Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Audun Haug Nilsen/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User just made an edit to my talk page that was similar to the edit by Audun Haug Nilsen,. Both editors say that they provide a reliable source when they didn't and they both make attacks by calling me a bot,. I suggest CheckUser should be used to see if they are the same person. Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

This looks like an accusation made in bad faith. I do not see any similarities whatsoever between the 2 links provided in the accusation. My explanation was valid, I believe anyone who sees my explanation will see that Zachary Daiquiri deleted my edit by error. As I stated originally, I did not add a new source because I used the existing source. I added more information from the same source, and the source remained at the end of the sentence.

I legitimately thought Zachary Daiquiri was a bot because if you saw my edit, you would have seen that there was a source. I am not an advanced Wikipedia user. Based on Zachary Daiquiri's accusation, is he regularly being disruptive by removing legitimate edits of other people as well as mine? Zachary Daiquiri said he feels "attacked" by being called a bot. There is no need to take it personally, and Zachary Daiquiri is clearly acting in bad faith because he was offended that I called him a bot given his use of the word "attacked". I suggest he is investigated and checked whether he is regularly vandalising by removing legitimate edits incorrectly, and whether he regularly wastes admin's time by making frivolous accusations as a way to get back at users who he feels offended him.

I would encourage Zachary Daiquiri to read the information presented when editing this page: "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." The only "evidence" Zachary Daiquiri has provided is two completely different explanations for why his edit was wrong in two completely different writing styles. One was mine, which if checked, will be proven 100% valid. You will see there was a source, and if you read my edit you will see the information I added was in the source article. It is also purely factual, uncontroversial information (no opinion inserted) about a football player's ethnicity and birthplace of his parents. My second edit in that article was to correct clearly incorrect English. Meanwhile the other guy I am being compared to is some rant about vaccinations and democracy. I also notice the other edit was on 21 April. It appears that Zachary is going to extreme lengths here to make a connection where one does not exist.

I hope that personal attacks and frivolous claims without evidence like this one are not allowed to go unpunished.

Please see my actual edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Rogic&type=revision&diff=1021573915&oldid=1021573855

Wikiuser829832 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . I don't see enough evidence to run a check here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Having looked at behaviour, I don't see enough evidence to action this. A look at their (data-deficient) timecards suggests that the two are in different timezones, and there's no topical overlap. Closing. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 09:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)