Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nik50382/Archive

Evidence submitted by HelloAnnyong
I initially became involved in a dispute on Australian Psychological Society by giving a third opinion. After some investigation, I discovered that Nik50382 had been adding copyvio'd text to the article, and he was repeatedly warned about it. The edits continued, and Nik50382 was blocked for three days starting on May 7 at 3:19. Roughly eight hours after the ban, Superstitious123 registers and his first edit is to add text to the same article that's similar in tone, but just without all the copyvio issues. I actually mentioned the possibility of socking in an edit comment after that. Anyway, the page was fairly quiet for a few days, but then Superstitious came back with more of the same edits. We discussed on the talk page for awhile, but the user kept adding text. Just now, Nik50382 made a comment on the talk page where he writes, "I agree with Supertitious that the title would be more accurate". Whatever's going on here seems highly suspicious, so I thought an SPI check would be a good place to start. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

The claim is false. HelloAnnoying has been working in tandem with Manitore to maintain inaccurate information on the Australian Psychological Society Wikipage that misprepresents this organisation and promotes an alternative new representative organsation with associated weblinks. Repeated efforts to correct these inaccuracies have beeen met with continous reverting to the previous information. There are 18,000 members of the Australian Psychological Society I am just surprised that there has not been more new editors pitching in to try and correct this information. I imagine the blocking that visitors would have seen may have prevented others from particpating.Nik50382 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I followed a link to this site from my message box. The Wiki rules are amazing and quire complicated for a newby so I will defer to those of you that know better if I have broken any of them. I hope to keep involved but maybe I'm just not good enough at editing. Superstitous123 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
edit summaries -- this edit and this edit by Nik50382 is similar to this edit and this by Superstitous123. Both are pretty forward about biased content, and their use of "alternative organisation". It is actually spelled "organization". Both of them spelled it wrong quite a few times -- wiooiw (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not a wrong spelling per se; spelling it 'organisation' is the standard in British countries and those that were part of the British empire. Still, that they're both spelling it the same way makes it seem more likely that they're the same person. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:In Australia everyone uses 's' not 'z' in organisation - that's about 21 million other alternatives. Because the edits were being undone without further editing it was easier in some cases to cut and paste from previous work to save retypingNik50382 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are strong similarities in editing patterns, including peculiar consistent errors and phrasing in edit summaries (no, I'm not referring to the American/British spelling debate). The fact that the suspected sock's first edit was shortly after an imposed block on the sockmaster account leads me to believe there is enough evidence to go on here for a checkuser. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. J.delanoy gabs adds  06:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Both indef blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 00:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)