Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bagumba/Archive

29 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I believe that the reason for this sockpuppetry is for vote stacking (by Zepppep and AutomaticStrikeout), and for general confusion and covering up of tracks by the blocked user, User:Carthage44. If you notice, Zepppep makes similar edit summaries that Carthage44 made before he was blocked (note the update comments):. The Zepppep and Carthage44 accounts were also created at roughly the same time:, and. I feel that a checkuser should be performed to see if all these accounts are at the same location, at least part of the time. If you look at Zepppep's contributions, for someone who does not edit so much, and has been on Wikipedia for such a short amount of time:, he seems to have a lot of experience:. There's also a lot of suspicious back and forth between these three:, and. It's also pretty strange how Zepppep and Bagumba started regularly speaking to each other out of nowhere:. Here are more first time conversations between the three; it's also important to note the strange (suspicious) tone of the conversations:. They also seem to consistently agree on discussions moderated by themselves: (that discussion was closed off by Zepppep), and differ on discussions moderated by random people that they show no clear interest in:. Zepppep and Bagumba also seem to share a somewhat obscure interest in discrimination in which they both ("coincidentally") have made edits to the Wikiproject Discrimination's talk page:, and. I realize that Bagumba is now an administrator, but I think that it's worth checking out. Thanks.  Lighthead  þ 07:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I can assure you that I am not using any other account names (other than Zepppep34, which is listed on my user page and I use only sparingly). Regarding similar interests I have with Carthage44 in editing, the article you reference shows 2 instances of me editing the page (whereas the other editor is listed at least 15 times within the first 50 edits alone). The edit summaries are not similar, in their content or date formatting. Furthermore, on the article's talk page you can see my opinion differed vastly from the other editor. There are some similarities in that both the editor and I edit baseball pages but that's about it. "For someone that does not edit so much?" I have roughly 3k edits since May '12? That's a pace of 12k/year. "A lot of experience?" What, based upon me utilizing my sandbox, a recommendation give to me here? Bagumba and I "started talking out of nowhere?" We both belong to WP:WikiProject Baseball which has a member list viewable here; I am involved in a lot of articles the editor is involved with as a result of our similar interests, and seeing as the editor is now an admin, will continue to go to the experienced user for advice and consultation as needed. Note, AutomaticStrikeout is also listed as a member, hence involvement and discussion between 2 or all three editors from time to time. "Consistently agree on discussions moderated by themselves"? I see 6 different users in this conversation, not 3 (and notice AutomaticStrikeout wasn't one of those involved). Notice the conversation was based off discussion here, where similar editors were involved (and of the 2 involved, notice how Carthage44 and myself are of differing opinions? More evidence to refute this? Check out this talk page where you can see the editor was warned by another editor to cease their uncivil behavior towards me. Zepppep (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be noted AutomaticStrikeout made a RfA with Bagumba as the nominee. Any idea how completely against policy it would be for a user to nominated him/herself, and how unlikely it would be that the 81 editors who supported the nomination would have done so if in fact the users were the same human being? The editor's WP history was pretty thoroughly searched throughout the month-long process, some of which other admins were involved with. Zepppep (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I want whoever started this investigated, maybe they are the one who is sockpuppeting. Just out of curiosity, what did I do that made someone mad at me and caused this ridiculous attempt at hindering me? Finally, it is not against the rules for one to nominate himself for adminship, although using an alternate account to do it might be. AutomaticStrikeout 16:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: an editor to give the appearance another editor nominated him/her, rather than full disclosure. Ditto on the investigation. Whoever was behind this was looking to smear mud and whatever attempt an editor(s) had at making a game of this needs to be told to stop. Zepppep (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll assume Lighthead really just wanted to voice a belated "oppose" to my RFA.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, that's really sad. No apology has been offered by the editor who began this wild goose chase, but even if one was offered, I'm not so sure it would matter anyways. Pure tomfoolery, both the "case" and "evidence" presented. Looking forward to our continued involvement together with you other two, and even the blocked user if they decide to come back in the future. Zepppep (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing personal in my accusations. To Bagumba, how could I belated oppose if I'm not even an administrator? I think that's the way it works (I might be wrong). And also, it's not like I hope anybody is a sockpuppet. If the checkuser saw no reason to investigate further, then that works for me. I just felt like I saw some suspicious edits. No hard feelings. The only thing I regret is making this investigation viewable on a public Wikipedia page, like I told the functionaries. And I just hope nothing bad is going on.  Lighthead  þ 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Jumping in here. This report seems entirely without merit.  The "similar edit summaries" are unsimilar, hundreds of accounts are created every day, the "lot of experience" consists of using the undo button and leaving a sensible edit summary, this isn't strange, it's a courteous admin helping out a user, in fact none of the 'strange' conversations are strange, they all look perfectly normal to me. Users are allowed to talk to each other you know. I would not run a checkuser on this evidence, as none of it indicates socking, it just indicates three users with mutual interests who talk to each other, and no similarity with the blocked user has been shown, other than editing in the same area. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As someone who has worked with the above editors over at the Baseball Wikiproject, I'm seeing no correlation, but rather four very different editors who happen to work on the same project. Just looking at their responses to discussions show different speaking styles (or in Carthage's case, a lack of responding to discussions). As Elen says, no merit here, and besides, any two users combined overlap a whole 24 hour period; I'm pretty sure we all sleep. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 14:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Checkuser comment. Insufficient evidence for suspicion, let alone for checkuser. Declined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)