Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:14, 29 June 2009

Mrinal Pandey

Mrinal Pandey (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey/Archive.

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• Wifione (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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/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 Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). 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)

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

•  Clerk endorsed - 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 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 Possible (same ISP than some previous sockpuppets)

 Note: 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 08:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You may try running it against Aakritiverma (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who is a more recent sockpuppet. Tiptoety 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

•  Stale Unless Versageek has data, there is no currently available technical evidence. -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Clerk note: I am marking this as  Completed, but going to place it  On hold for a few days pending Versageeks comment. Tiptoety

• SPI cases with the masters user talk page redirecting elsewhere
• Open SPI cases