Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scholarscentral

Scholarscentral (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


These are both new accounts, one created on the 15th, the other on the 16th. There is significant overlap in articles edited, including PLOS ONE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Open access (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and OMICS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 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 Omics Group Inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). 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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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 Jack1144 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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

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)[reply]

All  Confirmed 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)[reply]

08 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

More activity at OMICS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), following a block of Rich1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

T. Canens (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
08 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK. See edits at OMICS Publishing Group and the talk page there. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
16 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Start with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive, specifically this section where CU finds that the connection between Chicago1432 and Paulwood99 is "likely". The article in question is OMICS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


26 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First edit was to List of Scientific Conferences, an article created by previous sock account Chicago1432 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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk endorsed. 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. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

02 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New user whose only edits are to 4th World Congress of Biotechnology [6] and to the AfD on that page [7] [8] !voting to keep the page and offering to improve it, fitting the pattern of previous Scholarcentral socks, e.g., User:Platyone [9], who created the 4th World Congress page in the first place. Dricherby (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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: [11]; 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 [12] and Rich1982 [13]. 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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
10 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Myfilm11's first edit to the OMICS article [14] was very similar to Sarakadam's last edit [15] 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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
31 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Alura08 created OMICS Group Conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), previously created by sock Watsonarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); sock Chicago1432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also pushed for the creation of this as a separate article [18]. The brief user page is also a recurring characteristic [19][20][21]. January (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Dorisaviram who is trying to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oral health and dental management (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs), a journal which is owned by OMICS [22] and has just contested a speedy deletion tag on OMICS Group Conferences [23]. January (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added Jackysea, an account created today also contesting the speedy deletion of OMICS Group Conferences [24], similar userpage [25]. January (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

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)[reply]

01 August 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Added misplaced templates copied from WP:BARE to the main OMICS article [26], known sock Chicago1432 (talk · contribs) has similarly added templates copied from WP:COI [27]. January (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • Its not a good practice to code someone as sockpuppet without analyzing.

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
16 August 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

- interest in removing material from OMICS Publishing Group. Username is similar to Chicago1432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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 Myfilm11 (talk · contribs) and in common with this and some other socks eg Dorisaviram (talk · contribs), Sarakadam (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

OMICS, YOMICS and COMICS are different. What is sock? Do you mean Suck editing?Movies1432 (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note Movies1432 has been blocked and tagged. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: 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)[reply]
29 August 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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 [29]). 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 [www.omicsgroup.com/conferences/biodefense-natural-disasters-2013/[predatory publisher] OMICS conference]) in March. January (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See below. -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That was also my original intention when I asked for a checkuser. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note I have just blocked AlexWelch7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 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)[reply]

No sleepers on that IP. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
03 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Repeating the same edit attempting to add disambiguation for Yomics and Comics to Omics [30] as the previously blocked IP [31], known sock Movies1432 has also made a nonsensical edit to this SPI mentioning Omics, Yomics and comics [32]. January (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
05 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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 [33][34][35][36]. Movieking007 created OMICS Group Creations, plus articles on films associated with this company and mentioned in the article: Veerudokkade, Aata Arambam and substantially edited existing article Chandee [37][38].
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, Made for Each Other (Telugu film). This account also created articles which mention or are connected to OMICs: Federation of Asian Biotech Association, Bulgarian Rhinologic Society, Nepal Herbs and Herbal Product Association (mention of OMICs subsequently added by Lizia7 [39]), edited J. Prabhakar Reddy shortly after Movieking007 had created it [40] and edited Aata Arambam [41] to remove a propose merge which Movieking007 had strongly opposed (see Talk:Arrambam#Proposed merge with Aata Arambam) and other cleanup tags. January (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Monicagellar 08 has just edited OMICS Group [42]. January (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Trixie05, based on these edits [43][44][45][46]. 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#Bat noses) and Srinubabuau6 (User talk:Srinubabuau6#Close paraphrasing). January (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [52][53][54][55][56][57][58] consistent with the original account and other known socks [59][60][61][62][63][64][65], and the tone of their comments/edit summaries and standard of English is also consistent. January (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's exactly what the "other" editors have been doing as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Do we have any idea what the delay is in getting this wrapped up? --JBL (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've asked CU User:Materialscientist if they can take a look. SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk endorsed: 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)[reply]

 Confirmed Technical and behavioral evidence seem pretty ironclad. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks David, did you look at Srinubabuau6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) though? It's mentioned above but you might have missed it. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! --JBL (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

04 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Dentking07's first edit was to add references to "Yomics" and "Comics" to the disambiguation page Omics [68], previous socks have made similar edits (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive#03 September 2013. 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 Lizia7, Monicagellar 08 and Movieking007 attempted to create at OMICS Group (see history) and this new account has created at OMICS Group Inc.

This article is now at AFD and Chandrashekar399 and Karthiksrinivas both voted keep on the same day [69][70]. 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 [71] and linked to it using Find Link [72][73], Karthiksrinivas edited the article [74] and linked to it also using Find Link [75][76][77], and voted to keep it in the AFD [78].

Also possibly related are Praveenkathari, whose only edit was to attempt to nominate OMICS Publishing Group for deletion, which previous socks have done (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMICS Publishing Group), and Vaccinesasiapacific whose only edit was to remove a negative statement from the lead of OMICS Publishing Group [79]. January (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I would propose tagging Dentking07 (and the WP:DUCK Dentking7007 (talk · contribs)), 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)[reply]
  • 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 - @Bbb23: you stated above "indistinguishable from Group 2" but did you mean group 1? SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

COI Disclosure
[edit]

Hi this is Anita, I am an employee of OMICS {{connected contributor}} 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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Joinopenaccess acknowledges on his user-talk page [83] (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 [84] to undo a recently closed AfD that resulted in merging OMICS Group Inc to OMICS Publishing Group; in the history [85] one sees Joinopenaccess there as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

18 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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 [86]. 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 [87]. As with Wikienglish123 (talk · contribs), 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)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I've blocked per the self-confirmation here. I'm bringing it here for tracking purposes. Also, note the site ban for OMICS employees. —SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 May 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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 Smartse, Randykitty 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]

12 October 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

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. Murph9000 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Murph9000 (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: PING / FYI, since you blocked the IP very recently. Murph9000 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

The accounts in the archives are  Stale. 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)[reply]

29 October 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

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 [88][89][90], previous socks [91][92][93]. 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 [94][95][96][97]and Pulsus Group [98][99][100][101], often to remove or play down negative material or connection to OMICS. Here they claimed the OMICS article was an attack [102].

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 [103][104][105][106][107][108], Runku4g [109][110][111][112]). January (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account which began editing two days after the last sock was blocked, has started out with drive-by maintenance tagging and proposing mergers [113][114][115][116][117], as 2015 sock Dentking07 did [118][119][120][121]. Has also edited OMICS Publishing Group adding a claim cited to their own website in a similar standard of English to other Scholarscentral socks [122], and created articles on journals published by Pulsus Group, a company affiliated with OMICS [123][124][125]. January (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, 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, January. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created two days after the last sock was blocked, started out by creating a very brief user page [126] 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), [127] linking to an article created by previous sock Jessie1979, [128][129] and several others linking and amending the name of Future Medicine. January (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 July 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

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 Smartse and Randykitty for any further input. Diffs: [130], [131], compare to earlier sock. —SpacemanSpiff 11:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Bbb23, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SpacemanSpiff: 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)[reply]
  • Bbb23 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. —SpacemanSpiff 15:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

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 Berean Hunter 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. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging Berean Hunter, @Randykitty, Jytdog, JzG, and Smartse: as you all have been involved in cleaning up this mess. —SpacemanSpiff 10:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • All of the above may be  Confirmed to each other and

...but Red X Unrelated to the Laura Dormer group in the archive.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Berean Hunter, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Recreation of long ago created Srinubabu Gedela + username similarity to October 2017 set of socks, specifically, Tech$ and 2016 sock Hist$012 plus overlapping interests and edits to similar fields. (Ie. academic journals etc...) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • Genome$100 is  Confirmed. FloridaArmy is Red X Unrelated. Varunakula is  Inconclusive. 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)[reply]
  • Varunakula  Blocked and tagged. 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)[reply]

25 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Cabayi as part of the clerk training process. Please allow Cabayi to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on Cabayi's Talk page or on this page if more appropriate. Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive&oldid=1142566385"