Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nesterovici/Archive

Report date June 1 2009, 09:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by User:Tyrenon

Nesterovici posted most of the information in the article on Ionut Caragea (which was subsequently deleted per AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ionu%C5%A3_Caragea). Partway through the AfD debate, which was not going well for Nesterovici, the second account (Wafeofsun) came in and started attacking Nesterovici. Both exhibited similarly error-prone typing and poor English. It should also be noted that both accounts have identical userpages (which just contain their names), and both of their contributions are limited to the deleted article and the AfD discussion.

With all of this in mind, my suspicion is that Nesterovici created the Wafeofsun account as a sock to try and bolster his claims in some odd way as something of a Hail Mary when it became apparent he was about to lose his article. I think the fact that both accounts have all of their comments on a single page is slightly telling. While the claim put forth by Nesterovici that the attacker was someone he knew trying to slam him is plausible, I find the possibility of sockpuppetry to be non-negligible. While I am willing to assume that this was a good faith incident and that the accounts are separate, the amount of dust generated by Nesterovici in the course of the deletion debate makes me more than mildly suspicious.Tyrenon (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Strikes me as odd that the two would go around attacking each other, but the behavioural evidence is compelling enough to issue a 72 hour block to the Nesterovici and an indef block to the sock. Sock tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Archiving. ~ fl 10:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

01 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

All of these SPAs have edited the repeatedly recreated deleted article Ionuţ Caragea and its related AFD discussion and review, to the exclusion of all other activities. They are all likely the subject of the deleted article or someone near to him that has a COI. Diannaa (Talk) 18:56, 1 January 2011 (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

 * At least four of these accounts are active, so I'm adding a CU to get them and see if there are any sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just crosslinking ANI. -- DQ (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year!   20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All . Two of the users IPs are open proxies (both now blocked), and the rest come from IPs all over the world. A bit of a mess, frankly, but I think we can safely spot this chap based on editing patterns, at least! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To be quite honest, there haven't been any further edits from any of these accounts since the article they edited was deleted and salted. I'm moving to close with no action, but if any other clerk disagrees, you're more than welcome to reopen or reevaluate. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)