mails, messages in matter of a week, but why not in last 2 years? He is just failing to drop stick and getting other WP:MEAT puppets to do same thing for him. Simple solution would be to block Terabar and this meat puppet (Drivarum), since none of their edits have been beneficial, as observed by every other involved editor (why no one reinserts Terabar or these other accounts edits?) instead the accounts are now meant to harass only, introduce WP:BLP violation to articles. I have been in content dispute with many other users but never find anyone calling me a sock, except Terabar and this meat puppet.
 * I also see that Terabar has mentality of calling everyone a sock (WP:ALLSOCKS) who disagree with him. Example(first discuss on the talk page. Or either you are a sock account), person was not a sock. Capitals00 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' First of all I am not a sock but User:OwnDealers is a sockpuppet of the nominator User:Capitals00. The edit patterns of User:D4iNa4, User:Rzvas are very similar to User:Capitals00. He is accusing me here as I undid his blatant removal of well referenced information. Thank you. --Drivarum (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsensical and stupid allegations by Capitals00 against me and Drivarum. Drivarum also mentioned me here along with other editors such as User: Zanhe when pointing the sockpuppetry of Capitals00. It is stupid to say that just because we both pointed to past editors who reported or expressed their opinions about sockpuppetry of Capitals00 can be a matter of sockpuppetry. I have never done sockpuppetry as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Just because I and User: Drivarum revert his nonsensical edits doesn't mean that we both are sockpuppets or interconnected. Perhaps Capitals00 should look into the mirror and read his blocklog where he was blocked for sockpuppetry several times and only then he should start pointing to someone else. Thanks. Terabar (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Capitals00, you should stop your baseless accusations. I am not a sock and I told that several times. Just show me proofs about what you mentioned "trying to justify his disruption because "you are sock"". This is clearly a baseless claim. Now, come to your edits. You reverted my message on an article's talk page accusing me as a sock. Secondly you lied on edit warring noticeboard as well while filing complaint against me. And your claim of WP:3RRNO while keep reverting me is also invalid. Drivarum (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a clerk note; I've been pinged, messaged, and emailed several times about this over the last week or so. Look for my reply when I wake up and decide whether to bring this to ANI or ArbCom. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
/.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * is based on at least partially restoring a previous sockpuppet's edits. No comment with respect to  at this time. Case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}

Probably stale:


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

The same way of inserting ads into Wikipedia. Compare with, for example, or. Rentier (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * To clerk/admin: this is at WP:COIN at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. See article list there. For a typical editing pattern, see, , and . Account is created, makes a few trivial edits to existing articles over a few days to get autoconfirmed, then creates a promotional article. The account is not used again. That's why there are so many accounts; they're throwaways. Blocking is probably pointless but necessary. Knowing which ones are connected will help with article deletion and cleanup. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sockfarm frequently creates a redirect followed in a few days by an advertisement-type article in one edit. For example, David M. Heyman by User:Wrkane follows pattern of Daniel Anton by CU-confirmed sock User:Arilskio90 ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are more accounts that fit the pattern active in the last few days:
 * SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment currently there is Sockpuppet_investigations/ProudIndian007 going on, which concerns Anatha Gulati being sockpuppet of this sock master (ProudIndian007). Capitals00 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this above comment of mine? Anatha Gulati is not the sockmaster, it could be Benhold that is surely the oldest account of this sockfarm, I have provided evidence on Sockpuppet_investigations/ProudIndian007, so before we think of any site-ban, we need to first sort out that SPI. Capitals00 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the stale account who patrolled a lot of the affected articles back in 2016 and also created an article in the same manner: . I am concerned that  is doing the same thing now. They've patrolled many articles, but their first was here to an article created as a redirect by a sock of Brilbluterin/OfficialPankajPatidar and another one shortly afterwards here at Tipster app one minute after creation. The trend has continued: Mark Siebert was created by  listed here and patrolled by Malunrenta. Other examples:  . I also noticed they patrolled inSegment which was created by a suspected sock currently listed at Sockpuppet_investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be prudent to remove Malunrenta's new page reviewer permission to preserve integrity of NPP until this is resolved? It appears they have done some extremely suspect patrolling such as LeapRate which I recall being a total promo piece embroiled in the Forex & binary options-related stuff that has come up as problematic again and again. Also reviewed Garçon Wines, another expand-from-new-redirect job  which quickly earned COI and advert tags. This smells fishier than anchovy pizza. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Although I suspect we won't be seeing them again regardless. This should be less likely to happen in future since it takes a request to get the right now. SmartSE (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * is another. Started on the same article as Malunrenta: and creating articles in the same fashion: Special:Contributions/Kajimarun. They are stale, but I will block them as they haven't been inactive for that long. SmartSE (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The accounts above all show a similar pattern of behavior. They will first create an article with a nonsensical redirect target, then a day or two later come along and write a spamvertisement over the redirect with an edit summary along the lines of "expanding with citations". This behavior in itself is more than enough to pass the duck test, but since this appears to be a spam ring, I would like to request checkuser be run to see if there are any sleepers or undiscovered accounts. Some examples (visible to admins, as the pages have been deleted under G11): Creation as redirect, new edit , creation as redirect , edit . Some of these pages were also marked as "reviewed" by accounts identified at Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like the case you mentioned is very similar to this one and is flagging some of the same accounts. I'd be fine with rolling this one into it, since it looks like it's substantially larger. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Before I wade through this massive list, could you please clarify the behavioral similarities to save time? If it's a WP:BEANS situation, feel free to just email me. Thanks, GABgab 23:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Emailed. Thanks. Rentier (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * GABgab 23:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing this now - stay tuned for the mother of all CU requests... GABgab 01:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - Please check the first list except the following accounts:

On the other hand, is not, so please check away

Please also check the following suspicious accounts, which overlap with other socks:



I am detecting a couple of different patterns of behavior here. One is that described by Rentier. Others like to create sandboxes and apparently make articles out of them.

IPs are all over the place. I'm seeing U.S. and the subcontinent, particularly Kolkata. The technical results may be accordingly wonky. Luckily, we have a fairly clear pattern of behavior.

I can't comment on ProudIndian007, but I'm seeing overlap with Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin and Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. I want to emphasize that these groups may be unrelated technically but related through behavior if a) they are using technical trickery, b) they are using colleagues, or c) the client who hired one of these farms then hired another when his article was deleted. Then again, they may all be the same guy(s) - I dunno.

I have not evaluated the accounts to see if any fresh ones have edited their articles. That might be worth looking into, as would a community ban proposal.

To the reviewing CU: Drinks are on me. GABgab 02:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm getting started; however, this investigation is far too big for me to be able to carry it out today, because I don't have enough time. It'll take days. So, if other CUs want to lend a hand, that's more than welcome. Also, please clerks, keep the original list updated, by striking through the accounts I list, so that I don't check them twice, thereby wasting time.
 * Anyway, here goes the first round of socks, please recheck before blocking.
 * (Overlaps with )
 * (also came up in Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin)
 * (also came up in Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin)
 * Already blocked, but reporting for completeness' sake (see Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been through the contribs of all these accounts and G5d page creations. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a few more. There is a fair amount of overlap with Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar...
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's possible that is the sockmaster here;  and  are a ✅ match.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and deleted this batch. MER-C 04:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to make some sense of this mess as I've blocked socks from all these groups in the past, but there's another open SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007 and since you've brought a link to that account here, anything to comment there? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And now for today's first round of socks:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mean ? Thanks, GABgab 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round, this time mainly sleepers
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (also came up in Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin)
 * (also came up in Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin)
 * Already blocked, but reporting for completeness' sake (see Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been through the contribs of all these accounts and G5d page creations. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a few more. There is a fair amount of overlap with Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar...
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's possible that is the sockmaster here;  and  are a ✅ match.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and deleted this batch. MER-C 04:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to make some sense of this mess as I've blocked socks from all these groups in the past, but there's another open SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007 and since you've brought a link to that account here, anything to comment there? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And now for today's first round of socks:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mean ? Thanks, GABgab 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round, this time mainly sleepers
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a few more. There is a fair amount of overlap with Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar...
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's possible that is the sockmaster here;  and  are a ✅ match.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and deleted this batch. MER-C 04:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to make some sense of this mess as I've blocked socks from all these groups in the past, but there's another open SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007 and since you've brought a link to that account here, anything to comment there? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And now for today's first round of socks:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mean ? Thanks, GABgab 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round, this time mainly sleepers
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's possible that is the sockmaster here;  and  are a ✅ match.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and deleted this batch. MER-C 04:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to make some sense of this mess as I've blocked socks from all these groups in the past, but there's another open SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007 and since you've brought a link to that account here, anything to comment there? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And now for today's first round of socks:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mean ? Thanks, GABgab 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round, this time mainly sleepers
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mean ? Thanks, GABgab 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round, this time mainly sleepers
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A few more:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round, this time mainly sleepers
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another round, this time mainly sleepers
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's quite likely Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma belongs to this farm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. Articles remaining: Detox to Rehab (speedy deletion declined), Sarfaraz Baig, Emami Chisel Art and ILS Hospitals (latter three dating from 2015). MER-C 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , thank you so much for your outstanding work on this. May I ask whether there's anything worth mentioning about the other accounts I recommended we check? Thanks again, GABgab 21:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The investigation isn't over yet, there are still ranges I'm checking and other socks I haven't listed yet, but this thing takes time and, well, real life gets in the way sometimes... Please, bear with me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand - apologies for being impatient. GABgab 00:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no problem! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Today's first round
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , + . GABgab 15:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are unrelated to the previous sock farm, but they appear to be paid editors as well, so I am reporting them here, so that the patrolling admin can review their creations.
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All blocked, they are using the same redirect-and-expand method. GABgab 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All blocked, they are using the same redirect-and-expand method. GABgab 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All blocked, they are using the same redirect-and-expand method. GABgab 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In terms of behaviour, the following socks appear to belong to another master, but they are definitely socks and pop up on the same range as the others.
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * . GABgab 15:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging regarding User:Drivarum, which was tagged as a sock of ProudIndian007. GABgab 13:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)ù
 * Another group (the same as )
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All . There's a link to Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjana67 via Seruapain. GABgab 15:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Responding to your ping, but not certain what I can do here. Drivarum admitted to being a sock of ProudIndian007, but claimed to be unrelated to Anatha Gulati. This is not particularly strong evidence, though, so no objections to whatever action you wish to take. Vanamonde (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Should this be closed now? I'm asking you because you are the one who changes the case status to "checking".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Er... probably? IIRC, I started looking at this without realising that Salvio was already on the case, when I realised, I added the "checking" status. Salvio would probably be better placed to answer your question; I haven't really had anything to do with this one. Yunshui 雲 水 08:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging regarding User:Drivarum, which was tagged as a sock of ProudIndian007. GABgab 13:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)ù
 * Another group (the same as )
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All . There's a link to Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjana67 via Seruapain. GABgab 15:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Responding to your ping, but not certain what I can do here. Drivarum admitted to being a sock of ProudIndian007, but claimed to be unrelated to Anatha Gulati. This is not particularly strong evidence, though, so no objections to whatever action you wish to take. Vanamonde (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Should this be closed now? I'm asking you because you are the one who changes the case status to "checking".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Er... probably? IIRC, I started looking at this without realising that Salvio was already on the case, when I realised, I added the "checking" status. Salvio would probably be better placed to answer your question; I haven't really had anything to do with this one. Yunshui 雲 水 08:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Should this be closed now? I'm asking you because you are the one who changes the case status to "checking".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Er... probably? IIRC, I started looking at this without realising that Salvio was already on the case, when I realised, I added the "checking" status. Salvio would probably be better placed to answer your question; I haven't really had anything to do with this one. Yunshui 雲 水 08:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing more for a CU to do, here. So I have changed the status to checked, but it may as well be closed and archived, as soon as all the usual paperwork has been done. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, boy..., , : How are we going to sort this all out (tagging, merging, etc.)? Thanks, GABgab 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would just close it.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Vanja here. The complexities of UPE editors are such that they may change from one group to another anyway so tagging serves the purpose of identifying that they are a sock but isn't necessarily going to be accurate as they could have worked for multiple masters. We may consider coming up with a general UPE tag and getting that worked into the SPI script along the way.
 * For the sake of completeness, a list of all of the various SPIs mentioned here:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Airserma
 * Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjana67
 * Sockpuppet investigations/PlikoraT - added just now by me, behaviour matches
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati (this case)
 * These all have behaviour in common: create one set of throwaway accounts for spam (new articles or linkspam), and a second set to rapidly review the edits to work around the processes which normally catch spam; both sets do one thing and are then immediately abandoned. Blocking doesn't really matter because they abandon the accounts anyway, and we're not able to construct an effective technical restriction because they just use open proxies or VPNs to get around them anyway. We need a new solution; I have a drastic one that I'll expand on elsewhere. In terms of this case here, I agree with Vanjagenije, I'd just close it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, closing., , , this is a conversation we should absolutely continue elsewhere; I like the idea of a UPE tag, and I'm interested in what Ivanvector has alluded to. GABgab 16:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * posted at WT:SPI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)