Anasuya.D

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

31 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Some unusual !voting at this AfD for Ameri Holdings. User:Anasuya.D stated that they created the article "for a friend who works there" but that it is not a paid editing. The article was approved into mainspace by User:FutuGo as their very first edit. Unusual for a new editor. User:Zombalu created an account today (31st Jan) and spent less than 30 minutes editing but all of their edits at AfDs which is a surprising place for a first time editor to start. Behaviour suggests either sock-puppetery or meat-puppetery. Multiple accounts are being used to skew the AfD discussions. Checkuser requested to investigate relationship between these editors. -- HighKing++ 13:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of brand new accounts voting to keep this article[1] on a barely notable business. Zombalu has also weighted in on a bunch of other deletion discussions were COI was raised as a concern including one created by ArchitectureNerd. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 31 January 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

@Anasuya.D: Two questions at the moment: First, does your friend (Mondal) who operates Zombalu work in the same office as you and your husband? Second, do you edit only from work, or do you also edit Wikipedia from elsewhere?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I work in a company Nsure Inc. founded by my husband. My friend Amrita had come to our office today and I shared the facts with her as I introduced her to the norms of Wikipedia editing (I might still be a novice but I have got to learn certain things from my husband). She does not work in our office and had come for a visit. We have two work locations which also have residential facilities. Both the locations are in Kolkata. The computers we use are accessed by multiple persons. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am still learning about Wikipedia editing. I have edited from both these locations but as of now I have not been anywhere else.
Furthermore, let me state that I am a software developer (MCA) and if I were to create a sockpuppet account possibly I would have taken steps that would make it practically impossible for you to associate with me. SAP however is not my line of work and we have no corporate or personal, direct or indirect connections with the company Ameri100. I do not think that having a friend (whom I vaguely know to work there) really counts. So, there is nothing in for me to promote Ameri100 aka Ameri Holdings. Anasuya.D (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connections with ArchitectureNerd.
@Anasuya.D: Did Zombalu use one of your computers? Did they create their account at your office? Edit from their account while at your office?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Zombalu created and made her edits from one of the computers in our office. I told her about the process of Afd, arbitration, admin processes, neutrality etc. in context to the article Ameri Holdings or Ameri100. She was in our office for an hour or so and made some edits in order to get habituated with what she learnt from me. The last (existing version) version of Ameri Holdings has been independently created by me whereas the previous versions were of promotional nature (as I hear) and I do not have any association with the persons who created those. Anasuya.D (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anasuya.D: I'm going to be thinking about this and possibly consulting with another CheckUser, but you (and your husband) have a real problem here. First, you helped someone with the creation of a new article. Although you deny any affiliation with the subject of the new article, you nonetheless voted keep at the AfD. Your husband also voted keep. Neither of you have disclosed the relationship between you on your userpages. The WP:COI is clear. You claim that you have nothing to do with FutGo, but of all the things you say I don't believe that (it's not that I believe everything you say, but at least some of it is plausible).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of any conflict of interest with respect of my husband being a Wikipedia editor. I will add a note to by userpage (if that suffices). Although my account is old, my interest has grown over the last month or so and I am contributing freely. I have stated the facts. It is upon to believe or not. If you corroborate the facts, I think that they would. I do not think that I am trying to bias anything in any direction. Feel free to consult another CheckUser. I am sure that he/she would find the facts to corroborate. Anasuya.D (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note added to my userpage. I do not have anything to hide. Anasuya.D (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no inherent COI in having a family member also edit Wikipedia. However, the relationship should be clearly disclosed when you contribute to the same discussions as if you don't know each other. This is not the only time you and your husband have voted in the same discussion. Back in April 2014, you both voted the same way in a dicussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could vaguely remember having ever voted on Village pump. That was a long time ago. I found it here. Anyway, the two votes were independent of each other. Prior to your mentioning I never knew that he too had voted in the same discussion. Anasuya.D (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What adds to my concern in this case is that the article Ameri100 has been deleted 4 times for being promotion / spam. The degree of disruption has resulted in User:Tokyogirl79 locking the page to prevent its recreation which was why the article had to be moved live at Ameri Holdings during this 5th recreation. The company obviously really really wants a page.

I am also blown away at the proficiency of the User:Zombalu account [1]. They have degrees of "keep" down. They are using abbreviations like Afc. They are able to properly link urls on their first try. They have figured out bolding. They know about talk pages. This strains credibility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had introduced my wife User:Anasuya.D to Wikipedia. I being a long term editor am aware of many intricacies of Wikipedia editing and had introduced her to come of those. That includes edit summaries, norms, Afc process, wikilinking (internal and external links) etc. I have been on Wikipedia for more than 9 years and there has not been a fuss. My wife recently got involved but made some wrong decisions which indeed look bad. Prior to creation of the draft for the article Draft:Ameri100 she did not know about the multiple spammy articles getting deleted in the same space. When she tried to move the article, and could not (as the location was locked) she mistakenly moved it to WP:Ameri100 and I called for assistance from User:Doc James to delete the page. I also asked him about the locked status and whether he could remove it. He told that he would escalate it and I was happy (that was exactly what I needed). I wanted the Afc process to be followed. Things got messy when a sudden new account shifted it to mainspace. What I understood is that it unnecessarily interfered with the capacity to continue with the Afc process. I even requested User:Doc James if he could shift the article back to draft space. I had looked up the references and the articles seemed ok to me and I added my vote in favor of 'keep'. A google search had brought out a lot of PR releases but I did not bother to match the text. My vote was not biased by my relation with User:Anasuya.D. Nevertheless, I did not wish to scare her away from the recent interest towards Wikipedia that she was gradually growing.
I know Amrita (User:Zombalu) to be a real person and that my wife had introduced certain intricacies of Wikipedia editing to her. I understand why exactly this new user started with 'articles for deletion'. It was because the entire mess had originated from her request and her proposed article was now located in the 'articles for deletion' section awaiting critical analysis. DiptanshuTalk 05:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous accounts that created the article have no other edits to Wikipedia. The optics here definitely look bad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James, you have known me for quite some time. Surely enough I would not support disruptive editing. Needless to say that I would not preach it. DiptanshuTalk 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do these edits mesh with the work of the company your wife mentioned "Nsure Inc"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My firm Nsure Inc. has three lines of work. The first, PGnsure was a software based project which aimed to create an online examination (mock test) platform for post graduation aspirants (for PG exams in India). In spite of huge prospects the project was shut down midway due to funding issues. The manpower (software developers) were retained and they are running the second wing of software development (mainly Java based) and currently caters to local projects. The third wing, NSEProfits, is a finanicial analysis segment that offers trading calls to traders who trade in NSE. This is the segment you are talking about. My wife on the contrary, takes care of the second team. None of these have any connection with Ameri100 and retention or deletion of the page will make no difference to us. This Ameri100 works with SAP and the line of work of my firm is not remotely related to SAP. DiptanshuTalk 10:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Amrita Mondal about whom I mentioned is an acquaintance of my wife, not mine. I know her vaguely. I do not expect her to be an Wikipedia pro but frankly speaking, I have no idea. After my wife started getting involved in Wikipedia editing, she possibly mentioned it to this Amrita and she casually mentioned about her company. My wife had looked up the sources and had got them checked by me. The links seemed ok to me and I have indicated what I felt about them. I was wrong in missing out that the contents of one of them matched with PR releases of the company. My apologies for the same. Furthermore, I or my wife had no intention of being disruptive and my vote was from a neutral viewpoint. I had suggested that my wife makes her friend aware of the Wikipedia norms. She did that. This was intended to reduce any disruptiveness and not to increase it. If there has been any sort of disruptive behavior, I deeply apologize and assure that such a thing would not repeat itself. Regarding the fate of the alleged page, it does not matter to me or my wife. DiptanshuTalk 10:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks User:Diptanshu.D :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I and my wife have withdrawn our votes from the deletion debate. DiptanshuTalk 11:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added ((User shared IP address)) on userpage and mentioned about family member. Also assure that we two would not create further confusion by simultaneously participating in any community discussion. However, I need to clarify if we are supposed to refrain from any sort of community discussion? I do not think that should happen. Anasuya.D (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the template. Both of you are permitted to participate in community discussions, just not the same ones. In other words, if one of you participates "first", the other can't.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cooperation. The misunderstanding and confusion was unintentional. We will make sure that such a scope of confusion never arises. DiptanshuTalk 17:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Diptanshu.D: Your adding an explanation is your choice, although it's not easy to find on your userpage, but, regardless, you must add the userbox I specified above.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated my userboxes section. I hope that should take care of the problem. DiptanshuTalk 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Diptanshu.D: No, it does not, and I'm getting frustrated. First, you have to add the userbox I specified, not your own version. Second, add it to your main userpage. Another editor should not have to drill down through the various different categories of userboxes you have created to find it. It needs to be prominently displayed so it's readily visible. If you still can't follow my instructions, I'll add it myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Pardon me for not understanding the reason of your frustration. Check the screenshot. The relevant code is displayed loud and clear on my userpage. Please note that there has been no other edit made on my userpage (or any other subpages) after my last update provided in this discussion. In case you feel that my edits do not suffice, please feel free to add the relevant code to my userpage directly. I would not mind. DiptanshuTalk 02:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Diptanshu.D: It looks fine now. Yesterday, when I looked at the userpage, the relevant userbox section was collapsed, so you had to click on "Show". Today it is uncollapsed and so it is visible without doing anything else. I don't understand why it didn't show up yesterday because I didn't look at it until after you made the change. Perhaps it needed to be refreshed. In any event, thank you for your patience, and I am now closing this case.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More