Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prajyotmahajan/Archive

21 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The account Prajyotmahajan created Prajyot mahajan, and was warned about COI but not blocked; the article was deleted as unambiguous advertising, and has now been recreated by FredrickEllifsen. The recreated version is identical to the first version of the deleted article as far as I can see and remember. bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

On Talk:Prajyot mahajan, one account just edited a comment made by the other one - see. --bonadea contributions talk 20:47, 21 October 2014 (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
See WP:REFUND I don't think this is intentional sockpuppetry, though there is very severe COI; my take is that PM created an article about himself, and when it was zapped as promotional autobio his manager created an account and made a slightly less promotional article. I think all that is necessary is to tell them one account = one person and point them to WP:COI, which I will do. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A message on my talk page states that both accounts are used by Fredrick Ellifsen, so I have blocked Prajyotmahajan. Despite the overlap, I have (just) enough AGF to think that the second account was created when the first was accused of autobiography, rather than for deceptive purpose, so I have not blocked FredrickEllifsen. Marking for close. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Added IP address, who suddenly appeared to protest its deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * PS: that'll teach me to AGF! FredrickEllifsen blocked as a timewaster and hoaxer: much of his draft was copied from another article, and on investigation I find no reliable evidence that any of its claims are true. This SPI will be a useful base if he tries again with other accounts. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear ya... The longer I work as an administrator here, the more effort I must expend to AGF too. Usually I succeed. Don't let one bad apple color your view toward users who mean no harm but make honest mistakes because they can't comprehend the byzantine collection of policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has become. Volunteering for OTRS taught me that many users whom we block are honestly confused, and need some hand-holding to do the right thing (I'm working with one, User:Mrduniya, who just got his unblock request declined again. Sigh). I admit, it gets hard to AGF, though, 'cause we as admins deal with so many cases of users who know better, intent on using Wikipedia as a free web host or publicity platform. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

23 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Yesterday Prajyotmahajan and FredrickEllifsen posted false claims, copied from another article, at Prajyot mahajan and User:FredrickEllifsen/Prajyot Mahajan and were blocked. Today Riyarathore and 27.106.124.6 appeared on my talk page at User talk:JohnCD, apologising for their "mistake" and asking for unblocks, including requesting unblock of Rajnandan23 who had only ever edited his talk page. Checkuser requested in order to confirm my suspicion that these are all the same person. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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


 * According to the comments on JohnCD's talk page, this is another Indian SEO outfit engaging in block evasion. I've seen it before. They've been told how to get accounts unblocked. The wrong way is to create new accounts for the purpose of pestering the blocking admin. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Both new accounts blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These accounts all emailed UTRS from the same IP with verbatim unblock requests. Per 's comment above, I would suggest simply blocking on sight per WP:DUCK.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That, with similarities of style, tends to confirm my suspicion that there is actually only one person here, who thinks that the road to fame is by splashing himself around the internet, and has invented a manager and SEO people. I have found no reliable evidence of any actual achievement. He has a glowing biography at Reverbnation, but he has copied it word for word from https://www.kotaro-oshio.com/english/. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

05 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both created more pages about Prajyot Mahajan, Jimmymahajan at User:Jimmymahajan/sandbox and Jasonharold24 in a sandbox, moved to Draft:Prajyot Mahajan and declined as non-notable. Jason wrote on my talk page that he had got "stuff that proves to be the true and real matter regarding prajyot mahajan". JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2014 (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
Both blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK, as suggested by Ponyo last time, and marking for close. Reported for the record. I had a few lingering doubts that there might be some substance behind all the grandiose claims, but they were dispelled by Mahajan's Reverbnation page. Evidently you can write your own bio there and say what you like about yourself, but you can't fiddle the "Song play" number, which shows less than 400 total, compared with his Facebook claims of 2.6 million. This is just wasting our time. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Checkuser is warranted here. It is possible that these are separate fans of the subject (AGF and all, y'know), although given the hoax nature of the sources, it's likely they are sockpuppets. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's really not a good enough reason to consider doing a CU here. I support the close.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)