Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Okorojude/Archive

Evidence submitted by HonouraryMix
My alarm bell rang when I observed that the accused sockmaster (Okorojude) added a 'vote' to a discussion by pretending to be the accused sockpuppet (Opeyemikujero) :. The sockpuppet then came into the discussion, despite me finding no way that Opeyemikujero could have known about it, and then proceeded to make the same vote as Okorojude. This prompted me to investigate. Overlap at Olatunji Ariyo:. Additionally, both users added similar licenses to photos, and argued with the same user (Avala) when that user opposed the licenses used. Unfortunately, those images have now been deleted, so the evidence for that is gone. Only thing left is the overlap between Opeyemikujero and Okorojude on the article itself: and. To me, the first piece of evidence - acting as another account whilst still logged into another - is pretty decisive.
 * Now added another user: Oduduwa. Overlap over argument to keep a photo (which is now deleted):, , and . Further overlap over article created by Oduduwa, and which was subsequently edited within little time by only Okorojude (Peter Adeniyi is the article in question). In fact, it was Okorojude who removed a speedy delete template from the article that Oduduwa created: , and within the space of half an hour. HonouraryMix (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am certain these accounts are used by the same person, but using checkuser is probably the only way to make sure. I believe there's enough evidence to justify using checkuser.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

My first reaction was that of annoyance. But seeing that contribution to the global discussion should be a service rather than any other thing, I have decide to calm down and instead try to educate the accuser.

It is not uncommon to have several people use the same IP addresses if they are making use of the same computers or from the same network. However, if you check my contributions, I have never been involved in vandalism or an attempt to mislead by providing information without materials to back them up and such materials are in fact available for the public to see. Many instances I see information that lack references, and I add such references. So the alarm about me is unfortunate. My attention was drawn to concerted effort made to delete picture posted by Jude and replace with a picture I honestly consider to be of poor quality. I logged in to confirm that the picture was not in violation of copyright and provided a link to a website that belongs to the state house where several such pictures are kept. I even politely asked one of challengers to provide evidence of such violation when he insisted. Also, just this morning, I contacted people back home whether they could get an official letter from the Federal Ministry of Information allowing for the use of some of their pictures. These are my own effort. In fact, in this place alone we have more than 10 students here who have edited wikipedia at one time or the other. We don't get involved in the politics of the discussions but the facts. So when I saw this notice, I was alarmed. Please let me know if you have any further request from me. Opeyemikujero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opeyemikujero (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the person in question. I was the one that invited user Opeyemikujero to see what I was facing yesterday when I discovered that I was being called in plain term a 'thief' over a picture that I uploaded and for which I applied the wrong copyright information. I proceeded to explain over and over again and since I was not so versed at editing, I now called someone else who had been at this longer than myself. He told me my copyright tag was wrong, which I tried to correct because we do not actually have all the license schemes in place in Nigeria yet thereby creating difficulties for me personally. So, he practically took me through the steps yesternight. Yes, I wish to confirm that I have been involved in very many editing here. I can also state that my intentions are pure and without malice. It started as a simple 'try it out' only to have almost become an addiction for me to contribute if I can lay my hands on the facts. I was actually under the impression that you can edit any subject so far you can bring the evidences. In case I have been breaking the laws here, I wish to tender my unreserved apology. If I have also appeared to be rude, I am sincerely sorry. I actually don't look like this or posses these kind of traits in person. I am sorry.Okorojude (talk) 3:05pm —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

From Oduduwa: I can see a lot of wrong assumptions here. 1. I was mentioned in a case because I had a different opinion WHICH IS IN FACT correct and better than the opinion I corrected. Obviously my conclusion here is that someone is positively using his administrator's privilege and perhaps knowledge to prevent other's superior points seeing the light of day and it is simply horrible. IF MORE THAN 1 PERSON EDIT FROM THE SAME COMPUTER, WELL THAT MAY GIVE YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE, ISN'T IT? Since you probably can't fathom why more than one person could be using the same system! But common sense should stipulate that there must be a wrong/falsehood etc being perpetrated for you to come to your damning conclusion. I started an article on Professor Peter Adeniyi when I checked that there was no write up on him at all despite his being a local hero here ONLY for someone to order that it be deleted and I showed Jude to see what I got as message (whence the message in fact asked that more information be provided). So, I don't think anything was wrong with his providing more information on the subject expect if you are contesting the information contained therein. 2. It is purely a wrong assumption to conclude that when more than 1 person live in the same apartment and edit on wikipedia as a hobby, that they don't get to discuss. For your information, everything going on here is one of our topics of discussion today and I only restrain myself from using what I consider the right language for whoever is hiding behind an administrator's facade to inhibit others' opinion. Signing? I don't even know how to sign and don't dig the time for editing like others. So, I have no apology. Instead, I deserve to be apologized to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oduduwa (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Just bringing this to your attention. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Pardon me. I see it was already observed. I will leave this here anyhow so editors don't need to dig for deleted content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by HonouraryMix (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

this edit seems particularly suspicious given that both Okorojude and Opeyemikujero have a habit of signing their names manually (as displayed above), so it's more than possible that the user thought they were logged in on a different account than they actually were. This log is again suspicious. The accounts Okorojude and Opeyemikujero seem to edit in many of the same articles (Olatunji Ariyo & Goodluck Jonathan to name a couple) The history at Goodluck Jonathan (which is pretty convincing) and the history at Peter Adeniyi both seem to justify a check on Oduduwa as well. In short: please check all three accounts to see if there is a connection. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the results of my queries mostly do fit the pattern of people who know each other in real life, and who have similar interests. Two edits, however interest me immensely: this one by Opeyemikujero, and this one by Okorojude.
 * If you can recall them, can you (plural) please explain the circumstances when you made those edits? If you choose to answer, and the answer involves more than you want to place on a public page, my email is .  J.delanoy gabs adds  01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the technical evidence, and the email I received from one of the users here, I think it is most likely that these users are not sockpuppets. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)