Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MehulWB/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | MehulWB


MehulWB

MehulWB (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 November 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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 Jayantanth. 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)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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)[reply]

Sorry, you went to help @Jayantanth: by reverting him? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello, I made 3 consecutive edits to [1] which have vanished. Who deleted them and why ! MonaPisser (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I did not "revert" Jayanta. I ripped apart / clinically dissected his revert in seriatim. MonaPisser (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[2]. Just to note Jayanta Nath commented there after BengaliHindu was banned. MonaPisser's first article edit was to revert Jayanta Nath[3] who had minutes prior reverted MehulWB's reverts from an hour before. MehulWB comes back to revert Jayanta [4] with the next revert by MonaPisser to Jayanta [5] 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)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: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)[reply]
Comment by AshLin
edit
Outcome
edit
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

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.[6] Bishonen | talk 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

21 December 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
10 March 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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)[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

Dang...how many does this guy have???? Wgolf (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
31 March 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Argusbargus has re-created Tom Gildred, which was deleted on March 9 as a product of checkuser-proven MehulWB sock Golirioni (talk · contribs). -- B (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2015 (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: I need an admin to closely compare the version of "Tom Gildred" created by Argusbargus, and deleted version created by Golirioni (talk · contribs). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vanjagenije: 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): Jarincs (talk · contribs), Jack nio (talk · contribs), Brcrtik (talk · contribs), Bosedekio (talk · contribs) (his COI article has been deleted - it was created on March 1), Bnhfjutioo (talk · contribs), Boipelo834 (talk · contribs) (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)[reply]

24 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


New account whose only edits were to re-create Owais Nazeer, identical to the previous version created by confirmed sock Babatundero (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2015 (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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MehulWB/Archive&oldid=1079533973"