Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Amitabhaitc

Amitabhaitc ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

07 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

User:Amitabhaitc, created 3 March 2016; User:Wikieditsind, created 7 March 2016; User:Percysam11, created 12 May 2017; and User:Imorningstar85, created 7 June 2017.

Sock or meat farm galore. All created Draft:ITC Infotech, which has now been deleted five times as spam. Only Percysam ever blocked. CU info stale for the puppeteer and Wikieitsind, but presumably not for the latest two. You may feel, though, that the ducks are loud enough to ignore chechuser request- no problem with that. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Further (forgot to add, thanks Dlohcierekim for the ping though) Imorningstar's latest remark on D's talk- that 'this is regarding the repeated deletion of ITC Infotech article which I have been trying to create for a while now'- indicates that they have more history than their day-old account would suggest! 'For a while'= since March last year, presumably. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I have informed editor regarding WP:COI and WP:Paid. It's a lot to digest. Hopefully they will be able to illuminate this matter for us. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 13:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Based on the comment that is quoted about creating the article, one good-faith (but not very good) explanation is that the company is using multiple people. If so, this may not be a sock case, only persistent paid editing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment He responded to my query by saying he meant the research time. My feeling is he innocently did someone a favor not knowing what he was walking into. I think Robert may have nailed it, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 18:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please evaluate the behaviour presented in the filer's statements with deleted contribs. QEDK ( 愛) 12:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • His response indicates "If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia like you said, one look at the draft I had posted would have been sufficient to understand that what I had submitted is highly neutral and not at all promotional." which does not at all correspond with what he wrote when he submitted the article. He wrote "Infotech [1] is a specialised global full service technology solutions provider, led by Business and Technology Consulting. ITC InfoTech’s Digitaligence@work infuses technology with domain, data, design, and differentiated delivery to significantly enhance experience and efficiency, enabling our clients to differentiate and disrupt their business." ...with the bolding being mine. It is a promotional COI piece and I don't believe him when he says that he isn't trying to promote that company. I do believe him when he said, "I'm directly associated with ITC Infotech and have full authority for attempting to create an article." I don't believe his attempts at weaseling away from that statement later.
    • The "I'm new" so help me to get this published tact has worn out. Was used previously by blocked account, Percysam11, copied for non-admins' sake,
"Hi, I found the ITC Page was deleted. I am a new user and would like to write an draft on this. The content that i drafted is fresh and not copied. I have posted it in draft to make sure that i get necessary help. I think the page should not be deleted is because its a fresh content and i adhere to the guidelines on wikipedia. Kidnly help me in making the article much better. Thanks Percysam11 ( talk) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)sam reply
Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Percysam11 ( talk) 08:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC) I've tried to draft the article adhering to the guidelines. I intend to fix this and i would not want the page to be deleted. This is not an advertisement, if it is then please help me to fix this. I am a new user I would require some help so that I can fix the issues and get the page published if it meets the requirement. Thanks Percysam11 ( talk) 08:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)" reply
Anyone recreating that article is likely to be blocked as a meat/sock going forward.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Articles & Files
Accounts (Meats & socks)

This continues and is a mess of meatpuppets more suitable for COIN. Many of these tie back to a big Infibeam push but it spiders out in several directions. The above accounts will need to be reviewed for still visible and deleted contribs with most connections being through the latter. It is likely that we have crossover meatpuppets that have worked on the same paid jobs but all of this does not fall under one SPI case. I'll be posting at COIN for a review and it may be easier if someone asks how I connect these on a case-by-case basis if necessary.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I suggest adding User:KuwarOnline on the basis of the very similar nature of his articles, and overlapping contributions. ⋅ DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I think that you are spot on. I emailed my suspicions regarding this account to one of the admins that are COIN regulars when I posted the SPI findings above so that they could check that account out. Although I haven't heard anything back yet and they haven't posted here, I certainly feel like that account is tied in.
       —  Berean Hunter (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  On hold - Seems like there's a fair amount of prose to evaluate. Placing on hold until that is all resolved. QEDK ( 愛) 18:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I've indeffed the remaining accounts including KuwarOnline for whom the evidence is highly compelling. No tags and since this is a mess of meatpuppets, I'm not sure if anything would be gained by moving the casename to the oldest account which would be KuwarOnline. Closing under current name.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: CU group separated. Since no CU evidence was found against KuwarOnline, I haven't moved this SPI but the evidence IS very compelling, so if there's a second opinion, I'd entertain it. None tagged by me as of now, since other evidence and connection is scanty from some accounts to another. Nothing hence linked to Amitabhaitc but might as well link to KO, at this point, if the need be. QEDK ( 愛) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amitabhaitc/Archive&oldid=787801892"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Amitabhaitc

Amitabhaitc ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

07 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

User:Amitabhaitc, created 3 March 2016; User:Wikieditsind, created 7 March 2016; User:Percysam11, created 12 May 2017; and User:Imorningstar85, created 7 June 2017.

Sock or meat farm galore. All created Draft:ITC Infotech, which has now been deleted five times as spam. Only Percysam ever blocked. CU info stale for the puppeteer and Wikieitsind, but presumably not for the latest two. You may feel, though, that the ducks are loud enough to ignore chechuser request- no problem with that. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Further (forgot to add, thanks Dlohcierekim for the ping though) Imorningstar's latest remark on D's talk- that 'this is regarding the repeated deletion of ITC Infotech article which I have been trying to create for a while now'- indicates that they have more history than their day-old account would suggest! 'For a while'= since March last year, presumably. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I have informed editor regarding WP:COI and WP:Paid. It's a lot to digest. Hopefully they will be able to illuminate this matter for us. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 13:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Based on the comment that is quoted about creating the article, one good-faith (but not very good) explanation is that the company is using multiple people. If so, this may not be a sock case, only persistent paid editing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment He responded to my query by saying he meant the research time. My feeling is he innocently did someone a favor not knowing what he was walking into. I think Robert may have nailed it, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 18:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please evaluate the behaviour presented in the filer's statements with deleted contribs. QEDK ( 愛) 12:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • His response indicates "If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia like you said, one look at the draft I had posted would have been sufficient to understand that what I had submitted is highly neutral and not at all promotional." which does not at all correspond with what he wrote when he submitted the article. He wrote "Infotech [1] is a specialised global full service technology solutions provider, led by Business and Technology Consulting. ITC InfoTech’s Digitaligence@work infuses technology with domain, data, design, and differentiated delivery to significantly enhance experience and efficiency, enabling our clients to differentiate and disrupt their business." ...with the bolding being mine. It is a promotional COI piece and I don't believe him when he says that he isn't trying to promote that company. I do believe him when he said, "I'm directly associated with ITC Infotech and have full authority for attempting to create an article." I don't believe his attempts at weaseling away from that statement later.
    • The "I'm new" so help me to get this published tact has worn out. Was used previously by blocked account, Percysam11, copied for non-admins' sake,
"Hi, I found the ITC Page was deleted. I am a new user and would like to write an draft on this. The content that i drafted is fresh and not copied. I have posted it in draft to make sure that i get necessary help. I think the page should not be deleted is because its a fresh content and i adhere to the guidelines on wikipedia. Kidnly help me in making the article much better. Thanks Percysam11 ( talk) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)sam reply
Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Percysam11 ( talk) 08:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC) I've tried to draft the article adhering to the guidelines. I intend to fix this and i would not want the page to be deleted. This is not an advertisement, if it is then please help me to fix this. I am a new user I would require some help so that I can fix the issues and get the page published if it meets the requirement. Thanks Percysam11 ( talk) 08:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)" reply
Anyone recreating that article is likely to be blocked as a meat/sock going forward.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Articles & Files
Accounts (Meats & socks)

This continues and is a mess of meatpuppets more suitable for COIN. Many of these tie back to a big Infibeam push but it spiders out in several directions. The above accounts will need to be reviewed for still visible and deleted contribs with most connections being through the latter. It is likely that we have crossover meatpuppets that have worked on the same paid jobs but all of this does not fall under one SPI case. I'll be posting at COIN for a review and it may be easier if someone asks how I connect these on a case-by-case basis if necessary.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I suggest adding User:KuwarOnline on the basis of the very similar nature of his articles, and overlapping contributions. ⋅ DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I think that you are spot on. I emailed my suspicions regarding this account to one of the admins that are COIN regulars when I posted the SPI findings above so that they could check that account out. Although I haven't heard anything back yet and they haven't posted here, I certainly feel like that account is tied in.
       —  Berean Hunter (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  On hold - Seems like there's a fair amount of prose to evaluate. Placing on hold until that is all resolved. QEDK ( 愛) 18:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I've indeffed the remaining accounts including KuwarOnline for whom the evidence is highly compelling. No tags and since this is a mess of meatpuppets, I'm not sure if anything would be gained by moving the casename to the oldest account which would be KuwarOnline. Closing under current name.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: CU group separated. Since no CU evidence was found against KuwarOnline, I haven't moved this SPI but the evidence IS very compelling, so if there's a second opinion, I'd entertain it. None tagged by me as of now, since other evidence and connection is scanty from some accounts to another. Nothing hence linked to Amitabhaitc but might as well link to KO, at this point, if the need be. QEDK ( 愛) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amitabhaitc/Archive&oldid=787801892"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE