Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Authorincharge/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User Authorincharge worked exclusively on Verma related articles. They were blocked on May 24th for copyright issues. Ultimatebeneficiary began working on Verma related articles May 26th Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I looked at the contributions and found enough to run a check. The two accounts are ✅. However, next time please include supporting diffs. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 19:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

We have the legal firm of the Verma family being paid to write articles about them. They are using socks. Further evidence here Seniors first edits were all about the family as were those of Mainstream. The user names are even similar.

Senior added this picture which was uploaded by Author. I have deleted it as it needs OTRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admin action needed - Unfortunately, CheckUser is . Nonetheless, I feel confident Mainstreamwikipedia and Seniorlegaladvisor are connected via their work on the Verma family (Veena_Verma_(politician): ; Shrikant Verma:  ) and based on how often the articles were edited by outsiders. They are connected to Authorincharge per the legal connections (User_talk:Authorincharge, usernames, etc.), and timing (Mainstreamwikipedia becoming active after Authorincharge is blocked). Indefinite blocks requested for the two listed socks.
 * The SPI report is appreciated, but I would like to remind you that at SPI, the burden of proof falls on the reporter. CUs and clerks cannot be expected to investigate for you. You were previously asked by to include diffs in your report. In future SPI reports, please include enough diffs: at least one per account and one for a master/previously-confirmed sock, and more if a connection is not immediately obvious. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked based on the evidence above. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Twitternotices is a new account created two hours ago; their only mainspace edit is to Anca Verma, which, along with the article subject's husband,, was the sole subject of interest to Authoricharge. Twitternotice's addition was the same promotional stuff as previos socks'; the edit summary tone is the same also (e.g., this one was , and an example of AiC's would be '.' Note also that the only other of Twitternotices' edit was this one, which removed'' Wikipedia India's edit-request. Now- I'm not sure if Wiki India is another sock of AiC, or whether this sock is just removing something unpalatable about the subject. Hence the CU request. Although WI might be stale now? O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  14:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Dear Fortuna why are you levelling allegations? I use wikipedia for referencing material. Today I created my first account on wikipedia and also tried my hand at editing, and therefore started to edit the article. I also wanted to create another article of IULIA VANTUR another famous Romanian celebrity which I would be doing tomorrow. I am living in India and in the films business however Romanian culture, films and art are my subjects. Nothing in the article or my additions can be termed as promotion. I have added achievements and news. If there is bad news then I will add that too in future in my editorial pages.

I dont know what sockpuppet meant till I checked on Wikipedia and found that you are accusing me of fronting some guy called Authorincharge? Absolute nonsense. If the person I am editing has new business venture and done something considerable then it should be mentioned in wikipedia. You dont want me to edit because you have a copyright on that page of anca verma or some other pages? if that is the case then tell me and send me copyright license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitternotices (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Everyone is except Twitternotices. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not enough evidence for WP:DUCK. I've blocked Wikipedia india solely for username. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Twitternotices created the article here. It was than deleted. Now we have another very new account which has recreated it.. Twitter has also worked on articles were there was a fair bit of undisclosed paid editing. And Rajeev edits are promotional in nature. While I have blocked Rajeev for copying and pasting from sources a SPI would be still useful to pick up further concerns and Twitternotices remains unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is ✅ from who is ✅ to this sockfarm. As noted, this all looks like typical undisclosed paid editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity: 1) May I ask about the technical results for Rajeevkr224? 2) Should we merge the cases? Thanks, GABgab 22:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all a bunch of WP:MEAT. That being said, we should probably move this report to Sockpuppet investigations/Authorincharge as the link between Twitternotices and Authorincharge is conclusive.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Rajeevkr224. GABgab 00:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I actually kind of suspect meatpuppetry in this case, but was hoping a CU could look into it. There are some differences between the users that makes me somewhat unsure if they are the same person: Rajeevkr224 built an infobox for that article and tended to use mobile web editing. Rrajesh didn't make an infobox, tends to misuse boldface, and often uses Wikipedia's visual editor. I don't see mobile edits from him.
 * Rrajesh.shandilya created Agnifera, which was also created about 2 1/2 weeks ago on 8 April 2017 by Rajeevkr224 a sock/meat of Authorincharge
 * Rrajesh.shandilya apparently thinks it's okay to steal content from other sources, in this case, lifting the plot summary from ozee.com. Note the "a highly qualified MBA graduate from London, is the most eligible bachelor in town" phrasing.
 * Same phrasing appears here in the version created by Rajeevkr224.

Anyhow, I'm curious if a CU can look into this. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Have blocked them for copyright infringement. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing for now since he is already blocked and we can take another look if they try again.

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Requested CU last time, but it was deferred to a future instance of sockpuppetry by Berean Hunter on the basis that the lkast user reported had already been blocked. I think there's some value to knowing for sure whether this is one editor who is disruptively stealing copyrighted content, or if these are unique editors who are somehow completely ignorant about basic concepts like plagiarism.
 * Recreated Agnifera, which was created by both and . (I have since deleted this article on copyright grounds.)
 * Added plot summary here that was copied from somewhere like here. It's a basic press release summary. (Frankly I don't understand why these aren't presumed to be in the public domain, but hey, that's just me.)
 * There's also an intersection at Ankit Gera between Akrulz123 and Rajeevkr224.

I think it's pretty ducky, but a quick look might be helpful, especially considering this guy has created quite a few accounts already. Thanks.

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Akrulz123 is to the archives and the others listed here.
 * and are ✅ to each other.
 * Other than that, there's apparently more than one paid editing farm operating from these ranges, and . It's a mishmash of different devices. Geolocation in this region is difficult so it's very hard to pin down which master these are related to. . Katietalk 14:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above account recreated the article.
 * Indeffing Doc Rajeev and latest account, tagging and closing.
 * Indeffing Doc Rajeev and latest account, tagging and closing.