Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MehulWB/Archive

13 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The MonaPisser account was created in the middle of an edit war on the article Ahmed Hassan Imran. The suspected master was removing vast swathes of content reaching 4RR on 14 September 2014‎, for which he was warned and the article full protected. As soon as protection expired MehulWB again began to remove the same content, which had been restored by. As soon as the master was reverted again at 16:23, 9 November 2014, the MonaPisser account was created at 16:31, 9 November 2014, and their first edit was to continue the edit war and content removal. Other than the same removal of content from this article there are another similarity. All based on a single biased unreliable source (sock), based on a single report from a newspaper (master)

Fixed now Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

DENY I am not a sockpuppet of MehulWB. I opened an account to protest a fake barnstar to user:fowler&fowler (after an anti-vandal filter prevented me from making the edit as IP). I opened my account immediately after getting an email from User:ASHLIN on the Wikimedia India mailing list. Ashlin has not denied the email or its contents after we discussed it. My account opening has nothing to do with MehulWB or that article. After deleting the barnstar, I noticed Wikimedia India President Jayant was in an edit war at Ahmed Hassan Imran and I went over to help him. I am on the same mailing list as Jayant and also a registered member of the Indian Chapter wiki. Also I am a proud Indian and MehulWB is clearly some kind of a Bangladeshi. The co-incidental wording is because that is the core issue of the dispute, which has even reached the India Notice Board as "Is Ananda Bazar Patrika a reliable source ?" where I have participated. Furthermore, I deeply edit at several other diverse range of pages besides Ahmed Hassan Imran. MehulWB is a WP:SPA. MonaPisser (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you went to help by reverting him? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Call Jayanta here please to discuss this utterly foolish revert of his
 * (cur | prev) 16:23, 9 November 2014‎ Jayantanth (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (12,926 bytes) (+10,787)‎ . . (Reverted edits by MehulWB (talk) to last version by Jayantanth) (undo | thank) which is making all Indian editors look like fools here. That he is now the President of Wikimedia India and on the jury which handed out that Barnstar, is the icing on the cake. MonaPisser (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I made 3 consecutive edits to which have vanished. Who deleted them and why ! MonaPisser (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I did not "revert" Jayanta. I ripped apart / clinically dissected his revert in seriatim. MonaPisser (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you did not go to help him at all then? I love it when socks fuck up, and you have made no edits ever to the RSN board, Different account perhaps? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I also see that few of the edits of mine have been removed, and text of 2 other edits is tampered with. STOP IT immediately. MonaPisser (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I went to help him to prevent him making a bigger fool of himself. 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At 18:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I complained that 3 edits of mine have been removed at Rel.Sourc.NB. Who did so, and who is tampering with my edits history here on the servers ? MonaPisser (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My 3 edits at RSN were made soon after AshLin's. And I objected that ABP was not at all a Reliable Source, and I gave some evidences. This is a serious matter. Please investigate the SYSOPS who can fabricate records here to protect corporates. MonaPisser (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You never posted there, ever. There have been no deletions at all, the page history is plain to see, and I am not at all sure what you hope to achieve from such weird allegations. Also, read WP:INDENT Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I made 3 consecutive edits there. 1 major and 2 minors. Who is the SYSOP here. Call in Billinghurst to investigate this. MonaPisser (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This evidence that MehulWB and monapisser are the same or related is weak. The sockpuppetry evidence that Got BengaliHindu banned was equally weak. I don't support banning such users on weak evidence. However weak, the evidence is similar in nature, 1 less suspected sock though. Just to note Jayanta Nath commented there after BengaliHindu was banned. MonaPisser's first article edit was to revert Jayanta Nath who had minutes prior reverted MehulWB's reverts from an hour before. MehulWB comes back to revert Jayanta with the next revert by MonaPisser to Jayanta  with MehulWB reverting the next user and then the article is protected. On the talk page they show a similar competence with both users having an aversion to actually discussing the topic. It's been discussed at the ANI on BengaliHindu that MehulWB is a SPA and that is rather supicious. On the talk page of the article this also mention be someone, to which MonaPisser steps in to defend via AGF. AGF was the defence used by MehulWB when their own behavior was questioned. BengaliHindu has also questioned the possibility if his supposed socks were actually socks of MehulWB, created in an effort to get them banned. But then as I've said this evidence is weak to me personally.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Editor had failed WP:DUCK but as noted by the CU the user has been blocked for being part of Massive sockpuppetry this block is based on  private Checkuser information and not based on  behaviour as was the case with  BengaliHindu.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by AshLin

 * This user had unilaterally editted out from Fowler&fowler's user page mention of a barnstar awarded to him by me in 2011 as an aftermath of the Noteworthy Wikimedian event during WikiProject India Conference. This event, which was done in full public scrutiny of the Indian Wikimedian Community at the time, is now being misrepresented as some kind of favouritism by this user.
 * The offline email issue is persiflage to add some kind of legitimacy by providing a storyline. The Googlemail group Wikimedia India mailing list referred to, in spite of its name, has no genuine wikipedia activity, and is in fact sponsored by the India Against Corruption sockpuppet meat farm. The same email referred to by User:MonaPisser here was referred to on my userpage by banned sockpuppet User:JuhiMukherjee. User:MonaPisser is obviously a sock-puppet account associated with this meat farm. AshLin (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Outcome

 * User:MonaPisser has been indefinitely banned because of username policy violation by admin User:Daniel Case. AshLin (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Update of outcome: Daniel Case's block of User:MonaPisser has been changed by Ponyo to a checkuserblock for multiple accounts and extensive proxy abuse. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC).
 * I don't believe that the blocked MonaPisser trolling account is related to MehulWB, I think they were just looking for a fight and found one. That being said, I do have some concerns regarding MehulWB and will be asking another checkuser to take a look.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on 's confirmation of my concerns regarding extensive socking from, their account has been blocked along with those listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MehulWB. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

21 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

MehulWB was blocked for abusing multiple sockpuppets in november. Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MehulWB. The naming convention and choice of subject matter of Mwb001 makes them look very much like a duck. Both are focused on Ahmed Hassan Imran. This may be a block evasion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, block me so you can keep BLP violations on the page. The page is seriously in need of an BLP expert as unproven allegations by a single newspaper has been added though investigation revealing findings that make such claims baseless.--Mwb001 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Either you are MehulWB and this is a block evasion or you aren't. If you are that's why you will be blocked.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The user's contributions clearly shows that it's a sock. However, given the prolific socking back in November a check is needed. Mike V  •  Talk  02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's . This time though...sleepers are hidden amoungst the ranks so much so I can't make heads or tails of it. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

10 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

On this page: Nyls (singer) removed the speedy with this: (i am not a vandal or a banned user) oops-considering they didn't make the page. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2015 (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
Dang...how many does this guy have???? Wgolf (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like there might be quite a few socks, I'll get to this in the next day or so if someone doesn't beat me to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked as inprogress as it might take a while. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged (see list in contribs) 71 socks, and there are very likely more hiding in the ranks (to steal DQ's analogy). Thanks for the report Wgolf, and keep an eye out for me. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Found another 6 . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There were quite a few (from memory 50-100) found last time CU went trawling as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

31 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Argusbargus has re-created Tom Gildred, which was deleted on March 9 as a product of checkuser-proven MehulWB sock. -- B (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2015 (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

 * -   Vanjagenije   (talk)  08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The results are . Mike V • Talk 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I need an admin to closely compare the version of "Tom Gildred" created by Argusbargus, and deleted version created by .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored the deleted history for your review. From looking at it, the text of the newer article is clearly new. (You can let me know when you are done and I will re-delete the old version.)  If we're going off of comparing the text, I don't think that's going to prove that they are sockpuppets.  The only thing I can say is that Argusbargus is behaving like most of the more recent Nickaang/MehulWB socks.  All of the edits prior to creating the article are to make the account auto-confirmed and so that it's not an obvious COI/SPA account.  He gives himself a blue linked user page because those draw less scrutiny.  The account will never be used again because it has served its purpose and he's on to the next sock for the next article-for-hire.  Here are a few arbitrary examples of the pattern (known/CU confirmed MehulWB socks):, , ,  (his COI article has been deleted - it was created on March 1), ,  (his COI contribution was to add a company to Comparison of online dating websites rather than to create an article).  The pattern is the same - make some wikignomeish edits, give yourself blue links, create your COI article, dump the account.  Of course, you could quite correctly point out that not everyone who uses this pattern is necessarily Mr. Aang - there could be hundreds or thousands of people throughout the world doing it.  So we're back where we started - it looks like him, but I can't prove it's him.   Anyway, we're getting into TL/DR territory.  Please let me know when you're done with the article and I will re-delete it. --B (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I reviewed both versions, and although they are different, style is quite similar. That is actually characteristic for this sock-puppeteer. After his article-for-pay is deleted, he recreates it in different form, but not totally different. His behavior is also characteristic for MehulWB/Nickaang, so I believe there is enough reason to call him a sock.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you can delete both versions of the article as both are created by the blocked user.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I have deleted the article and blocked the account. -B (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

24 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New account whose only edits were to re-create Owais Nazeer, identical to the previous version created by confirmed sock. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2015 (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

 * I've declined the CU request. Per the archives, all the previous socks are .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An admin is needed to compare two versions of Owais Nazeer and to comment about their similarity.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely identical versions. Indeffing sock and closing.