Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BilboBaggins34/Archive

28 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Multiple SPAs have been created to create draft articles about retrials, such as for William Roache and Sherin Dewani, both of which have been deleted. The sockpuppets have also been used to defame myself and another person, often with nonsensical threats of legal action attached to them. EpicPrime (leave a message) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I think that I should have phrased this better. I have changed to the report to include only one IP address because the IP has been used to me. The reason why I included user:Callumpaul40 and his sockpuppets was because I am certain that this user is the same user as those SPAs. They follow the same behavioural patterns, edit the same genera of articles, possess sub-par grammar, etc.. -- EpicPrime (leave a message) 05:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of this has already been mentioned by and  but I thought I'd give my take on the situation. created the negative unsourced attack page Draft:The Retrial of William Roache. After I deleted it recreated it. I left a warning on both user talk pages and after 90.204.28.110 created a similar draft article about another living person, I blocked them. made similar accusations about William Roache in an edit summary while deleting a comment on User talk:90.200.157.26. 90.204.28.110 also deleted the same comment and commented on 90.200.157.26's talk page. Both 90.204.28.110 and BilboBaggins34 have made comments mentioning Cavan Day and. I think it is very likely that the two IPs are the same person, and also likely that BilboBaggins34 is related the them. I'm not seeing any evidence that any of them are related to  or any of the other users mentioned in their previous SPI. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There are several problems with this investigation that you started. First of all, User does not exist. Second, and  were blocked years ago, after making just one edit each. How are they "creating draft articles about retrials" and how are they "used to defame you"?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, 212.139.82.161 and 2.97.242.53 have not made any edits since 2013. Could you help provide diffs that connect BilboBaggins34 to the named accounts? Mike V • Talk 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What I do see here is a connection between and blocked  based on the diffs provided by EpicPrime (both accusing Cavan Day i.e. EpicPrime of some kind of YouTube issue ). I don't know why those other accounts and IPs were added to this investigation. Maybe an error.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you should also block BilboBaggins34 for two weeks. I don't think we need to block as the IP was not used for three days.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now blocked for 2 weeks due to their continued disruptive editing. I'll leave it up to someone more familiar with SPIs to decide if they are definitely linked to the IP. If any other admin wants to alter/extend the block of BilboBaggins34, then please do. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that would be OK. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)