Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imrutu/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

user Imrutu has majorly worked around Ruturaj Sinh sisodia only, and his username reflects that I am RUTU is Rituraj himself only creating the article, Later user AS0070 created a draft on Ruturaj Sinh sisodia which user Imrutu moved to the mainspace, thats something fishy among these both the account probably being used by the same person.  Dtt1 Talk  09:17, 12 July 2020 (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

 * No CU check is needed here. I've already blocked the master for 36 hours, and the sock indefinitely. Not but one minute after the user creates the article about the other user, the other user approves and moves the article to the mainspace, attempting to circumvent policy and create the illusion that two people put eyes on the article. Easy case, handled.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This can be closed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar edit patterns to master and other suspected sock with articles such as Draft:Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia and Ruturaj Sinh sisodia Checkuser is likely not to be required so I have not requested it Fiddle   Faddle  10:55, 12 July 2020 (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

 * Please confirm & check for sleepers. Cabayi (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll indef the socks. The sock master is already blocked, but it's a short block.  Anyone got an opinion on whether to leave it 36 hours? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , The determination with which 'they' have attempted to force this tiny article through (Currently at Draft:Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia) suggests that eyes be kept on the master whatever the length of block. Since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive I suggest 36 hours is fine, with a view to indeffing on a repeat? Fiddle   Faddle  14:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's too old to check, but is another likely sock based on .  Given that Henrygayle2000 is already indefinitely blocked, I've indefinitely blocked Imrutu, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll indef the socks. The sock master is already blocked, but it's a short block.  Anyone got an opinion on whether to leave it 36 hours? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , The determination with which 'they' have attempted to force this tiny article through (Currently at Draft:Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia) suggests that eyes be kept on the master whatever the length of block. Since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive I suggest 36 hours is fine, with a view to indeffing on a repeat? Fiddle   Faddle  14:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's too old to check, but is another likely sock based on .  Given that Henrygayle2000 is already indefinitely blocked, I've indefinitely blocked Imrutu, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , The determination with which 'they' have attempted to force this tiny article through (Currently at Draft:Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia) suggests that eyes be kept on the master whatever the length of block. Since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive I suggest 36 hours is fine, with a view to indeffing on a repeat? Fiddle   Faddle  14:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's too old to check, but is another likely sock based on .  Given that Henrygayle2000 is already indefinitely blocked, I've indefinitely blocked Imrutu, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Very strange repeated editing interest in one particular draft about a cricketer, which I was pulled to from the IRC help channel after a user came in requesting the draft was reviewed. Exact same behaviour as the previous sock, AS0070. (I originally included the same user as the immediately above request, but that one has already been endorsed, so I didn't want to add this one to that one as it might give the impression that it was endorsed when it wasn't.) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:09, 12 July 2020 (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

 * See above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

SPA with very few edits and yet more obsession for the same cricketer. Checkuser was needed last time, so I am requesting it this time. I have not notified the suspected new sock to seek to avoid the spawning of more Fiddle   Faddle  11:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Added Dvd303 who has a very small edit record, and a similar SPA interest in the cricketer. Here only to participate im AfD, plus a spurious and self reverted edit elsewhere. Fiddle   Faddle  06:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Added User:Samer rizvi as he left an unsigned text on my talk page and asking why the page Ruturaj Singh should get deleted.   Dtt1 Talk  20:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

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

I just added (and deleted) a report for these 3 before I noticed this one. As mentioned above all 3 only seem interested in the same Ruturaj Singh that got the puppeteer and their socks blocked before. Spike &#39;em (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Similar behavior to each other (including some similar typos/grammar issues), shared interest in the AfD. Pretty sure from a behavioral standpoint that they're the same person, if they aren't then they were canvassed to the discussion. CU endorsed. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. All . – bradv  🍁  02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Repeated attempts at creating Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia and hijacking of Rituraj Singh article. I think behavioral evidence is sufficient here. Dee 03  20:50, 11 July 2020 (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

 * Closing, no further action required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

And the sock farm is back, pushing Draft:Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia again. Please might we consider a Checkuser for further sleepers? I'm not flagging it as such, I'm leaving this to Clerk's discretion. I'm flagging the draft for deletion. No point in notifying a regular sock farm Fiddle   Faddle  06:28, 27 July 2020 (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

 * - The article that RV18 created is effectively identical to the article that Imrutu created (magic admin goggles required there). Endorsing for sleeper check since we've had success finding sleepers in the past, though don't spend too much time on it - I suspect this will be a difficult area to find sleepers. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . ., closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Yet another attempt to get Draft:Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia as an article. Because this is so prevalent please may we use Checkuser to check for sleepers? Users not notified. There is little point Fiddle   Faddle  07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This diff has some relevance. I cannot work out if the editor has declared they are a puppet or whether it is being denied, though. Fiddle   Faddle  08:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also see this comment at the AFC helpdesk by which casts doubt on the draft article and suggests to me that the motivation may be disruption by hoaxing.  Fiddle   Faddle  10:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As below, this is a duck quacking into a huge PA system. Might I suggest an immediate block for the user and then to continue with CU for sleepers, if endorsed? Fiddle   Faddle  10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

As mentioned above (I was going to post this here originally anyway): I've checked the scorecards that are being used as sources in both the Draft and the previously deleted page. Both of these  clash with matches that one of the teams and at least 3 of the players listed were involved with :,  and. They are user generated / made up and prove nothing about the person concerned. As to this particular investigation, it is as clear a DUCK as is possible! Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Combined with the overlap on the draft, I agree with the WP:DUCK conclusion., closing. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)