Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra.shukla/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rudra.shukla

Rudra.shukla (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 March 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Very likely they are both socks of already indef blocked Fridayrelease1 (talk · contribs) --Ronz (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fridayrelease is a newer account than Rudra.shukla, but it seems likely that it is the same user. What about Salman.mumbai89 (talk · contribs), who has a user page in the exact same style as the others, and who gives fridayrelease.com as their "current company" (see [1])? Another likely sock/meatpuppet is Deepkatiwari.xyz001 (talk · contribs) ; 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 [2] (the image is found on User:Deepkatiwari.xyz001). --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention 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)[reply]
25 April 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar usernames, similar userpages, cross-editing of user pages [3][4][5][6][7][8], fridayrelease.com spamming (same domain as previous sockfarm) [9][10][11][12]. Might be worth a rangeblock and sleeper check. MER-C 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - 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)[reply]
  • Named users are  Confirmed, but I am in the process of sweeping their ranges looking for other accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • All blocked/tagged. NativeForeigner Talk 17:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19 February 2014[edit]
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 [13] -SFK2 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Likely
  •  Possible
  •  Inconclusive
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

29 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

All three users have little contributions but "somehow" all three managed to vote for Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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)[reply]
  • Additional note: Raj Abraham (Businessman) (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

30 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


03 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: 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! · ✉ 21:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Cass and Wikipedia: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)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The account is  Likely. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral - two sock clusters on one article seems beyond coincidence. Cabayi (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • 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 Kate A. Steel connects the history to this case, and the recreation at Industry ARC by Shaikhs Rocks 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)[reply]

02 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


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 Berean Hunter and Brainplanner admitted by the sockmaster [14].

Connections as follows.

  • Rudra–Murphy: Kate A. Steel and KateSteele : obvious connection of names.
  • Rudra–Murphy: Doc James posted on meta that Salamuddin Z. Shaikh (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 Caroline A. Murphy [15]. This means Murphy and Shaikh are both WikiExperts. The Checkuser is validated by this evidence alone.
  • Rudra–Murphy: Salamuddin Z. Shaikh in the Rudra.shukla sockfarm, Shaikhs Rocks in the Murphy sockfarm
  • WikiExperts–Masterknighted: At the AfD for Jenn Vix, Masterknighted votes keep [16]. Sockfarm behavior at this AfD is consistent with prior BigGuy-Masterknighted-Brainplanner AfD stacking [17][18][19] ☆ Bri (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Added post Checkuser

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

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenn Vix, and there are some quirks in Masterknighted's writing that we don't see in the WikiExperts sockfarm.
Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Could an admin clerk please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caroline A. Murphy into this case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


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, Masterknighted. 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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The suspected puppets have not edited in way too long. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Cabayi as part of the clerk training process. Please allow Cabayi to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on Cabayi's Talk page or on this page if more appropriate. Cabayi (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please check for other socks, either sleepers or active on other paid assignments. Cabayi (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action Not quite everything. Johnlinclon hasn't been blocked yet. Cabayi (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note @Cabayi: That account hasn't edited since December 3 - are you sure a block is necessary? Thanks, GABgab 12:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralizationsAreBad, 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)[reply]
  • information Administrator note @Cabayi: 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rudra.shukla/Archive&oldid=1138678777"