Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BugMenn/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I recently nominated  for deletion created by Bugmenn. New editor Pindel4567802 first edit was to remove the AfD notice. Then !vote in the afd 16 mins after Bugmenn LibStar (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have also suspected the same thing. With just five edits under Pindel4567802 has all the hallmarks of BugMenn, who himself has also been warned for removing AFDs from articles.Ajf773 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅. I blocked the master for one week and indeffed and tagged the puppet. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The main evidence here comes from Komalsfashion's move log. The editor moved both their own account name and Tamilan ( to different pages as an attempt to change usernames.

Additionally Komalsfashion immediately moved a page created by Tamilan ( three minutes after its creation into main space. This would have been needed because at the time of creation, Tamilan ( was not autoconfirmed, and it seems to have been a way to try to avoid deletion of the page, which has been deleted under several different names (see User talk:Tamilan ( for more details).

This brings us to the named master: the intersect is on SM City Manila, which BugMenn restored after it had been blanked and redirected and then moved to draft to avoid deletion. This article was then moved back to mainspace by Komalsfashion yesterday. Given previous behavior to save shopping malls from deletion at Sockpuppet investigations/BugMenn/Archive, it is possible that he is unaware that draftspace moves require the article to go through NPP still, and is using it as a different tactic to avoid deletion.

I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a check of all three account against each other here and for any potential sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Note for clerks that had handed out a duck block to as being a sock of: had blocked: as a sock of: Noting that here in case it affects the case they are moved to and how they are tagged. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the old cases further, I concur that this looks like a near perfect behavior match for Infozeb. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also,, could you look at Talk:Zebronics (Company), and see who the user who wasn't a named sock was? It was a new account that has no obvious reason to be patrolling G5s, and it also seems to also fit the behavioral pattern at the Infozeb archive of accounts not caught in the initial CU attempting to prevent deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. If you or GAB could look at the original creators of some of those articles, it might be able to provide a useful point of comparison to run another CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ that the following accounts are related: BugMenn is ❌ to all of the above. --Deskana (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All are blocked referencing this SPI (except for those already blocked). I'm leaving it to the judgment of a clerk/CU on the tagging and moving this SPI. I think the behavioral match is there to Sockpuppet investigations/Infozeb but that's stale, so this farm can't necessarily be matched there technically. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That would be, I don't think that belongs to this particular group, but it belongs to one for sure, based on the multiple contested deletions posts. Maybe or another clerk has an idea? the comment was no different from this IP's (I blocked the ip ACB).  &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mparrault is not a new account, they're nearly two years old and very active in other areas. I see no reason to believe they're a sock. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * my determination is that all of these accounts are Infozeb, and that case remains separate from BugMenn. Working on tagging & merging. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we close this now? Thanks, GABgab 03:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that step. All ✅ here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created Zebronics(Electronics Brand), which was accepted from draft space by Sulfurboy. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked referring the SPI, will leave the tagging to the clerk as it depends on the decision from the case from a few days back. I've got to step out now so I'm not handling any deletions, if someone else does that it'd be good. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A quick note before closing; while Johnheart used a webhosting service in an attempt to throw CU off when they recreated the Zebronics article, they failed to do so when making their UTRS appeal where it's evident they are using the same ISP from the exact geolocation of the confirmed socks above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ponyo, you are the best. Does that change matters substantially? We can't "confirm" based on geolocation, right? thanks... Drmies (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Their UTRS UA is an exact match to which was confirmed by Deskana, so I'd definitely call this one ✅ as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Returned to remove speedies from article in above case. Home Lander (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Also blocked referring this SPI without any tag, clerk assistance needed before tagging -- choosing the right master, the master I had for earlier socks is a sock of the actual master -- Sockpuppet investigations/Infozeb. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked Johnheart and Firstmistake; nothing. Firstmistake is out in India somewhere; Johnheart is using a proxy, it seems (and keep an eye on User:Mersalarasan). Drmies (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Already closed, but I agree with SpacemanSpiff's determination notwithstanding the technical evidence. I'll check out later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)