Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey/Archive

Report date March 9 2009, 19:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets who have already editted IIPM:
 * Suspected sockpuppets who are sleepers:
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * Suspected sockpuppets who are sleepers:
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * }
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few more confirmed & blocked (easier to list them here)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)
 * a few stragglers from January (blocked & tagged)


 * Evidence submitted by DMacks (talk)

Long-term same pattern of behavior involving: Accounts are all apparent WP:SPA, not sure sock or meat. Not all accounts are created at same time, but each promptly creates same/similar userpage and usertalkpage, then sleeps until IIPM page gets unprotected. Each one will make same content change (including inappropriate protection tag, clearly illustrating either blind-reverting or attempts to prevent others from altering their version) without discussion despite attempts by others to engage in talk-page editoral work. Revert one account's edit, another re-reverts. Block one, another pops up to take his place. Accounts listed above have either already engaged in IIPM edit-war or were found by searching for user/usertalk with similar content.

Previous RFCU was confirmed for puppetry/multiple-account evasion and led to blocking a bunch of users with the same pattern that is the subject of this current sock/CU case. Now they're back, either because they have a new IP or the previous RFCU did not lead to an IP block that is still in effect. Requesting underlying IP to be blocked and uncover any other sleeper accounts. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by DMacks (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

To find underlying ip for possible rangeblock, or a reblock of past range, and to make sure all are socks of Mrinal.  Syn  ergy 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions


 * ✅ that all the socks are related to each other (the 38 given, plus another 29 listed above), Mrinal & the earlier socks are now stale - but I'd be happy to compare notes with the last CU who handled this case.
 * thus far, a select group of individual IPs, still considering range options. -- Versa geek  03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * anything further to add? Mayalld (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * nah, we're done for now. I've got the article on my watchlist, if things flareup again we can revisit the idea of a range block. -- Versa  geek  17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 26 2009, 14:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Makrandjoshi

The The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page has been semi-protected for a while now because of attempts by sockpuppets to whitewash it. The article is about IIPM, an educational institute in India with a questionable reputation. A lot of editors, ostensibly employees or sympathizers of the institute, have been trying to whitewash the page and remove all uncomplimentary information. In Dec 2008, Mrinal_Pandey was found to have several sockpuppets engaged in this whitewash as seen from the checkuser report here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mrinal_Pandey Now, we have someone called Wifione whose editing patterns are very similar to the earlier whitewashing sockpuppets. This is a diff of their recent edits , again showing whitewashes and removal of cited material similar to edits made by previous sockpuppets seen by diffs here -    among others. Furthermore, these puppets always turn up on the talk pages with similar agendas "Proposing deletion of...." wanting to delete cited material that is uncomplimentary to IIPM. Check the proposed/proposing deletion talk subjects at. All the previous ones were started by proven sockpuppets of Mrinal Pandey, and this newest one is by the user I suspect of being yet another. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Hi! I'm taken aback at the accusation within a day of my changing something that was not supposed to be seen this way. Dear Makrand, the only reason I changed the tax evasion and plagiarism stuff was because I did think that the plagiarim stuff didn't seem controversy! It's a plain statement of BusinessWeek to which IIPM has replied giving details of from where they have the copyright. With reference to the tax evasion part that I took out, when I saw the government link you had provided, it did not mention any detail of the tax being evaded. You seemed to have drawn a conjecture based on the government link you've provided. I do request you to see the government link again and if you have a problem, feel free to discuss the same and the plagiarism issue which I really don't think is a controversy.

Anyways I also have to say that despite what you are saying, I still haven't found any proof of JAM or careers360 being reputed third party sources. I think being 'reputed' is essential for a magazine or a newspaper. I do not know on what parameter are you considering JAM magazine reputed or Careers 360. I would look forward to your comments. YOu have given a link of some 'totalpoint' website to prove that careers360 is a magazine that was launched in April 2009. There are two issues. First of all April 2009 means the magazine is only 3 months old. I fail to see how it has become reputed in 3 to 4 months. Secondly, the link you have given of totalpoint is of a trade and media buying website which simply collates information and even totalpoint is not a reputed news magazine.

I simply have deleted details that do not seem to come from reputed newspaper or magazine. I do know that there are many reputed newspapers including CNN, BBC, WashingtonPost and even BusinessWeek that have existed for years.

But I do hope that accusing a fellow editor for being a sockpuppet within a day of her editing is not a display of your discontent at someone removing your third party sourced content from not reputed websites, which are still not confirmed news magazines. In good faith, I request you to kindly not take this as a personal attack. I am reporting you in a day or two when I get time for this issue, that you have branded me as a sock puppet simply because of your personal sources have been removed. Thanks, Wifione (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

While it's true that the IIPM article is plagued by sockpuppets bent on whitewashing the information therein, I do think an investigation of Wifione is a bit premature after only two edits to the article. I am not seeing the same editing patterns (characterized by blanket reverting to some old version of the article) but editing with talk page discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Previous checkuser for Mrinal_Pandey has revealed many sockpuppets. Another checkuser could show Wifione to be another sockpuppet too. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * - This is a long running issue that is in need of some form of resolution. Previous article protection has proven to fail, and CheckUsers have often resulted in large sock farms. A CheckUser would be most helpful here. Tiptoety  talk 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (same ISP than some previous sockpuppets)
 * We have no one to compare this user to (the previous case is too old). If VersaGeek didn't keep his result, I can't be more specific than that. -- Luk  talk 08:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may try running it against who is a more recent sockpuppet.  Tiptoety  talk 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So.. let's call this for now. -- Versa geek  17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Unless Versageek has data, there is no currently available technical evidence. -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am marking this as, but going to place it for a few days pending Versageeks comment.  Tiptoety  talk
 * I concur with Avi's Tiptoety's findings comments at this point. I do indeed have some information saved from the original CU efforts, but it doesn't help much at this time. I suspect a number of range blocks I placed in March have recently expired and time will probably provide additional information which will support the allegation of sockpuppetry. As as always been the case with this particular sockmaster, behavior is the most telling.


 * At this time, I am not going to take any action. I am doing this based upon the lack of technical evidence and the little behavioral evidence. While I agree that this user has made some edits that are similar to, others are not. Should continue to show signs of being a sockpuppet, I have no objection to a new case being opened. And like Versageek said above "...time will probably provide additional information...".  Tiptoety  talk 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * - per ARBCOM on 13 February 2015.--Elvey(t•c) 11:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)