Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations‎ | Muhammad Mahdi Karim

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoySmith (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 17 September 2021 (Archiving case section from w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Mahdi Karim (using spihelper.js)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

29 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

(Link to COIN thread) - filing on what appears to be illegitimate UPE using the two sock (non-master) accounts, and PROJSOCKING using the master. EIA between all 3 accounts

  • Recently one reviewed the other's article only 11 minutes after creation: Creation Review
  • The article was paid for, which indicates UPE: Upwork listing
  • There is a large amount of additional overlap between the two users, in projectspace too. EIA for two sock accounts
  • The master created Mydreamsparrow's userpage, and I am unable to find a credible reason why (neither account is linked to the other, account was not created using CreateAccount, etc.) Creation
  • Mydreamsparrow and Muhammad Mahdi Karim have both repeatedly overlapped, often in projectspace. EIA between the two

Requesting CU to check for additional accounts. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yeah, that was totally next level! Kudos. --- Possibly ☎ 09:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that Bellus Delphina (talk · contribs) might be the same person, but the account hasn't edited since 2015. Pahunkat (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, as I have explained in my talk page regarding the issue, I know them as my friends and I introduced them to Wikipedia. I never knew their intention or methods of working in Wikipedia. It is true that, they learnt from me how to edit Wikipedia and in good faith I taught them the methods to edit Wikipedia. As I have already explained, my contributions to Wikipedia are mainly on images that has high value and contents related to Indian politics and Indian Judiciary (especially Kerala Higher Judiciary). I have no connection or what so ever with the contributions of them apart from the advise regarding the methods of editing Wikipedia. As far as Orator1989 is concerned, he is a colleague of mine recently asked me to teach how to edit Wikipedia. Blacknclick is a friend of mine who was junior to me in my college and this conflict incident happened when he last visited me. My major mistake was I permitted them to use my system and internet connection without knowing their intention. You may please go ahead with any action against them, if you found their contributions are amounting to spamming. I may not be punished for their illegal or improper acts which are against Wikipedia policies. I am ready and willing to produce any evidence for proving myself. A simple scrutiny about my contributions will give you the value of contributions I have made. Moreover, my alternate account Bellus Delphina(which I used to handle when I was in Bangalore and while using unsecured places)is also can be verified. Since I started using my this primary account, I have rarely used my alt account. I never ever intended to spam Wikipedia since I believe and take Wikipedia in its spirit and respect the policies of Wikipedia. DreamSparrow Chat 06:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never ever share King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, I learned a lesson from this. Thanks for the understanding and kind consideration. As I already pointed out, I am a lawyer by profession and I value my reputation than anything else. You can expect a lot more valuable contributions from me. DreamSparrow Chat 12:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • who is  Confirmed to Mydreamsparrow, but I can't make a decision on the behavioural link. Will leave unblocked as  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation - TheresNoTime 😺 09:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - given the rather spammy history of their sandbox, previous creation of G11s, general editing pattern and summaries (ping me if it's not obvious and I can provide specifics), I'm pretty sure it's them. CU seals the deal. Please block the remaining sock indefinitely. Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blablubbs remaining sock blocked, I'll sort out the confirmed vs suspected tags. Girth Summit (blether) 10:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Thanks. I think I would just tag everyone as confirmed given that they are all technically indistinguishable. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, got your ping too late - take a look and see what I've done, change it if you see fit. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 10:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I retagged as confirmed without an altmaster, since mydreamsparrow is confirmed to the master. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Muhammad_Mahdi_Karim_and_Mydreamsparrow, related - TheresNoTime 😺 17:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unblocked Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Mydreamsparrow after reviewing the behavioral evidence and new CU findings by TheresNoTime. Now the question is what to do with Blacknclick and Orator1989? Are they still sockpuppets, and if so, of whom? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They should stay blocked, if only for spamming. MER-C 17:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold while I try to figure out some stuff related to this case. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a quick chat with TNT in order to figure out what the technical situation looked like exactly, because there is indeed a strong behavioural link here. Her description was that Blacknclick, Mydreamsparrow and Orator1989 are all in the same country, on the same IPs, and using the same User Agent, making them CU-confirmed. Muhammad Mahdi Karim geolocates to a different country but was (apparently prematurely) confirmed because their ISP also offers VPN connections and they were a UA match. Hence, it would appear that only one block, namely that on Muhammad Mahdi Karim, was erroneous; this case is hence  Relisted for a second pair of eyes on Blacknclick, Mydreamsparrow, and Orator1989; if TNT's original conclusion was correct, then Mydreamsparrow should be reblocked for socking (though given the unblock, this would likely need the consent of King of Hearts first). Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mydreamsparrow: There is now consensus that you are not the same person as Muhammad Mahdi Karim. However, your relationship with Blacknclick and Orator1989 has fallen under additional scrutiny; some people believe that you are the same person as these two. Can you please explain this relationship, in the "Comments by other users" section above? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Whenever the edits of Blacknclick, Mydreamsparrow, and Orator1989 have overlapped in time, it appears that they all have shared the same network connection. (The user agent is an extremely common one, but that is shared too.) However, the CheckUser tool cannot completely rule out the possibility that they are multiple people who happened to share the same connection on those occasions, as Mydreamsparrow has claimed above—at the end of the day, the decision has to depend on the behavior: whether we are willing to AGF and believe in the user's explanation, or whether the behavioral evidence is sufficient to discard their explanation. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mz7: Thank you for your attention to this matter Mz7 ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can just leave it at that for now. Blacknclick should remain blocked for the paid editing. I don't see any behavioral evidence to suggest that Orator1989 is related to the abuse, so they can probably be unblocked.
    @Mydreamsparrow: To avoid similar accusations in the future, please never share your network connection with anyone again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Orator1989 created this rather spammy piece, so I would suggest a careful examination of their edits for COI issues before unblocking. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, anyways they haven't requested unblock so we can leave them blocked until they do so, at which point we can reexamine the evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the above, I don't think there's anything left to do from an SPI standpoint. Admins are free to take other actions as need be if there's non-sock related disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Muhammad_Mahdi_Karim/Archive&oldid=1044875555"