Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra.shukla/Archive

20 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Talk page seems to indicate they are the same person. Marketing/SEO specialists - User:Rudra.shukla was blocked for spam earlier today and I added a warning to User talk:Rudradhar against editing during this block but he has started more spammy edits since then. noq (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC) noq (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The similar usernames say quack to me, the evidence presented here suggests that as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Very likely they are both socks of already indef blocked --Ronz (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fridayrelease is a newer account than Rudra.shukla, but it seems likely that it is the same user. What about, who has a user page in the exact same style as the others, and who gives fridayrelease.com as their "current company" (see )?  Another likely sock/meatpuppet is  ; not only is the user page created in the exact same style, but Rudradhar added an image to an autobiograpy that Deepkatiwari.xyz001 created, see  (the image is found on User:Deepkatiwari.xyz001). --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See also who has the same kind of user page and the same "current company" (that is, fridayrelease.com), and who has also edited the same articles as the other accounts, and added the same spam links (for example see this edit by Biswasingha and this edit by Deepkatiwari.xyz001).  --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also requesting a check on  whose only contributions have been to Deepkatiwari.xyz001's autobiography and promotional user page. --bonadea contributions talk 21:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Thanks to all those involved. There is a lot of suspicious usage of accounts for promotional purposes. I would appreciate some confirmation on the following, and assuming they are technically linked a check for more socks. Might be several people all working for the same firm but clarification would be good. NativeForeigner Talk 18:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ that, , , , are the same person.
 * Technically, seems . - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tying all this up - socks blocked and tagged. If someone could take a second look at this before archiving that would be great. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

25 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Similar usernames, similar userpages, cross-editing of user pages, fridayrelease.com spamming (same domain as previous sockfarm). Might be worth a rangeblock and sleeper check. MER-C 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Another one that appears to be part of the same group. noq (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Same MO as the previous socks. Worth seeing if there are any other accounts not listed here. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Named users are ✅, but I am in the process of sweeping their ranges looking for other accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After looking at about a dozen different ranges these accounts are using, I didn't see any obvious sleepers. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All blocked/tagged. NativeForeigner Talk 17:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

19 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Same as before: similar usernames, userpages, cross-editing of user pages. Editors creating pages associated with Bollywood MDB, which is the "new" fridayrelease.com -SFK2 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Good call, SFK2. I also think the following accounts are socks:
 * Note: this user is tagged as a possible sockpuppet of User:Austin.brany who is probably the same person - see this, for instance
 * Note: this user is tagged as a possible sockpuppet of User:Austin.brany who is probably the same person - see this, for instance
 * Note: this user is tagged as a possible sockpuppet of User:Austin.brany who is probably the same person - see this, for instance
 * Note: this user is tagged as a possible sockpuppet of User:Austin.brany who is probably the same person - see this, for instance
 * Note: this user is tagged as a possible sockpuppet of User:Austin.brany who is probably the same person - see this, for instance
 * Note: this user is tagged as a possible sockpuppet of User:Austin.brany who is probably the same person - see this, for instance



All these accounts (except Austin.brany, who has been inactive for several months), as well as a couple of the accounts SFK mentions above, commented on Articles for deletion/Work Stress Claims with extremely similar "keep" comments, or, in this instance, removing "delete" comments from other editors. CarlA.Rodgers has a rudimentary version of the typical user page. --bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the confirmed and likely sock accounts, as well as the suspected possible sock account. —  This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Going to need CU to work out which accounts are related and which aren't. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Roymilson89/Archive and Sockpuppet investigations/Austin.brany for clerks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)






 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've blocked and tagged confirmed and likely socks. The behaviour of the possible and inconclusive ones isn't enough for me to block. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

29 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

All three users have little contributions but "somehow" all three managed to vote for Articles for deletion/Mind Riders Technology with similar "Do not delete" vote. There was another user Prasanthbalanagu with similar voting habit who was blocked on 21 Aug 15.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Please check out this edit by PaulaEdwards to fix biographical information on a different userpage of a now-blocked user. These are most likely (not very skillful) socks. GermanJoe (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional note: should most likely be added too (name, userpage and edits in Toner refill immediately after S.S.), if it's possible to do that in a closed/closing case page. GermanJoe (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Blocks and tags.
 * is to the above group, but the technical details are muddled and behavioral evidence would have to be scrutinized. My recommendation is to let it go as it's blocked and I'm reluctant to label it a sock on what we have, but a clerk is free to ignore my recommendation. Some of a review of this account's contributions will require an administrator because it involves a deleted article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For Prasanthbalanagu, I'd already blocked the account but I wasn't convinced on socking (and still am not), more as a meatpuppet. That said, I'm convinced that this is all part of an SEO group and we'll see more of it quite soon and will likely find out more details to take to COIN and probably update this SPI. Marking for a close now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , listed most recently by, is . Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it from a behavioral perspective?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye, I've been comparing since my post to your page, it's a clear match to and I've blocked referring the SPI. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per this this case might have to be merged to Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra.shukla. I think there's sufficient behavioral evidence to link the two although technical data might not be available. Noting here for a clerk/CU to decide if that is the best outcome. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts listed at that SPI were blocked a very long time ago. The only way they would be non-stale is if an account posted on their Talk page much later. If a clerk wants to look at that, fine. I don't intend to make the behavioral determination of whether these two cases should be merged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , listed most recently by, is . Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it from a behavioral perspective?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye, I've been comparing since my post to your page, it's a clear match to and I've blocked referring the SPI. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per this this case might have to be merged to Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra.shukla. I think there's sufficient behavioral evidence to link the two although technical data might not be available. Noting here for a clerk/CU to decide if that is the best outcome. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts listed at that SPI were blocked a very long time ago. The only way they would be non-stale is if an account posted on their Talk page much later. If a clerk wants to look at that, fine. I don't intend to make the behavioral determination of whether these two cases should be merged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Kranthi1990 signed up and created IndustryARC on 6 April which was deleted as G11. Kranthikumar.sane signed up and recreated the article on 14 April (A7, G11, G12), and again on 26 April (G11). All creations used the stylised capitalisation. Kate A. Steel then created IndustryARC ™ on 29 June. Kate's other contributions look to be widely scattered promotional edits suggestive of paid editing. It appears to me that Kranthikumar.sane is a sock of Kranthi1990 who has then brought in Kate as a meat puppet. Quack! for (talk)  13:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC) for  (talk)  13:18, 30 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

 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other and to Group 1:
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts in Group 1, and blocked without tags the accounts in Group 2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they've all created the same promotional article but the latter creations by Caroline A. Murphy and Kate A. Steel were FAR SUPERIOR in quality and length than the creations by the first three accounts, my assumption is that the first three were staffers of the company and the latter two were subcontracted PR people asked to write a Wikipedia article (and their editing history supports that). I've tagged the earlier group of three accounts as socks of Kranthi1990 but because they have never edited anything other than this company article and have not edited since its deletion I don't see the point of spinning it out into its own SPI report. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts in Group 1, and blocked without tags the accounts in Group 2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they've all created the same promotional article but the latter creations by Caroline A. Murphy and Kate A. Steel were FAR SUPERIOR in quality and length than the creations by the first three accounts, my assumption is that the first three were staffers of the company and the latter two were subcontracted PR people asked to write a Wikipedia article (and their editing history supports that). I've tagged the earlier group of three accounts as socks of Kranthi1990 but because they have never edited anything other than this company article and have not edited since its deletion I don't see the point of spinning it out into its own SPI report. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts in Group 1, and blocked without tags the accounts in Group 2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they've all created the same promotional article but the latter creations by Caroline A. Murphy and Kate A. Steel were FAR SUPERIOR in quality and length than the creations by the first three accounts, my assumption is that the first three were staffers of the company and the latter two were subcontracted PR people asked to write a Wikipedia article (and their editing history supports that). I've tagged the earlier group of three accounts as socks of Kranthi1990 but because they have never edited anything other than this company article and have not edited since its deletion I don't see the point of spinning it out into its own SPI report. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they've all created the same promotional article but the latter creations by Caroline A. Murphy and Kate A. Steel were FAR SUPERIOR in quality and length than the creations by the first three accounts, my assumption is that the first three were staffers of the company and the latter two were subcontracted PR people asked to write a Wikipedia article (and their editing history supports that). I've tagged the earlier group of three accounts as socks of Kranthi1990 but because they have never edited anything other than this company article and have not edited since its deletion I don't see the point of spinning it out into its own SPI report. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sole contributions are keep votes on AfDs of the sock group's articles... Special:Diff/728119484 Special:Diff/728124768 for (talk)  12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * CU has nothing to offer. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP has only been active for a session less than two hours long 11 days ago so I don't think blocking now would be of use. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recreated the master's Jacob Cass. The wikilawyering on the CSDs, and the polished, yet trivial, other articles (Paras Nath Rajwade, Shyam Bihari Jaiswal, Champa Devi Pawle) look to be beyond what would be expected of an editor of just two days standing. Given the PR connections pointed out at Articles for deletion/Jacob Cass and Articles for deletion/John Lincoln (telecommunications) it seems far more likely that the master is back to make good on their paid-for-editing deal. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: I am unfamiliar with the Caroline A. Murphy account, but I did find VikasBaniya edits quite unusual for a new editor. Lots of technical edits that you do not typically see made by a new editor in their first few days of editing: the creating a redirect, creating stubs, removing a "30em" from a reflist template and the (re)creation Jacob Cass (which had been only just deleted a few months before). The Jacob Cass article seems completely unrelated to any of the edits made by VikasBaniya up to that point. That one seems to have come right out of the blue, and was fairly well-developed for a first-time effort of a new editor. It would be hard even for a very experienced editor to do all that from scratch in the 25 minutes or so between this edit and this edit; it's almost as if it might have been prepared off-Wikipedia and then copy and pasted onto Wikipedia in one edit. Moreover, VikasBaniya's knowledge of Wikipedia editing methods and the familiarity with various policies and guidelines kind of made me strongly think that this was not really the first time they had edited and discussed things on Wikipedia before. I am not sure if this means sockpuppetry because they could've have been editing as an IP or a "clean start" account. I do think, however, that VikasBaniya should be asked to explain their familiarity with Wikipedia, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The account is . Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

SR re-created IndustryARC as Industry ARC. KR added a ref & de-prodded. KR's behaviour - 10 unrelated minor edits in one day, go to sleep, start the real work once Autoconfirmed has been granted - suggests other sleeper socks may exist, but I guess it's too stale for CU to be of any use. The Rock theme in the name is a flag too.

The further activity by User:Runku4g suggests there may be some connection with Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral - two sock clusters on one article seems beyond coincidence. Cabayi (talk) 15:20, 7 September 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

 * This report is stale, none of these accounts have edited this year except one that made an edit in January. For future cases: IndustryARC is probably not related to this farm or is related to the second separately-tagged group identified in the previous CU, that article was just a poorly written blurb. The recreation at IndustryARC ™ by connects the history to this case, and the recreation at Industry ARC by  closely resembles that version. Thus I'm blocking Shaikhs Rocks given this sockfarm's history of reusing old accounts.
 * As for KateRock89, I believe this account is the new account of Kate A. Smith, based on the older's block log and the creation time of the new account, plus their WP:GHBH interactions with this and other UPE sockfarms. Also blocked.
 * I very briefly looked into connections to Scholarscentral but I think trying to chase connections like this is unproductive, so no action there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Requesting checkuser for users already blocked, members of apparently connected sockfarms "Rudra", "Murphy" and "Masterknighted". Since there isn't an SPI to refer to for the last, noting here that this sockfarm includes BigGuy blocked by and Brainplanner admitted by the sockmaster.

Connections as follows.
 * Rudra–Murphy: and  : obvious connection of names.
 * Rudra–Murphy: posted on meta that  (Rudra.shukla sockfarm) is a banned WikiExperts operator. Shaikh's userpage (snapshot) says he is an SEO operator and he takes credit for creating several articles. One of them he claimed, Jenn Vix, was created by a sockpuppet of  . This means Murphy and Shaikh are both WikiExperts. The Checkuser is validated by this evidence alone.
 * Rudra–Murphy: in the Rudra.shukla sockfarm,  in the Murphy sockfarm
 * WikiExperts–Masterknighted: At the AfD for Jenn Vix,  votes keep .  Sockfarm behavior at this AfD is consistent with prior BigGuy-Masterknighted-Brainplanner AfD stacking  ☆ Bri (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing I didn't notice before, there is an account named in the Murphy sockfarm. Thanks for merging, this only helps confirm it is the right course of action.
 * Added post Checkuser

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

 * CheckUser evidence won't tell us anything we don't already know. Masterknighted, Brainplanner, and BigGuy are already linked to each other. All other accounts across both investigations are stale. Given the evidence above, Caroline A. Murphy and co are clearly connected to this case. Masterknighted and their socks, on the other hand, probably aren't. A single AfD vote, especially when in line with consensus, doesn't tell us much of anything. Masterknighted's vote-stacking attempts were generally much more concerted efforts than what we see at Articles for deletion/Jenn Vix, and there are some quirks in Masterknighted's writing that we don't see in the WikiExperts sockfarm.
 * - Could an admin clerk please merge Sockpuppet investigations/Caroline A. Murphy into this case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Tagging and closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These are all single-purpose accounts with extensive edits to Karl Stirner and nothing else. The article was created and earlier heavier edited by an already-blocked sock from this SPI,. All four were active over more or less the same time frame, October 2017 (too stale for checkuser? but highly suggestive even without). I suspect undisclosed paid promotional editing, likely as part of the same sock farm as the rest of this SPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2018 (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 suspected puppets have not edited in way too long. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

LisaWilliams re-created User:Kate A. Steel's (SPI) John Lincoln (telecommunications) (AFD) as John Clarence Lincoln. Kate is one of Rudra.shukla's old socks.

The new article was also edited by a WP:SPA, User:Navaidasolutions, which is clearly a shared/promotional account of Navaida Solutions, http://www.navaida.com/, "Navaida Solutions is the leading Digital Marketing Agency in Dubai". This points to Lincoln's continued attempts to buy notability and to a larger group of paid editors.

LisaWilliams has also re-created Clay Clark (AFD) as Draft:Clayton Thomas Clark. This one was previously created by User:Goonspark who was a sock of Binkydarling, Sockpuppet investigations/Binkydarling/Archive.

A look at some of LisaWilliams' recent contributions, shows LW creating several innocuous stubs/redirects (because LW has autoconfirmed), which can then be filled out with spam by IPs as was done on Lenskart.com. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2018 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These two accounts have submitted identical drafts of the BLP of John Lincoln. The first copy was declined for notability and tone reasons and as an autobiography. By resubmitting it from a different account, it may not look like an autobiography, but the notability and tone issues are still the same, as is the quacking. Not requesting CheckUser because slightly more than three months have elapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2019 (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
Cabayi (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The article was previously created as John Lincoln (telecommunications) by a sock of
 * and deleted after AFD disclosure: the afd was raised by me under a previous username . It was also created again as John Clarence Lincoln by another sock of Rudra.shukla as recently as last November. Moving case... Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and deleted after AFD disclosure: the afd was raised by me under a previous username . It was also created again as John Clarence Lincoln by another sock of Rudra.shukla as recently as last November. Moving case... Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - Please check for other socks, either sleepers or active on other paid assignments. Cabayi (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything obvious. RHaworth cleaned up everything, so it's probably safe to close this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite everything. hasn't been blocked yet. Cabayi (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That account hasn't edited since December 3 - are you sure a block is necessary? Thanks, GABgab 12:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , when it comes to blocking inactive socks the only thing I'm sure of is that I'll be wrong. Score is now 2-1 in favour of doing nothing, and 0-3 for me getting it right. And I'm no closer to understanding why. (1 2) Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand it can be inconsistent. I've blocked the account, since it was used relatively recently compared to those other cases. GABgab 12:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)