Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etiennebaheza/Archive

27 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Three accounts with their first post in an article for deletion with similar language. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to the two accounts already reported earlier today, I've added a collection of single-purpose accounts that have all added "keep" comments to Articles for deletion/A.T.M JEFF (2nd nomination) (see discussion for evidence). One idiosyncrasy I'm noticing is that each of the SPAs occasionally fail to capitalize the word "I".
 * The accounts were each created on the following dates (UTC), listed in order of their participation in the aforementioned AfD:
 * Frankjohnson1960 - 26 February 2015 at 13:16
 * Burundi78 - 16 September 2014 at 05:45
 * Doctorwilliam1973 - 27 February 2015 at 07:21
 * Julias ws - 27 February 2015 at 13:22
 * Diomadi - 27 February 2015 at 17:54
 * Yudes was created several years back and Burundi78 was created several months ago. The rest were created very recently. From the behavior of the accounts at the AfD, I believe there is enough evidence to suspect sock puppetry; however, I think a CheckUser should confirm, since the Yudes and Burundi78 would have been sleeper accounts for a while. It also might be a case of meat puppetry, instead. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC), revised 22:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Why is my account has been nominated for investigation? For what reason i'm just wondering?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudes (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . The reason is because at the Articles for deletion/A.T.M JEFF (2nd nomination) deletion discussion, there have been a bunch of new user accounts created specifically to !vote "keep". The general rule for Wikipedia is one person, one account, and if editors create multiple accounts to make multiple !votes at a deletion discussion, that editor can maliciously distort consensus—what looks like multiple users agreeing on a position is really one person making multiple accounts or "sock puppets". Four accounts, Frankjohnson1960, Doctorwilliam1973, Julias ws, and Diomadi, appear to have been created in the past few days only to edit the deletion discussion. The sole edit of a fifth account, Burundi78, is also to the deletion discussion. This behavior is aberrant for a deletion discussion—most editors' first edits are not to participate in deletion discussions; few are also aware of the notability guidelines. That this happened randomly with five accounts to the same AfD is not very likely. That is why I think an investigation into sock puppetry is warranted. I have asked that a CheckUser be performed to confirm with technical evidence whether or not sock puppetry has occurred. In any case, please do not take this personally—my sole interest is protecting the integrity of a Wikipedia discussion. If, in fact, you have not been using multiple accounts, that will almost certainly be the finding of the CheckUser investigation. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mz7 What does this issue got to do with me, My problem is why is my account has been added here? As you can see my account was created back in 2013 so why do you want them to check my account what did i do?--Yudes (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you may have created multiple accounts and used them in an illegitimate manner at the aforementioned deletion discussion. The reason I am concerned is because your "keep" comment appears similar in vernacular to the "keep" comments of the other named accounts in this case; additionally, each of the named accounts, including yours, have few or no live edits outside of editing that deletion discussion. I wish to have a CheckUser on this case so that we can definitively confirm or dispel these concerns. Mz7 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Might be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Worth checking.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Burundi78 appears to be the oldest account, but the article is substantially similar to the deleted earlier versions of the article as created by . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, DoRD. I've moved the case to Etiennebaheza and blocked the accounts. Mike V • Talk 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Burundi78 appears to be the oldest account, but the article is substantially similar to the deleted earlier versions of the article as created by . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, DoRD. I've moved the case to Etiennebaheza and blocked the accounts. Mike V • Talk 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Burundi78 appears to be the oldest account, but the article is substantially similar to the deleted earlier versions of the article as created by . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, DoRD. I've moved the case to Etiennebaheza and blocked the accounts. Mike V • Talk 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Burundi78 appears to be the oldest account, but the article is substantially similar to the deleted earlier versions of the article as created by . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, DoRD. I've moved the case to Etiennebaheza and blocked the accounts. Mike V • Talk 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Burundi78 appears to be the oldest account, but the article is substantially similar to the deleted earlier versions of the article as created by . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, DoRD. I've moved the case to Etiennebaheza and blocked the accounts. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)