Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandhya2012/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both users appear to be a sock of Sandhya2012. Gireshnaik was registered on 29 December 2016 only to save masters article Giresh Naik K and Digiverti was registered a days after Gireshnaik and repeating the same thing pelase see history for more. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:40, 6 June 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)  20:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare Digiverti to the master.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 22:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the status back to endorsed for another checkuser per this and noting Katie has been gone since the 6th. I hope the best for her and her family.
 * Digiverti appears to be ❌ to Sandhya2012. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with DoRD.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Rishishukla1 was registered couple of days back and made his first edit yesterday. He created Sandhya2012’s article Redrum - A tale of Murder using different title as RedruM - A tale of Murder to game the system same as Sandhya earlier tried Redrum (Movie) and it also looks like a exact copy of deleted article. The master confirmed socking around on his talk page during unblock request I agree that page Redrum A Tale of Murder is created by my colleague. They appear to be undisclosed paid editor who are now trying to recover their deleted pages. I'm not sure if it's helpful since socks are using different IPs these days but still requesting CU for sleepers. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 06:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

I should note that I also blocked a few more suspected socks:

One of them is claimed as a meatpuppet by the account. This is an obvious paid editing ring and I'm confident there are others so a sweep would be beneficial. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - and noting that #2 & #3 above are stale.
 * Rishishukla1 is between and . Far more likely they are meat as claimed. Drsonal is ❌/.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing as the accounts are blocked anyways. GABgab 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recreation of Sid Naidu under SID NAIDU in one go. It was previously created by and the new version looks similar to the deleted version. The suspected sock was registered a day after user was blocked and his first edit was to create Draft:Page 16 - Mystery Begins Now. GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:58, 14 September 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

 * . GABgab 19:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Possible duck. Terabhap1 was registered five days after their previous sock was blocked and recreated Sanoj Mishra previously created by one of their sockpuppets. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 09:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * is it possible to compare "SufiGulati" with Sockpuppet investigations/Abhishek4889. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * and behaviorally he recreated a couple of their deleted articles under different titles and editing in the same area. GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:31, 25 October 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - There isn't a whole lot of behavioural evidence to go on here, but the recreated article certainly point towards potential sockpuppetry. Please check to confirm. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to.
 * and are  to those.
 * Using a same range as Ammy1991 is blocked by . See this history.  is ✅ to Rajeevnandeshwar.
 * is ✅ to and using same range as above..
 * and are sharing the same IP. Not sure if they are connected to the above though.

I began working this case from the archive and should have marked this as in progress earlier. Bbb23 may still see socks that I missed though. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , all of the socks in that case are stale but it may be possible based on similar region., I finished but left the status in case you were still working.
 * I noticed you posted findings shortly after I started checking, so I stopped.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Of the possible accounts, only SufiGulati has any direct overlap with Sandhya2012, in form of routine updates to the filmography sections of articles on Bollywood actors. AnupShukla and Shukla Vaishnavvi are probably the same person, but appear unrelated to Sandhya. Since there's no actual abuse there, a warning should be sufficient. All that being said, I know precious little about Bollywood, so I may well have missed something. I'm closing this without further action, but without prejudice to reopening if someone can clearly show a link based on behaviour. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)