Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234/Archive

06 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I'm writing here first because I think that this is a case of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Long story short, back around November Bhaskargupta269 came to BLP/N to complain about defamatory content on the Navin Raheja that was being posted by User:Leoaugust. I brought everything up to ANI since I was worried about a COI on both sides. Leoaugust stated that the COI was not intentional and that he had been writing about all of this due to the company having issues in the news, and that he would try to write in a more neutral manner. So far he seems like he's done that for the most part. Ultimately the page for Raheja was redirect to the page for Raheja Developers since he's pretty much just known for his work with the company- his positions outside of the company didn't really gain the coverage necessary to warrant his own article. I asked Bhaskargupta269 if he was a paid editor on my talk page, to which he denied.

Initially I thought that Bhaskargupta269 was the potential main person with this but I noticed that Wikiaccnt1234 has begun editing the page again, trying to delete the page via G7 and other tweaks. Shortly thereafter Sanjeev.08 came on and blanked out any of the controversy sections, upon which point Bhaskargupta269 re-added the promotional content. I reverted these edits and minutes later Sanjeev.08 did it again It looks like he's done this at least once before as well.

A look at Sanjeev.08's edits shows that he has made at least one promotional article (Shalby hospital) and Wikiaccnt1234 has tried to make a draft article for Draft:Nayan Raheja. Now where Powargaurish comes in is that he made an article for Nayan Raheja in the mainspace (Nayan Raheja, ), an article that was also edited by Bhaskargupta269 and was very similar to the draft article made by Wikiaccnt1234.

I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry but this does look like a case of organized meatpuppetry. I'm also inclined to believe that the above accounts (minus Leoaugust) are all paid editors, despite Bhaskargupta269's claims. At the very least they do appear to have been instructed by Raheja Developers to write nice things about them on Wikipedia and remove any negative claims. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm debating whether or not to bring this up at ANI- an SPI seems like it'd be a good first step in any case. I don't think that a sweep for sleepers needs to be done in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Could the following user be checked for sock puppetry in this case

Leoaugust (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a paid editor and do not know about bhaskargupta269 and powargaurish. I also want to know that why only positive commenter are being suspected. leoaugust is also continuously writing only negative content. It means Wikipedia is encouraging only negative editors. Need a reply from any other editor except Tokyogirl79 because the editor is supporting only leoaugust in full way and restricting all others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeev.08 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that you're removing any and all negative material from the page. Leoaugust explained himself in a previous post at ANI and he's tried to write more within Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. If something has been mentioned in the news - and the recent legal issues have received more than a few news articles - then it should be mentioned in the article. We cannot have an article that only covers the positive stuff about a company. That isn't giving a wide perspective of everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I recently spotted a post by User:Amrishtyagi at Gilliam's talk page ( since they're now technically involved, at least in passing) where the user comments that he is managing the page, which kind of makes me further concerned that there is at least meatpuppetry going on here by a group of individuals that were likely hired to edit the page. The way that they've been editing really seems like it's a case of paid editing, despite claims by at least one editor that they are not being paid in any way to edit the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've brought this back to ANI since this is getting to be slightly more than just a SPI issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The text from which the Raheja WikiPage is being updated is from an "advertisement/article" that is posted on the Raheja Developers Facebook page, and it was published as a paid advertisement (Special Initiative) of a tabloid "Mail Today", and the supplement was called Property Today. The same text has been appearing in various places on the web on sites such as Tumblr ... the other editors seem to be cutting and pasting from this into Wikipedia. Leoaugust (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to say something... leoaugust is accusing me for writing advertising content for this article. But now I also found one thing. leoaugust have posted all the content/facts/incidents/controversies that have been posted in Qubrex.com website. Everyone can check the website. It seems like that it has been created to post negative against this company. So is leoaugust being paid by qubrex to write only negative? If so then i request here to take action against this page because according to the discussion till now, everyone is posting intentionally here.(as you all are thinking that i am posting positive for the company)Sanjeev.08 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand the logic of (User:Sanjeev.08) charges against my editing. Qubrex.com has on its website mentioned about the Black Money sting operation on Raheja Developers (RDL), and the filing of legal cases against RDL by 43 of buyers in Raheja Atharva project, amongst many other things. So? Qubrex reported lots of news, and I reported some news, and just because some of the news we reported is same, I am supposed to be getting paid by Qubrex? The allegation makes no sense. And by the way, Qubrex is a well respected name, and they were deeply involved in Indian Real Estate's landmark case in which DLF (the biggest builder in India) was penalized 6.3 billion Indian rupees by the Competition Commission of India. And for the record, I have never removed anything positive or laudatory that you or anyone has put into the Raheja Developers page; I have just added what I think is very very important news about the company which should be part of a fair profile of it anywhere. I had disclosed earlier, when a particular slant in my writing was pointed out, that in the real world I am a real estate expert with over 9 years of experience in India, and my aim is to improve wikipages from being stubs to something substantive. I want the wikipages to reflect the Indian real market and its players more accurately, rather being one side and mis-leading to the readers. Please (User:Sanjeev.08) stop worrying about the positive/negative and report the important news about Raheja Developers as it comes. Leoaugust (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The following accounts are ✅ as being related: The following accounts are related to one another: The two groups are technically ❌; their edits originate from the same country but that is as close as it gets. Yunshui 雲 水 12:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition, the following accounts mentioned are also ✅ as each other, but are ❌ to the other listed accounts:
 * The account is technically ❌ to any of the others. Yunshui 雲 水  08:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all of the above accounts with the exception of Tunish123, however I would not take issue if another administrator wished to to block this account as well. I have also semi-protected the Raheja Developers page. Yunshui 雲 水 08:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The account is technically ❌ to any of the others. Yunshui 雲 水  08:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all of the above accounts with the exception of Tunish123, however I would not take issue if another administrator wished to to block this account as well. I have also semi-protected the Raheja Developers page. Yunshui 雲 水 08:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Tunish123 for meatpuppetry and tagged the accounts linked to the master. Mike V • Talk 04:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

10 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is regarding host of accounts defending a advert like article Relief_India_Trust with multiple issue which in real life misguides the general public and victimize him/her to a money grabbing organization. The article creator and major contributors are all confirmed Sock-puppeteers.

History of blocked account

Page Creator  : User:Shevakumaran  -  This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts. '''Mjr. Cont'''     : User:Sneha.M15     -   This account has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of Writer media (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. : User:Elle.k.will  -   This account has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of Writer media (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. : User:Writer media -   This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts. : User:Kavita1289  -   This account has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of Christinemyers17 (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. : User:Art2edit    -    This account has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of Writer media (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. : Shobhit.v87 is most probably same person/organization carrying out the same abuse.

The majority source of the article are same copy pasted newspaper articles on various news outlets (advertise journalism ?), which overlooks the malpractice carried out by the organization. the said accounts are aggressively protecting the advert like tone and partial point of view deleting any otherwise reported.

Uniformity in current group of accounts

All the requested accounts are around 6 months old

and edit history shows contribution to less than 2 articles, including said article

engaged in active deletion any criticism to said article Relief_India_Trust

Never join in participation or discussion in Talk Page of the article to reconcile the difference in views

They shows same pattern of activity and interest as of the group who previously created the and maintained the page and now blocked. DChinu (talk) 07:06, 10 September 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

 * - All involved in removing negative information and/or adding promotion to Relief India Trust . Shobhit.v87 is .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and are ✅ from each other.  and  are editing via the same ISP and geolocation and are technically  related to the first two.  is also  related, though it could be meat/canvassing. The results regarding  are  as they appear to be using a webhost.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked Aarvig 1 week. Indef blocked Vinay Jayanth., any opinion as to what should be done with Sumita868 and Write shwetasharma? --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absent strong technical or behavioural evidence of outright socking, perhaps provide a warning that if they were canvassed to participate in a dispute that they will likely be subject to the same sanctions as those who recruited them even if they are separate individuals (essentially point them to WP:MEAT). If the advocacy continues and is disruptive then a block might be necessary.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * what about Shobhit.v87? Looking at the deleted contributions, that whole article is a minefield of SPAs. Mkdw talk 23:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved the page to the name of the oldest confirmed account, and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

05 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This request is with reference to the earlier sockpuppet investigation on Aarvig. Ponyo had concluded "If the advocacy continues and is disruptive then a block might be necessary."

Jimfbleak had cleaned up the page Relief India Trust on 22 September, including phrases like "the organisation claims that" "the organisation states that" to be more neutral. Jimfbleak had also included a advert warning. Bullus, earlier said to be "possibly related", or meat, by CheckUser, has edited the page again to remove the advert warning ( Special:Diff/682203136/683289460 ).

Jimfbleak has specifically written to Bullus in the latter's talk page "I'll also take action against anyone who edit-wars instead of discussing here. If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must' declare it". Bullus removed the advert warning without talking about it in Talk:Relief_India_Trust, nor was a conflict of interest declared.

Suspicious activity of Bullus, with reference to the Relief India Trust page, includes the challenging of the deletion of the page. Bullus gave the same links used in the article itself Special:Diff/681793993Special:Diff/681904321Special:Diff/682195400. Earlier, there has been discussion about how these articles are paid articles Special:Diff/682724114. Although these are only accusations made from experience and not with recourse to facts, I provide it here to build the case. Whereas Bullus points out that the criticism about the organisation mentioned in the article are referenced solely to social media posts, and therefore are not verifiable sources according to Wiki policy (and rightly so), what makes Bullus' activity suspicious is that Bullus has been involved in the protecting in the advert tone of the article (as argued in the previous sockpuppet investigation). One can also find from Bullus' Special:Contributions/Bullus that except for some edits on articles related to Manipur, Bullus has been involved in protecting the above mentioned article, and has tried to include a website as an advertisement to the article Employment website, which was later removed Special:Diff/681614940/681806248.

There was no clear evidence earlier that Bullus was involved in protecting in the advert tone of the article, since edits were always to delete the criticisms stating that the references were not verifiable (and Bullus was right in that claim), now Bullus has deleted the advert warning, which I think is a clear indication of protecting the advert tone of the article, trying to pass off the organisation as a legitimate one through a Wikipedia article.

I request a repeat investigation into Aarvig and Bullus, given this fresh evidence. Also requesting a CheckUser since in the previous investigation, several of the accounts mentioned of being socks were let off with warnings, and no action was reported being taken on Bullus.

Disclaimer: I'm now editing the Relief India Trust page to revert the advert warning. Since Bullus had argued earlier that DChinu had the intention of discrediting the organisation since all DChinu's edits are on the concerned page, let me make the same disclosure that DChinu had made lest Bullus accuses me of the same. I was also a victim of a scam by Relief India Trust, who, in an email, pointed me to the Wikipedia article as a claim to the organisation's authenticity. It is after this that I got involved in keeping an eye on the page, since it seemed like such an outright advert.

Thank you for your time. Neogarfield (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Bullus has again edited the concerned page to make it look like an advert. The advert and orphan warnings were removed, some dead links added as proof (which Jimfbleak removed) and the language of the article was edited; all the "claims that" were removed (for example "this organisation claims to work..." changed to "this organisation works"). Bullus' edits on October 6 - Special:Diff/684398495 Special:Diff/684399422 Special:Diff/684399704

Jimfbleak's revert - Special:Diff/68455490

Thank you. Neogarfield (talk) 07:23, 9 October 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically it looks to be . Both accounts geolocate to the same populated area. I'd suggest using the CU results as supplemental information and rely mostly on behavior. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking the meatpuppet for 72 hours. He is clearly editing in a COI promotional way and disregarding what other editors are telling him. Not blocking the master here. Closing.

18 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

All accounts have a strong interest in keepign Raheja Developers clean and pristine following the PR word. The main account is also interested in other articles while the rest are focused only on this one which makes me think that this is a paid editing collective and that there are more groups linked to it. Diffs: Aarvig -, Ncrboy - , Shravanshrvsta - , Shivamtyaagi - , Whitewaltham -. There are a few more accounts that I've linked behaviorally but they are too old and therefore not listed here. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed the old SPI as I looked under a misspelling initially. It's now obvious that this is some sort of paid advocacy with multiple groupings involved with the master being the controlling entity. A likely repeat of the archives, probably requiring a COIN investigation. Also pinging whose post at WT:IN made me file this SPI after three months of procrastination. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It also appears that there's a link to Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234/Archive. All these accounts are from after that SPI but it appears that the link was missed when Aarvig was created. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

They are certainly editing in coordination. Some seem to be more proficient than others, but some are almost certainly the same person. They may well be related to the Wikiaccnt1234 sockfarm that created and then repeatedly attempted to whitewash Raheja Developers. The article shows all the signs of paid editing, having sprung fully formed with multiple formatted references and complete with infobox by a "new" editor (Wikiaccnt1234) in their very first edit to Wikipedia:. Re this current lot, examples include...
 * Shivamtyaagi adds an award referenced to a press release: . It was removed as not relevant to this article (an award to the company founder for a film he made). Ncrboy re-adds the material using an existing reference completely unrelated to the award . When removed again, the IP 182.75.108.250 re-adds it, this time with a reference from the company's website doctored to look like an independent source.
 * Whitewaltham removes part of a sentence . When restored, Shravanshrvsta  removes it again with an almost identical edit summary.
 * As you can see from this diff Shravanshrvsta and Shravanshrvsta1 edited the article within 2 minutes of each other. Shravanshrvsta1's edit likewise removed a sentence previously removed by Whitewaltham.

I note that Aarvig, the putative sockmaster here, did the usual 10+ very minor edits to become autoconfirmed in February 2015 and then headed straight to Raheja Developers to start deleting all negative material. This definitely needs a checkuser to look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Group 1 – The following accounts are ✅:
 * Group 2 – The following accounts are ✅ and to Group 1:
 * Group 3 – is ❌ to Groups 1 and 2.
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts in Group 1, including the master (now indefinite). I've blocked without tags the accounts in Group 2.
 * I leave the issue of tagging for Group 2 and blocking for Group 3 to others.
 * As a CheckUser I have no comment about Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234 as I believe the master and puppets are all .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having spent a lot of time looking at this, I think there's a good behavioral tie to Wikiaccnt1234 and the cases should probably merged but I'll let either or another clerk/CU/admin make the final call on that. Not closing for that purpose. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, I merged those cases.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – is ❌ to Groups 1 and 2.
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts in Group 1, including the master (now indefinite). I've blocked without tags the accounts in Group 2.
 * I leave the issue of tagging for Group 2 and blocking for Group 3 to others.
 * As a CheckUser I have no comment about Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234 as I believe the master and puppets are all .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having spent a lot of time looking at this, I think there's a good behavioral tie to Wikiaccnt1234 and the cases should probably merged but I'll let either or another clerk/CU/admin make the final call on that. Not closing for that purpose. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, I merged those cases.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I tagged both groups 1 and 2 as confirmed socks of Wikiaccnt1234 and I'm closing this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The last account under the sockmaster was active Dec 2015 so probably too stale for a CU on that, but these two accounts are like them, in that they are SPAs related to Raheja Developers which focused on removing negative content and adding promotional content. The two new accounts have worked on the new "article" Raheja Production which is over-the-top fawingingly promotional as well as fraudulent, with the content almost entirely unsupported by adjacent citations. Allengusen is 100% SPA for that article, the older account worked on two other company articles. If you look at the history of the Production article is obvious that Amiesolis took on a new account, or that the two are at least MEAT. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks BBB. For admins following, this is pretty much WP:DUCK, if further evidence is required for admin action please let me know and I will present it. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Amiesolis has been blocked under a different SPI case: Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 15 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
I see no need for a CU check just of the two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the intervening CU result since Bbb23 declined, Is Allengusen connected to the accounts found at Sockpuppet_investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive? I would assume not since it isn't listed there as confirmed, but thought I'd check. These accounts do appear to be behaviorally connected. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a weak, but more likely to be WP:MEAT-y promotion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Amiesolis already per Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar
 * Allengusen is possibly a sock, probably a meatpuppet, and certainly a one-day-throwaway. Because it's unlikely to be used again, a block may be superfluous but also unlikely cause harm so I'm blocking the account but leaving the tag suspected. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Basically single-purpose accounts attempting to influence the Raheja Developers article, as previously. CU might be useful with Appmarch but I realise we've lost the chance to CU back to the master. Sitush (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note the use of "we" in this edit, made at a time when the two accounts are repeatedly requesting deletion of the article. Neither account seems to know how to sign their posts - SineBot is working overtime with them. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 25 April 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are ✅ to each other. to determine if they are related to the master. Both blocked. Katietalk 14:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing w/o tags. Meat is likely.