Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunkapadia/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

HM8383's edits are indicative of undisclosed paid editing e.g. at Nevan Krogan and Anthony Gill (professor). Naval Nadia has only made two edits, one of which was to add a photo they uploaded to the Gill article: and the other was to remove an advert tag on Jody MacDonald  which was created by Tropical Animal, another seemingly throwaway undisclosed paid editing account. SmartSE (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

This is definitely paid editing. See Special:Diff/768169912/Special:Diff/768170555. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please check these accounts. Thanks, GABgab 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If this isn't paid editing I'll eat my magic checkuser wand. The following are ✅ to each other (and by "each other" I mean the same promotional sockfarm):


 * I suggest any articles they have created be nuked forthwith as TOU violations.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Please block the lot and nuke whatever possible. Thanks, GABgab 00:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * GeneralizationsAreBad - ✅. Accounts indef'd and all creations nuked.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if we might have miscommunicated there. I've tagged their articles/promotional sandbox drafts for CSD. Thanks very much, GABgab 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . Please check the following overlapping accounts:
 * (Nevan Krogan)
 * (Nevan Krogan)
 * (Sharan Pasricha)
 * (Sharan Pasricha)

Thanks, GABgab 00:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are seeing with and  is likely COI editing, but they are ❌ to the socks above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the clarification. I assume the latter duo is also not related. Thanks, GABgab 23:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, moved the case and tagged. We're not quite done here, though. GABgab 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * GAB two of those accounts are stale. For future reference, it's worth taking note that one of the article subjects got in touch with Oshwah and said that someone had contacted her and written the article without payment, rather than her seeking them. SmartSE (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * not exactly. from that posting, " I never paid him any money because it wasn't finished". This makes it clear the intent was to write for money, and that the undeclared paid editor solicited the job.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake - seem to have misread the dates. Closing. GABgab 01:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is that all articles written by this group should be deleted regardless of notability. The TOU are foundation policy. Our COI policy is based both on that and WP:NOT, which supersedes all consideration of notability. Attempting to advertise someone highly notable, is still advertising, just as advocating the worthiest of causes is still `advocacy. Some of the people being written about are so notable, however, that an article ought to be written. I considered whether to rewrite the existing articles, but decided not to, because it would take rewriting from scratch. I think the only way we can enforce our rules and deter promotionalism is to first delete, and then wait a bit  and communicate with the subjects to make sure the lesson is learned, and then rewrite.
 * Of these articles, Gill is quite notable, and Krogan is famous.
 * There are some related articles/editors that should be mentioned:
 * Gladstone Institutes,  (unfortunately stale, but undoubtedly advertising)
 * California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences,  a declared paid editor, but not exactly following the disclosure rules. Also unfortunately stale.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)