Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saroj Naagar/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The master and Gupta Dindayal earlier voted at Articles for deletion/Root info solutions which was possibly created by Archana Gupta247 at that time. The article was first created by Joewilssion in October 2016 (as per his talk page) and then recreated by all others using different title Root Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Gupta Dindayal created Prachi Garg the founder of GhoomoPhiro recently created by the master. There are some more similarities I can provide if needed.

The master and user also submitted Draft:PreScouter Inc for review which was created by  so I'm not sure if they are related. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 15:52, 10 February 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

 * Saroj Naagar and Gupta Dindayal have edited from the same IP, but there's also evidence that suggests they may be distinct accounts. Based on the relatively minor level of overlap in their editing patterns, I suspect there's some low-level meatpuppetry, but nothing more severe than that; warning the accounts not to do it again would likely be sufficient. The older three accounts haven't edited in over six months, so I don't think there's much point in chasing them down. --Deskana (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree but my only concern is whether they were paid to create those deleted articles e.g. GhoomoPhiro since Saroj Naagar is into paid advertising business per . Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 03:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Only one of these accounts have edited this year, and none in the last three months. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Saroj Naagar is the oldest I've found so far in a collection of linked accounts, so for now let's call that account the puppeteer. Account created in February 2011, but stays quiet for a a few years. In 2013, creates Saroj Naagar, which is speedied db-a7. In 2014, userpage User:Saroj Naagar is deleted as a resume following WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Saroj Naagar. Four sundry edits follow in September 2016, then recreates a much shorter resume at userpage:. Goes quiet for over a year: more on puppeteer to follow.

Gupta Dindayal - account created in April 2016. Creates Root Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd, which is speedied db-g11. Also creates CareKit, for which see WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and Prachi Garg.

Archana Gupta247 - account created in October 2016; creates Root info solutions. At WP:Articles for deletion/Root info solutions, Gupta Dindayal posts a "keep" less than 24 hours after the AFD is started@. User:Marvellous Spider-Man notes the WP:Duck behaviour of Gupta Dindayal and Archana Gupta247 in that AFD:. Apologies follow from Gupta Dindayal:, then, oddly, from puppeteer, who wasn't accused of the duck behaviour:.

Puppeteer also posts a "keep" at the AFD for WP:Articles for deletion/Root info solutions and while they're at it, rather tellingly corrects the name in the signature in the post by Gupta Dindayal:.

Puppeteer creates GhoomoPhiro (website of Prachi Garg above), and Brejesh Garg, both of which are deleted at AFD in Feb 2018 without any dissenting "keep" votes from puppeteer or socks.

Gupta Dindayal was blocked on 16 June for spamming.

At WP:Articles for deletion/Prachi Garg, "keep" posts come in quick succession, first from 2405:204:30a3:ca70::28d8:e0ad: ,, then an hour later from Accesscrawl:, then from 146.196.34.242: , and then puppeteer posts a "keep" nearly identical to that of Accesscrawl, after four months of inactivity:. Gupta Dindayal already blocked and unable to post. Requesting a checkuser, since seven years of this sort of activity suggests a sock farm. TMGtalk 20:14, 21 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

 * Not nearly enough evidence IMO for a CU here.  (who is currently indef-blocked) was considered previously (see archive) as a possible sock of, but without action being taken at that time.   hasn't edited in over a year, so there couldn't possibly be any history here for a CU to examine.  And the IP's can't be checked because CU policy doesn't allow publicly associating IP's with accounts.  This leaves only  as a possible CU target, but any suspicion of this account being a sock would be based on only a single edit — hardly enough IMO to establish a behavioural link, and certainly not enough to justify CU.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think any behavioural link between and the IP's is tenuous at best.  Unless someone else has a very strong reason to believe there is good evidence for socking here, I would be inclined to close this SPI without taking any action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action per the above. --Deskana (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)