Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive

20 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These are both new accounts, one created on the 15th, the other on the 16th. There is significant overlap in articles edited, including, , and. Overlap in edits is illustrated by this and this. The main trouble is developing on the OMICS article, where there has also been a lot of IP action and other throwaway accounts (including the now-blocked ). That article is under semi-protection because of newbie misbehaviour -- all of it clearly designed to turn the article into a vehicle for promotion -- and it would be appropriate to limit its promoters to one account. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I accept that the responses below make a sockpuppet scenario unlikely. How to proceed, then, with the likelihood of meatpuppets?  On which, here's another one: .  Perhaps checkuser would establish they're all working from the same location; there was some earlier IP action that indicated Hyderabad, the home of OMICS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think sockpuppetry is going to be the wrong idea here. Meatpuppetry or something else might still be possible.  Consider Sudhir Srivastava, which was created by  at 15:30 on 19 October 2012.  Scholarscentral made three edits that were later reverted at 15:28, 15:30, and 15:32.  Unless some seriously creative sockpuppetry is going on, I'm seeing those separate actions as indications that this is not the same person.  I do believe these are both employees of OMICS publishing group.  Interestingly, in viewing scholarscentral's edits.  The source used for the three I mentioned and a majority of the others with the summary "Reference added" also lists OMICS publishing group; however, the source is unreliable. Ryan Vesey 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I haven't looked at the content of any edits, but on the 23rd these accounts were simultaneously working on different articles, so probably not sockpuppets. – Steel 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh jolly dee! Got a whole drawer of 'em here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

All ✅ as Scholarscentral. I have tracked this lot across multiple IPs belonging to more than one provider(this excludes that it's one company, or a proxy rig of the kind common in the Indian subcontinent, where users are propelled onto the internet through one IP.

All the named users are named after professors - check out User:Helmut E. Meyer/sandbox and User:Richard D. Smith/sandbox. The editor is none of the names he has taken (for a start, none of the professors are based in Hyderabad).

As always, it is possible I've caught up an innocent user in this lot, but for the time being I'm going to block them all till someone finds out what's going on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone is tagged, created category, so closing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

08 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

More activity at, following a block of -- edit summaries in broken English are virtually identical ("please come to discussion before editing page!"). Checkuser is desirable to identify any additional accounts this person has prepared (note the plethora of socks on the archive page), and then either an autoblock of long duration and/or semi-protection would be nice.

Diffs: this, very much like this by the now-blocked Rich1982. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: they're multiplying, and I've just added Henrymark20 and Lincycornell, created only a few minutes ago. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding: one of the editors remarks that he is at a conference in Chicago. If in fact the person behind UserScholarscentral is at a conference in Chicago, then the suspected socks listed here might not match to Scholarscentral via CU. They will, however, likely match to one another. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 9 April 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

 * - Check all accounts (including also Rich1982) — plus a sleeper check, since the presumed sockmaster is very prolific per the archive info. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Chicago1432 and are  related to each other but ❌ to anyone else. Henrymark20, Lincycornell and Rich1982 are ✅ matches to each other and to the following:

T. Canens (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking everyone indefinitely but the lone pair of editors that have a likely connection. I can't see a clear behavioral link, so I'm not going to block based on the technical evidence. Although I notice that Chicago is likely well on his way to being blocked for some other reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

08 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per WP:DUCK. See edits at OMICS Publishing Group and the talk page there. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO CLERK: this report duplicates this one (with the exception that Rich1982 is not listed there). I'm not too familiar with SPI and don't really know how to handle the duplication. Sorry for the mess! --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 8 April 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

 * Merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Rich1982. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The accounts were created less than 40 minutes apart two days after the earlier sock (Rich1982) was blocked, and both went straight into the article Rich1982 was editing and even Rich1982's discussion on the talk page. The Chicago1432 account is well over 3RR by itself, not to mention that Henrymark20 has also been reverting to include the same text . Accounts blocked and tagged. Leaving the IP unblocked as there have only ever been three edits and those were over two weeks ago. Jafeluv (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

16 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Start with Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive, specifically this section where CU finds that the connection between Chicago1432 and Paulwood99 is "likely". The article in question is -- and the connection for the current problem starts with this diff, where Chicago1432 says he wants to start an article on "OMICS Group Conferences". Today, User:Watsonarc, a new account started today, goes ahead and creates that article. First, however, he drafted the article in his sandbox, and that same history link shows that User:Paulwood99 also edited that same sandbox. After Watsonarc moves it to article space, the IP (geolocating to a suburb of Chicago) also jumps in.

So, connection between Chicago1432 and Paulwood99 is already likely, and Paulwood99 somehow knows about Watsonarc's sandbox. WP:DUCK, in my mind, though I don't mind if it's also investigated via CU. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 16 April 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

 * Watsonarc is editing from proxies, so, but he's a ✅ match to . Based on the fresher data since the last check, I now think Paulwood99 is to be related to Chicago1432. T. Canens (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Chicago1432 and Paulwood99 are using different devices, but they're editing from some of the same locations. I agree that they may not be the same person, but if that's the case, meatpuppetry is a strong possibility. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After going back and reviewing the behavioral evidence, I can see enough links between all these accounts to justify blocking them all. I'm suspicious Chicago1492 might be a meatpuppet, but he has been joining in the same promotional editing sa Scholarscentral and was blocked accordingly. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

26 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First edit was to List of Scientific Conferences, an article created by previous sock account shortly before it was blocked, second edit was to create 4th World Congress of Biotechnology, a conference run by OMICS Group, the organisation these socks have been promoting. January ( talk ) 16:42, 26 April 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
. I agree that the edits by Platyone are consistent with earlier edits by Scholarscentral and his huge drawer of socks. CU would be useful here to confirm that this is a sockpuppet (as opposed to a meatpuppet). Since this new account appears to have been created within the past 24 hours, another sleeper check is probably in order. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Platyone is a match to Chicago1432. Please see the April 8 cases in the archive before taking any action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, based on the newer edits from Chicago, he's . T. Canens (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

02 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user whose only edits are to 4th World Congress of Biotechnology and to the AfD on that page   !voting to keep the page and offering to improve it, fitting the pattern of previous Scholarcentral socks, e.g., User:Platyone, who created the 4th World Congress page in the first place. Dricherby (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The (IMO spurious) question of whether Scholarscentral=Echigo mole appears to have diverted attention from the real question of whether Paul2025=Scholarscentral. Dricherby (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * In the archived cases, there is a sock by the name of -- surely not a coincidence, and perhaps enough to make this one WP:DUCK.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul is a very common name so I don't think it's reasonable to infer that. (paul2025 vs Jack1144, Khalid1144 and Khalid1145 seems like a more probable match.) Dricherby (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Note this article has been previously edited once by an User:Echigo mole puppet as well, who removed the PROD tag. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 15:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - It may be helpful to see if Scholarscentral = Echigo mole, as hinted at by Dennis Brown. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 23:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't need to run any checks to say that Scholarscentral and Echigo mole are editing from diffenent continents, thousands of miles apart. Since that was the scope of the endorsement, no checks have been run. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The check should have been run on whether was, as per the evidence provided. We know Scholarscentral is not Echigo mole. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to their use of a probable open proxy, Paul2025 is . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Paul2025 on a combination of behavior and use of proxies to evade checkuser. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

24 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

As with previous socks, Sarakadam is all about "OMICS Group Conferences", as per this edit. There's also the dodgy English, as here. Appdroid as well is all about the conferences: ; this editor also created a separate article titled "OMICS Group Conferences", which has now been speedy-deleted. Previous socks have also focused on this business of conferences: Chicago1432 and Rich1982. Significant overlap in the "references" used seals the deal per WP:DUCK on this one imo, though I have no objection to having it established via checkuser. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I agree on duckiness and would just add that Sarakadam has the same idiosyncracies of language and syntax as previously blocked Scholars socks, including spacing and capitalisation errors. See also the use of "So," followed by commands, as in "So, please suggest accordingly" (Paulwood99) and "So, all editors support me" (Sarakadam). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Although ScholarsCentral socks have previously (and presumably fraudulently) used the names of various professionals, the website sarakadam.com states that, "Now I am the full time job holder at OMICS Publishing Group as a Manager of SEO & SMO." The long-term efforts of this company to remove verifiable and well sourced information might be seen to justify a range block of some sort in an attempt to control the sock and meatpuppetry. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - As per evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 15:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  21:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 21:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

10 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This latest of the 50 or so Scholarscentral socks was created immediately after the block of Paul2025. Like Scholarscentral sock Sarakadam, account edited Indian cinema-related sites until becoming an established user. Myfilm11 then went inactive until after the blocks of socks Sarakadam and Appdroid. Began attempts to whitewash OMICS Publishing Group in the same style as previous socks on 22 June. Displays same level of command of the English language as previous socks as well as the same objections to reliably sourced information about OMICS, apparently an employer of the sockmaster. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Myfilm11's first edit to the OMICS article was very similar to Sarakadam's last edit  in that it removed a statement about many of their journals having no content, referring to OMICS' website in the edit summary. January ( talk ) 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Summaries user similar grammar and  and there are similarities in content, but not sure this passes the bar.  Leaving alone for another set of eyes at this time. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Combining all those factors, there's definitely more than meets the eye. ✅. WilliamH (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closed. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  10:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

31 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Alura08 created, previously created by sock ; sock also pushed for the creation of this as a separate article. The brief user page is also a recurring characteristic. January ( talk ) 10:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Added Dorisaviram who is trying to create, a journal which is owned by OMICS and has just contested a speedy deletion tag on OMICS Group Conferences .  January  ( talk ) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Added Jackysea, an account created today also contesting the speedy deletion of OMICS Group Conferences, similar userpage . January  ( talk ) 16:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Added useful info useful to the scientific community/. I request to restore my edits. I have invested a lot of my time. Also please tell me the reason for deletion. Jackysea (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I was just about to report Jackysea as a sock of Alura08. I think WP:DUCK probably applies. SmartSE (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - Looking through the archive there is a strong history of sleepers. The evidence provided by January is compelling, and so I'm endorsing for a sleeper check. NativeForeigner Talk 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged these three users. They're quite obvious ducks, so I'll end their disruption with a block. NativeForeigner Talk 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that the technical connection is but will note there appears to be strong use of webhots and proxy servers.  Tiptoety  talk 01:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing more than can be done here. If page recreations continue, some salting might be done. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

01 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Added misplaced templates copied from WP:BARE to the main OMICS article, known sock has similarly added templates copied from WP:COI. January ( talk ) 06:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * new user turns up at talk:Omics Publishing Group. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I suggest it might be helpful if OMICS Group Conferences and any other similar pages were WP:SALTed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Its funny to listen any new user who edits omics is a sockpuppet.???!!! I kindly request you to let me know what good reason do you have to entitle me sockpuppet Snits (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not a good practice to code someone as sockpuppet without analyzing.
 * Re the checkuser results, use of proxies is not unusual for Scholarscentral socks (see SPIs for 16 April 2013, 02 May 2013, 31 July 2013). January  ( talk ) 14:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Thwapped static IP with a month long hardblock. NativeForeigner Talk 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - as the first edit screams Scholarscentral, because of the long term and prolific sockpuppeting regarding OMICS. Also, a minimal userpage similar to those created by other socks. NativeForeigner Talk 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and SALTed OMICS Group Conferences. NativeForeigner Talk 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Snits is using proxies, so the most I can say is that it is . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on a combination of behavioral evidence and proxy use, I'm blocking Snits. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

16 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets

- interest in removing material from OMICS Publishing Group. Username is similar to. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I was just about to make the same report, here's what I drafted: Removed criticism here, another OMICS related edit here. Similar brief userpage to previous socks, similar name to and in common with this and some other socks eg,  only interest outside OMICS publishing is Indian films, an industry where OMICS also operate. I've added a checkuser request. January ( talk ) 09:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OMICS, YOMICS and COMICS are different. What is sock? Do you mean Suck editing?Movies1432 (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest a broad look for sleepers here. The person behind these socks no doubt has a number of other accounts prepared.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example, Songs44 was created on August 13 to edit Indian film articles. Unusually, Songs44 immediately created a user page and was the next editor of Chandee following Movies1432, an article edited mostly by Movies1432 over the last month. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The insertion of an OMICS link into a film article as noted above also suggests that we can expect more widespread vandalism of the project by this paid sockpuppet. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting what these two spam links lead to...



Some unblocked socks make it clear that someone is trying to manipulate things (after the case is over pages need deleted). Here are a few with diffs bolded on the end...there are probably more:


 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * deleted diff

We need a good sleeper check and an edit filter that trips on the links could help too. The above are mostly stale but he has shown a penchant for sock farms. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Movies1432 has been blocked and tagged. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - to confirm socking and run a sleeper/sockfarm check.
 * is highly . Also, is . No other obvious sleepers.  Tiptoety  talk 05:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This case has largely been actioned by De728631, and the unblocked potential socks either have too tenuous a connection to Scholarscentral or are so stale it doesn't really matter. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

29 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Static IP located in Hyderabad (where OMICS are based) which appears to have been used by Scholarscentral since March. This recent edit added disambiguation links to comics and Yomics to Omics, while removing a hatnote to OMICS Publishing Group (prevous sock Movies1432 made a strange comment about Omics, Yomics and comics at this SPI ). Another OMICs related edit here, contributions also show edits to OMICS Publishing Group and Chandee (a film OMICS' films arm are involved with) and a failed attempt to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Conference on Biodefense & Natural Disasters (an [ OMICS conference]) in March. January ( talk ) 17:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced AlexWelch7 is related to Scholarscentral based on behaviour alone. I can't find a connection between European Medical Journal or its publisher Gorley New Media and OMICS, this user also seems to have a better command of English than the Scholarscentral socks (see comment at Talk:European Medical Journal. January  ( talk ) 21:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, given that Scholarscentral focuses on OMICS you may be right and I'm open to unblocking here depending on the checkuser result. On the other hand, AlexWelch7 has not yet commented on his block or requested to be unblocked. If you think he should be unblocked anyway, please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm requesting an additional checkuser to clarify whether there is any connection between AlexWelch7 and Scholarscentral. If this is declined or comes back negative I think AlexWelch7 should be unblocked, I don’t think the behaviour matches. January  ( talk ) 10:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See below. -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was requesting an additional check to the one you did below to confirm whether or not AlexWelch7 actually is a sock of Scholarscentral. I'm concerned this user may have been wrongly blocked. January  ( talk ) 18:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That was also my original intention when I asked for a checkuser. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are no sleepers, then it is highly unlikely that the two are related, which is what Tip confirmed below. -- Avi (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think things have got a bit confused here because of two reports being combined in one SPI. I reported the IP for a possible block as a WP:DUCK, that report still needs a clerk/admin to look at it as the IP hasn't been blocked yet. January  ( talk ) 07:06, 2 September 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
I have just blocked who created a stub article European Medical Journal. They may or may not be related to Scholarscentral, but can a CU please run a sleepers check? De728631 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No sleepers on that IP. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * appears ❌. Tiptoety  talk 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying this. I have unblocked AlexWelch7 and have also restored the article European Medical Journal. has been blocked 1 month for persistent disruptive editing, but I've also tagged it as a suspected sockpuppet for future reference. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed as per above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

03 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Repeating the same edit attempting to add disambiguation for Yomics and Comics to Omics as the previously blocked IP, known sock Movies1432 has also made a nonsensical edit to this SPI mentioning Omics, Yomics and comics. January ( talk ) 17:42, 3 September 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

 * Blocked (not based on CheckUser results). Tiptoety  talk 17:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

05 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

As with Scholarscentral socks, these accounts all appear to be promoting OMICS. Lizia7 created OMICS Group, an article which covers much of the same ground but mentions none of the negative incidents in OMICS Publishing Group and made OMICS-related edits at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Society_of_Neurology&diff=593887054&oldid=593183244][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Yoga_Federation&diff=593433773&oldid=551923824][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Hikmah_University&diff=prev&oldid=593885744][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Ayurvedic_Professionals_of_North_America&diff=prev&oldid=593432677]. Movieking007 created OMICS Group Creations, plus articles on films associated with this company and mentioned in the article: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veerudokkade&diff=prev&oldid=591685427 Veerudokkade], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aata_Arambam&diff=prev&&oldid=585431171 Aata Arambam] and substantially edited existing article Chandee [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandee&diff=579990734&oldid=578238496][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandee&diff=591705815&oldid=582664977]. Monicagellar 08, an account that showed up as a possible in a previous checkuser but was not blocked at the time, created an article on another of the linked OMICS films, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_for_Each_Other_(Telugu_film)&diff=prev&oldid=591608445 Made for Each Other (Telugu film)]. This account also created articles which mention or are connected to OMICs: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federation_of_Asian_Biotech_Association&diff=prev&oldid=593883534 Federation of Asian Biotech Association], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Rhinologic_Society&diff=prev&oldid=593883146 Bulgarian Rhinologic Society], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nepal_Herbs_and_Herbal_Product_Association&diff=prev&oldid=593274182 Nepal Herbs and Herbal Product Association] (mention of OMICs subsequently added by Lizia7 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nepal_Herbs_and_Herbal_Product_Association&diff=593434624&oldid=593395506]), edited J. Prabhakar Reddy shortly after Movieking007 had created it [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Prabhakar_Reddy&diff=591600279&oldid=591590048] and edited Aata Arambam [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aata_Arambam&diff=587234985&oldid=587217107] to remove a propose merge which Movieking007 had strongly opposed (see Talk:Arrambam) and other cleanup tags. January ( talk ) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also Monicagellar 08 has just edited OMICS Group [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=prev&oldid=594074186]. January  ( talk ) 18:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding Trixie05, based on these edits [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Society_of_Materials&diff=593431962&oldid=593102032][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semi-Conductor_Society&diff=593431342&oldid=593101954][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellenic_Metallurgical_Society&diff=593884528&oldid=592634764][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Lifestyle_Medicine&diff=593886857&oldid=593886486]. This account had a recent creation flagged as a copyvio (Society for Applied Biotechnology), which has also been an issue with Lizia7 (User talk:Lizia7) and Srinubabuau6 (User talk:Srinubabuau6). January  ( talk ) 11:49, 6 February 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Two of the suspected socks are now involved in an edit war at OMICS Group. Shortly after was twice reverted after reverting a redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=prev&oldid=594667801][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=next&oldid=594668269],  repeated the edit three times [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=next&oldid=594669649][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=594675806&oldid=594674885][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=prev&oldid=594677365]. Lizia7's last edit so far today was at 14:01 and Movieking007 began editing at 14.09 (having not previously edited for 3 days). If these accounts are operated by the same person they are over WP:3RR.  January  ( talk ) 15:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * From observing the suspected socks' recent behaviour since I first raised this SPI, I'm even more convinced now that the suspected socks are controlled by the same person and this is not just a case of multiple users promoting the same company. For example, the frequent insistence that other editors discuss whenever they revert or amend their edits (often when consensus is already clear) is a common pattern [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aata_Arambam&diff=prev&oldid=592597669][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=594675806&oldid=594674885][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=prev&oldid=594667801][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&diff=prev&oldid=594828754][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=prev&oldid=594669303][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&diff=prev&oldid=594084971][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OMICS_Group&diff=prev&oldid=594084604] consistent with the original account and other known socks [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Publishing_Group&diff=prev&oldid=518746966][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OMICS_Publishing_Group&diff=550165294&oldid=550163241][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Publishing_Group&diff=prev&oldid=549481394][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Publishing_Group&diff=prev&oldid=549376470][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Publishing_Group&diff=prev&oldid=548871105][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Publishing_Group&diff=prev&oldid=548690390][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Publishing_Group&diff=prev&oldid=524033510], and the tone of their comments/edit summaries and standard of English is also consistent. January  ( talk ) 12:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A good observation made below on their edit counts: Monicagellar 08, Trixie05 and Lizia7 all made their first 2,500-3,000 edits in August 2013 alone, mostly very minor edits such as adding wikilinks and often making a succession of edits to the same article, which may well have been done to inflate their edit counts. Their activity levels dropped sharply over the following months (none of these three accounts edited between early October and late December) and picked up again in the latter half of January 2014. January  ( talk ) 17:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' In light of recent activity on OMICS-related articles, I suggest adding another one: —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC) As a wiki user I have made 3400 edits, alongside contributed to the inception of 14 articles on different subjects. The new page on OMICS group has been redirected to OMICS publishing; please note my intention to create the page was to cite uninformed content through wiki pages. However, I would appreciate an explanation for the untimely redirection. Please refer following links: 12345678 Lizia7 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * or, perhaps consider, contribs of , blocked in an older sockpuppets case. Here's the link to that archived case; one can see there an editor with an OMICS-based username.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet? Am I being qualified for a sockpuppet just for the name being used? Please check my archive.. not a fair enough reason to sockpuppet me to something I am not aware of.. Srinubabuau6 (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet there you are, editing both the talk page and the article itself of OMICS Group Publishing, in ways that align very closely to the "other" editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OMICS Creations is about films and movies -why redirecting to Publishing?Movieking007 (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue for this discussion, the purpose of this investigation is to determine whether sockpuppetry is occurring. January  ( talk ) 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, proceed for investigation. Don't redirect during investigation.Movieking007 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Respected users, The disambiguaty copy right reference has been removed and sentence re-framed. Guide me instead of redirecting to some un-know pageMovieking007 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the similarity of the username and the name of the person described here as the person who initiated OMICS.  More of a COI issue, but still.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This COI was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Srinubabuau6&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2013&month=8 declared] in the edit summaries of some of this editor's early edits. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's pretty strong behavioural evidence isn't it? I've fully protected that [ OMICS Group ] for 3 days, by which point hopefully a CU will have checked this over. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now done the same to OMICS Group Creations, since the same activity was going on. To be honest, with behavioural evidence like that, do we need to wait for CU? SmartSE (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Waiting for a CU has several advantages, beyond just being the "right thing to do" when the editor is contesting the allegation of sockpuppetry: If it matches, it's strong evidence.  If it doesn't match, it can exonerate or at least minimize the cloud of suspicion that hangs over an innocent person.  If it's a "false negative" AND additional, compelling evidence that all but rules out that the two editors are sock/meatpuppets of each other comes up at a later date, then future SPIs can rightly avoid waiting on a CU.  If it's a false positive, well, that's bad but it's not much worse for the falsely accused than "not waiting for a CU."  So, yes, unless there is evidence from past SPIs related to this sockmaster that a false-negative CU is more than remotely possible, please wait for the CU.  Once an SPI uncovers confirmed sock/meatpuppetry that would show up as "negative" on a CU, then all future SPIs involving that sockmaster should take this into account.  In such cases, those who can do a CU would be right to say "CU declined, doing a CU won't provide any useful information, proceed using behavioral evidence."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been using Wikipedia from past 2 years and have edited many Wikipedia pages. I have contributed some 3000 edits and some 100 articles to Wikipedia. This is the first time someone is making a complaint against the conflict of interest for me. Previously I was credited with Autopatrolled rights and Block free user rights and now I am being investigated for Sockpuppetary/Meat puppetary. For the few of the above users why will they not be investigated for a conflict of interest and their personal or whatever conflict they have against these pages. Proper behavioral conflict of interest investigation is required against these user! Srinubabuau6 (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have never had autopatrolled or IP block-exempt rights on this account [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&page=User:Srinubabuau6], was this under a different username? January  ( talk ) 09:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good summary indeed of your new "deep sock" strategy: making many minor edits to various pages in an attempt to avoid detection. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what the "other" editors have been doing as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why you are redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WPMovieking007 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These two diffs are particularly revealing - back in August, Trixie05 added a  and then three minutes later, Lizia7 did exactly the same thing! In January, Monicagellar 08 created The Arab Society for Plant Protection and 39 minutes later Trixie05 edited it. There are many other articles that these three editors edited within hours of each other. SmartSE (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident that one would find that "they" have never edited at exactly the same time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have any idea what the delay is in getting this wrapped up? --JBL (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea. If no one comes along within a few more days, we should probably ask at ANI for someone to read over the behavioural evidence and take appropriate action. SmartSE (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope it is soon. In their efforts to appear legit, they are making a lot of minor edits (mostly small textual changes or adding wikilinks): most are unnecessary at best (although often resulting in overlinking), some screw things up, and only a tiny minority is actually worth keeping. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked CU User:Materialscientist if they can take a look. SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why you are redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet investigation on these culprits.Movieking007 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The edits to the two OMICS Group pages are pretty convincing but can a CU please link the three suspected accounts, plus there are some IPs in the archive which might be helpful. The last confirmed account is stale though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

✅ Technical and behavioral evidence seem pretty ironclad. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To follow up, I've blocked the three accounts, and extended the current block on the fourth to indefinite. Sorry for the delay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks David, did you look at though? It's mentioned above but you might have missed it. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! --JBL (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I entirely missed that one. Evidence points to confirmed for that, so it's been blocked. I'll leave the tagging to those who know better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

04 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Dentking07's first edit was to add references to "Yomics" and "Comics" to the disambiguation page Omics, previous socks have made similar edits (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive. Scholarscentral has a COI with OMICS Publishing Group and Dentking07's other edits are largely concerned with creating a separate, less negative article about its parent company, which previous socks , and  attempted to create at OMICS Group (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMICS_Group&action=history history]) and this new account has created at OMICS Group Inc.

This article is now at AFD and and  both voted keep on the same day. Both accounts previously had only a handful of edits mostly related to A. S. Prakash, a Telegu film director (Telegu movies was Scholarscentral's other main interest); Chandrashekar399 created the article and linked to it using Find Link, Karthiksrinivas edited the article  and linked to it also using Find Link , and voted to keep it in the AFD.

Also possibly related are, whose only edit was to attempt to nominate OMICS Publishing Group for deletion, which previous socks have done (see Articles for deletion/OMICS Publishing Group), and whose only edit was to remove a negative statement from the lead of OMICS Publishing Group. January ( talk ) 16:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is another new user (< 2 weeks) who's edited OMICS articles  and just tried to non-admin close the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' This is ridiculous Wikienglish123 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . There are no non-stale puppets to check against as far as I know. However, I'll check the alleged socks against each other. I've added SmartSE's puppet, so to speak, to the main list.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * is.
 * Group 1 – The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Both accounts use more webhosts – and the same ones – than "normal" IPs.
 * Group 2 – is ✅ from Group 1..
 * Group 3 – The following accounts are ❌ to each other and to Group 1 except they all edit from the same area of India. My strong suspicion is they are meat puppets.
 * I’ve blocked the accounts in Group 1 (without tags) and leave it up to and  what to do with the other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – The following accounts are ❌ to each other and to Group 1 except they all edit from the same area of India. My strong suspicion is they are meat puppets.
 * I’ve blocked the accounts in Group 1 (without tags) and leave it up to and  what to do with the other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve blocked the accounts in Group 1 (without tags) and leave it up to and  what to do with the other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve blocked the accounts in Group 1 (without tags) and leave it up to and  what to do with the other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve blocked the accounts in Group 1 (without tags) and leave it up to and  what to do with the other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would propose tagging Dentking07 (and the WP:DUCK ), Wikienglish123 and JSSPK (per below) as suspected sockpuppets of Scholarscentral, I think the behavioural evidence is strong enough. It is plausible that UST-16 is also Scholarscentral although there's little to go on with only two minor edits. They are to an article unrelated to OMICS but it is medically related which is consistent with Scholarscentral. His socks often start with minor edits to build an edit count before they start editing OMICS articles. If the checkuser evidence is very strong I think a block is justified. It is plausible that the other accounts are meatpuppets rather than socks, I'm unsure whether their behaviour alone is blockable. January  ( talk ) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Realistically they are probably not all the same person, but behaviourally they are certainly acting the same as the previous accounts so to all intents and purposes they are socks. It's difficult to know about UST-16 when they've made two edits - you stated above "indistinguishable from Group 2" but did you mean group 1? SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged per recommendations. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

05 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

"Brand new" editor on OMICS Publishing Group and OMICS Group -- immediately following block of the accounts dealt with above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the editor knows of this SPI report is pretty clear evidence of socking; perhaps CU isn't necessary after all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This account proposed a change at Talk:OMICS Publishing Group which was rejected as a copyright violation - this is consistent with Scholarscentral, who is the subject a CCI. I think this goes beyond merely being an editor with the same COI as claimed below - it is either the same person or someone proxying for him (Dentking07 threatened earlier today to "contact my colleague to do edits which are under discussion" ). January  ( talk ) 16:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

COI Disclosure
Hi this is Anita, I am an employee of OMICS JSSPK Contribute majorly to company related articles OMICS Group Inc and OMICS Publishing Group  + I will disclose the COI on my edits. JSSPK (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The account is ✅ to . Blocked without a tag. The account has the same tagging issue as in the SPI above. Therefore, I'm not closing this one, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged per recommendation in the previous investigation. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

17 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Joinopenaccess acknowledges on his user-talk page (and various other places) that he is editing on behalf of OMICS Publishing Group; contributions make this obvious as well. The same arguments as all previous socks of Scholarscentral. As for English3023523, a "new" (and perhaps throwaway) account that wanted to undo a recently closed AfD that resulted in merging OMICS Group Inc to OMICS Publishing Group; in the history  one sees Joinopenaccess there as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2015 (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

 * is ✅ to and . Blocked and tagged.
 * is ✅ to and ❌ here. Blocked and tagged to that master.
 * Because I uncovered so many new A8v socks, I will reopen that SPI and list them there.
 * Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

18 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

An AFD was opened for OMICS Publishing Group yesterday after an OTRS request for deletion from the subject and this account, which has only 21 edits, has voted in support of deletion. This is one of about 18 edits to AFDs and related pages made today within just over an hour, which seems an unusual way for a genuine new editor to start out (prior to today the account only had one insignificant edit), particularly adding to WikiProject Deletion sorting. As with, this account has probably made the contributions to other AFDs to appear less like a single-purpose account. January ( talk ) 22:22, 18 November 2015 (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

 * The account is ✅ to Dentking07, etc. Blocked tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

21 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This user has already been blocked for canvassing delete !votes for the ongoing AFD (e.g., but it would be good to confirm whether they are linked to the recently blocked socks, or are a different group. SmartSE (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2015 (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
✅, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

30 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I've blocked per the self-confirmation here. I'm bringing it here for tracking purposes. Also, note the site ban for OMICS employees. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

28 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same OMICS Publishing Group related activity. Reverting a correction made by an IP at IEEE conferences created by another sock, idiosyncratic first edit with edit summary syntax similar to earlier socks, promoting an earlier version of the OMICS article that was favored by the sockfarm and a strange initial user page like the other socks. I think this is a duck, pinging, for opinions. There's a history of multiple socks so I'm requesting CU, though I understand that linking technically to the older ones may not be possible. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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


 * I agree about duck. --JBL (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm comfortable with blocking the account based upon behavior. I don't think a check is necessary, as I can't technically confirm the account to past socks and previous reports have shown that there's only 1 active account at a time. Mike V • Talk 17:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Significant COI-socking on this article in the past. This new user has started out with a desire to add considerable positive content here (which may or may not be justified, I'm not offering an opinion on the merits of the requested changes, only that it's clearly positive). The history of socking around this article makes it seem worth flagging for CU attention. Murph 9000 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility
 * Added recent promotional IP which has been repeatedly blocked for WP:EVASION, most recently on 30 September 2016 for 6 months. Linked relevant community ban from ANI.   Murph 9000  (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * PING / FYI, since you blocked the IP very recently.  Murph 9000  (talk) 14:15, 12 October 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
The accounts in the archives are. The named account here and the IP are both blocked. There's no reason to do a CU check on one account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This account has repeated edits made by previous socks/block-evading IPs of attempting to remove OMICS Publishing Group or related companies from the hatnote to Omics, and attempting to add Yomics, previous socks. Unlike most of the Scholarscentral socks this account has not edited OMICS Publishing Group but frequently edits related companies Future Medicine, an article they created and Pulsus Group, often to remove or play down negative material or connection to OMICS. Here they claimed the OMICS article was an attack.

The other two accounts are already blocked per the siteban on OMICS employees but I thought they may be useful for checkuser comparison since older accounts are stale. Runku4g shared a similar interest with Jessie1979 in getting a "business model" section into articles (Jessie1979, Runku4g ). January ( talk ) 19:01, 29 October 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

 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and very to previous socks:
 * I've blocked the two unblocked accounts and tagged all three. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the two unblocked accounts and tagged all three. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the two unblocked accounts and tagged all three. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the two unblocked accounts and tagged all three. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account which began editing two days after the last sock was blocked, has started out with drive-by maintenance tagging and proposing mergers, as 2015 sock did. Has also edited OMICS Publishing Group adding a claim cited to their own website in a similar standard of English to other Scholarscentral socks, and created articles on journals published by Pulsus Group, a company affiliated with OMICS. January ( talk ) 20:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

January, Yes the account was recently created. This is not sock, the only account created and using properly. I haven't done any wrong editing. My contribution are good to wikipedia. Let me know the objections of my editing/contributions. Please clarify? Thanks. Geo5 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, blocked and tagged. This was a clerical error on my part. I meant to block Geo5 as a then sleeper account last time I checked but missed my note when I copied the list of socks to the SPI. My apologies for the extra work,. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Account created two days after the last sock was blocked, started out by creating a very brief user page probably just to make it a bluelink, which is quite a common pattern for Scholarscentral socks (archive). Edits are almost entirely connected to Future Medicine or Pulsus Group, two companies connected to OMICS, including creating Clinical Practice (a Pulsus group journal), linking to an article created by previous sock Jessie1979,  and several others linking and amending the name of Future Medicine. January ( talk ) 19:38, 16 November 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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I know that the old accounts are stale, but I've blocked these as proven accounts, based on the serious COI promo issues and the fact that OMICS reps have been community banned. Usually there are more accounts than we find, so I'm bringing this here to flesh them out. Also pinging and  for any further input. Diffs:, , compare to earlier sock. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just logging the community ban over here as I don't think it's been recorded at the SPI. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:40, 12 July 2017 (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 and to previous socks:
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other and ❌ to Group 1:
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts without tags, which need to be straightened out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , part of the "unrelated" technical finding is that since the community ban and our last SPI, OMICS has now added two more continents in which they have employees (due to acquisitions, that's the reason for the new addition of articles). If there aren't any objections from you or others who've been following this mess, or a better idea then I'm going to tag all as proven socks as this is a weird one -- employees of the company/group are banned and are obviously doing things from the same playbook. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In Group 1, I was very careful to say that the accounts were not only confirmed to each other but also to previous socks, meaning accounts blocked in previous SPIs, which doesn't seem to tally with what you're saying. The technical data is identical for Group 1, including user agents and IP ranges. Group 2, on the other hand, is completely different from Group 1 technically. It would seem from a socking, not a COI perspective, there are two masters.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tagged group 1 as confirmed to Scholarcentral, and group 2 tagged separately with Laura Dormer as master. I'm just noting here that both groups are part of OMICS (Group 2 seems to have come through via the acquisition as the edits predating the acquisition don't share the OMICS whitewashing pattern). I guess the archiving clerk/CU can split this to two groups if necessary (Group 2 being split off to Laura Dormer) though I hope that some link between the two can be maintained as any behavioral evidence will be the same for both groups. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts without tags, which need to be straightened out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , part of the "unrelated" technical finding is that since the community ban and our last SPI, OMICS has now added two more continents in which they have employees (due to acquisitions, that's the reason for the new addition of articles). If there aren't any objections from you or others who've been following this mess, or a better idea then I'm going to tag all as proven socks as this is a weird one -- employees of the company/group are banned and are obviously doing things from the same playbook. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In Group 1, I was very careful to say that the accounts were not only confirmed to each other but also to previous socks, meaning accounts blocked in previous SPIs, which doesn't seem to tally with what you're saying. The technical data is identical for Group 1, including user agents and IP ranges. Group 2, on the other hand, is completely different from Group 1 technically. It would seem from a socking, not a COI perspective, there are two masters.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tagged group 1 as confirmed to Scholarcentral, and group 2 tagged separately with Laura Dormer as master. I'm just noting here that both groups are part of OMICS (Group 2 seems to have come through via the acquisition as the edits predating the acquisition don't share the OMICS whitewashing pattern). I guess the archiving clerk/CU can split this to two groups if necessary (Group 2 being split off to Laura Dormer) though I hope that some link between the two can be maintained as any behavioral evidence will be the same for both groups. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is a bit of a nuisance group, there are multiple sock divisions, although all representatives of OMICS and their subsidiaries etc are community banned. The last time I brought this year, we had to split it to two groups based on geolocation, the new group came in via an acquisition, there's also more acquisitions that have caused other such groups I think. While there's no doubt that these are all OMICS representatives, it'd be good to have some sort of confirmation on the individual groups. Also, since I had semi-protected many of their target articles, we now have them go about making innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed status and then wreaking havoc on those articles. As Bbb23 is away, I'm pinging on this as he does work on COI SPIs specifically. I've blocked all but the last one, which while it continues the same edits and was created after the last account was blocked hasn't made sufficient edits yet (and I've semi-protected that page again so it can't continue. To ensure that pings go through I'm going to ping some editors involved in cleaning up this mess in a separate post. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Re-pinging, as you all have been involved in cleaning up this mess. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:18, 27 October 2017 (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

 * All of the above may be ✅ to each other and



...but ❌ to the Laura Dormer group in the archive. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jai22 and Logic202 were confirmed by Ponyo to Nanonine before the CU statute of limitations ran out, and that was confirmed by Bbb23 to earlier Scholarscentral socks in the July issue of this SPI. I've retagged the ones I'd blocked as suspected/proven to confirmed, and given that we've gotten rid of a few sleepers, I think we should be good for now. closing. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recreation of long ago created Srinubabu Gedela + username similarity to October 2017 set of socks, specifically, and 2016 sock  plus overlapping interests and edits to similar fields. (Ie. academic journals etc...) CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:34, 26 December 2017 (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

 * Adding two additional users based on the Srinubabu Gedela article. Varunakula is an obvious SPA so either MEAT or part of a farm. Florida Army is more complex, with a different contribution history, but similar enough that they might be related. They randomly edited the Gedela article, and were canvassed to it by Genome$100, but have not !voted. They also overlap on Articles for deletion/Randy Price where they vote together and edit the article. This is also a particularly strange diff at an AfD where they vote together and Genome$100 asks FloridaArmy specifically to fix the article. This looks like it could be sock family that communicates with itself or some form of collusion for UPE. I'm not sure this case is the right master, but given the recreation it is worth considering. I'm asking for CU to check for other accounts and see if the accounts are related to another sock family. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Genome$100 is ✅. FloridaArmy is ❌. Varunakula is . They are using the same user agent as some of the confirmed socks but are either editing from a different location or from a proxy, depending on how you evaluate the provider. Blocked and tagged Genome$100.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Varunakula . However, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to act against FloridaArmy at this time, so closing. GABgab 23:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Like many socks before this one, this user is removing the predatory mentioning in Pulsus Group (compare this socks edits to this one) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2019 (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
Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Please indef the sock. Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)