Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bugapi/Archive

17 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Alleged sockmaster is engaged in a very heated discussion at AfD as well as on the user page (discussion beginning here) of the editor originating the AfD discussion. Writing style (ALL CAPS in certain instances) of account and IP editor suggest that they are being controlled by the same person and, as such, are attempting to swing an AfD discussion by giving the appearance of multiple editors. Strikerforce (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is a brand new editor who is very angry and has a single purpose in mind, see that an article they created on on his/her favorite web server is kept. Not sure if the switching between this accound and the anonymous IP is intentional but the disruption this editor is causing with strongly worded accusations left on |my talk page calling nomination for deletion "vandalism" and another editors talk page is .--RadioFan (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this needs a checkuser action. Its pretty clear per WP:DUCK, since the IP is Swiss (as is 83.77.106.207, who reverted 'vandalism' of mine that fixed a link).  Since AFD isn't a vote, and the IP doesn't raise any new arguments that Bugapi hasn't already raised its more likely him flailing away at the interface rather than an intentional attempt to deceive, IMO. Syrthiss (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This may in fact be a sockpuppet. What appears to be a new editor based on contribution history is surprisingly familiar with hot button topics such as vandalism and refactoring comments.  Also new editors aren't going to be familiar with tools such as Huggle and Twinkle as commented on my talk page here.  A checkuser could help see if there is a prior history that isn't readily apparent.  --RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing my objection, appears to be deliberate socking. obvious sock is obvious. Syrthiss (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This IP (83.77.158.222) is also worth taking a look at. Strikerforce (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also withdrawing any objection to treating this as sockpuppetry. I would appreciate it if an admin could act on this swiftly.  If the closing admin disagrees and the user isn't blocked for sock puppetry, this should move to RFCU due to the conduct issues here.  I dont want to put the time into the RFCU if its not necessary though. --RadioFan (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also need to consider 85.91.134.245 and 83.77.108.148

which appears to be this user having a converstation with him/herself on my talk page The .148 address is Swiss as well and the .245 is coming from Bulgaria, the total absence of any other editor, anon ip or otherwise, contributing to this article or !voting keep in the AFD, makes this IP suspect as well.--RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per this edit, I would like to reopen this investigation, as it would appear that the user has given themselves up as guilty. Strikerforce (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm sorry, but checkusers cannot publicly disclose connections between named accounts and IPs. TN X Man 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 85.91.134.245 looks like a proxy, but from what I can see it's closed. Evidence on 83.77.108.148 being a proxy is . -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That being said, looking at the user, this is not a new user, and you can tell that by looking right at the begining. Any obvious socks related to this? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of alternate account abuse by Bugapi. TN X Man  14:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing again. I don't really get Bugapi's message there, but those IPs haven't been used in almost a week, so they're stale in terms of blocks. Relist if there are further developments, though. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)