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 ( [1]) and other tweaks. Shortly thereafter Sanjeev.08 came on and blanked out any of the controversy sections ( [2]), upon which point Bhaskargupta269 re-added the promotional content. ( [3]) I reverted these edits and minutes later Sanjeev.08 did it again ( [4]) 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, [5]), 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)
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)
References
|
The following accounts are Confirmed as being related:
The following accounts are Likely related to one another:
The two groups are technically Unrelated; their edits originate from the same country but that is as close as it gets. Yunshui 雲 水 12:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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/681793993 Special:Diff/681904321 Special: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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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 - [12], Ncrboy - [13], Shravanshrvsta - [14], Shivamtyaagi - [15], Whitewaltham - [16]. There are a few more accounts that I've linked behaviorally but they are too old and therefore not listed here. — Spaceman Spiff 12:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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: [17]. Re this current lot, examples include...
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 [25]. This definitely needs a checkuser to look for sleepers. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I see no need for a CU check just of the two accounts.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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 ( [1]) and other tweaks. Shortly thereafter Sanjeev.08 came on and blanked out any of the controversy sections ( [2]), upon which point Bhaskargupta269 re-added the promotional content. ( [3]) I reverted these edits and minutes later Sanjeev.08 did it again ( [4]) 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, [5]), 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)
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)
References
|
The following accounts are Confirmed as being related:
The following accounts are Likely related to one another:
The two groups are technically Unrelated; their edits originate from the same country but that is as close as it gets. Yunshui 雲 水 12:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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/681793993 Special:Diff/681904321 Special: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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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 - [12], Ncrboy - [13], Shravanshrvsta - [14], Shivamtyaagi - [15], Whitewaltham - [16]. There are a few more accounts that I've linked behaviorally but they are too old and therefore not listed here. — Spaceman Spiff 12:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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: [17]. Re this current lot, examples include...
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 [25]. This definitely needs a checkuser to look for sleepers. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I see no need for a CU check just of the two accounts.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.