Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omnipaedista/Archive

11 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * User:Omnipaedista:, User:Yangula:  make the same rv and disruptive edits, identified as a sockpuppet of the same user  (spec. in section skyladiko) --Kallieriastus (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarities: User:Omnipaedista, User:Supertusta:, , - Unconstractive rv on Tsifteteli: User:Omnipaedista: , User:Supertusta: . (second l - tsiftetelli)
 * Similarities: User:Omnipaedista, User:Supertusta:, , - Unconstractive rv on Tsifteteli: User:Omnipaedista: , User:Supertusta: . (second l - tsiftetelli)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Omnipaedista, User:Supertusta These users both, make the same rv and disruptive edits, they are vandalizing constantly, the Greek music articles -Basstonic (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This case was opened based on this edit. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

After this discussion (in which I notified a user who edits regularly the relevant articles in order to watch them), Basstonic/Kordax ("always there when needed") immediately created the account Supertusta and copied my message and posted it to the talk-page to prove that Supertusta was my sock. (My comment "File a formal request against me in the appropriate page and let CheckUser check me." was to be taken literally--I have nothing to hide.) His amusing/naive practices included copying infoboxes from my userpage to his sockpuppet's userpage, and editing the article tsifteteli in a way that seems to be defending my edits (but I would never make such a naive edit to "prove my point"; not to mention that I would never create a sockpuppet in the first place, as an established user who follows Wikipedia policies). Even if I were to use a sockpuppet, I would not be so naive as to make it so obvious. Kordax also accused me of being a sock of Yangula just because Yangula was the first to file a report against Plouton2. Needless to say that I never reverted any edits as an IP and that I never created a sockpuppet account (I expect whoever accuses me of such a thing, to refer to IPs and accounts suspected to be me). CheckUser can verify this. I also sent a private email to HelloAnnyong a while ago in which I asked him about which is the proper procedure for opening a case on WP:SPI (in order to investigate Kordax and Basstonic). My question was honest (I did not intend to bypass any procedures; I am just delaying it until I have enough evidence (I wanted to be meticulous) and know more about the procedure; I've filed a request for investigation just once in the past). I was greatly disappointed that a file opened against me instead. Also, a note about why I suspect Valeristemperec to be a sock of the accounts named above (Basstonic, Kordax). As them, he inserts/removes Greek POV pushing cats to articles (check his contribs and confer ), he awards himself with barnstars, he seems to be stalking my contribs and making edits to the respective articles afterwards. If one applies the Duck test, they can conclude that he is a sockpuppet of Kordax. If any of the following four users Kordax, Basstonic, Valeristemperec, Supertusta prove to be the socks of Plouton2/Esterrio and if he continues creating new accounts, I would like to sincerely ask whether there is a less bureaucratic process in order to block him next time. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC) --Kallieriastus (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They are all agree for checking nothing to hide, but no with this way like the handling with no evidenses ( Basstonic ). It is your opinion, users checked and are being checked continiously, handling accounts by anyone, with no evidences (and creating aslo), does not mean anything
 * If someone has onother opinion it is poor to be explained in an easy account blocking. Reasons and explanaitions has given and there must be evidences for any account, before blocking, suspect is not enough and does not means nothing -Kallieriastus (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * So... do you have any actual evidence? I'm not really seeing a full connection here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry. Supertusta has made all of one edit in article space, and although Omnipaedista has edited the same article, I see no connection. To claim that Supertusta is "vandalizing constantly" is absurd. I also do not see any grounds for regarding Omnipaedista's edits as vandalism. At best this is a content dispute, and at worst a bad-faith sockpuppet accusation in retaliation for a suggestion that Basstonic may be a sockpuppet account. In the absence of any meaningful evidence this case can be closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After I wrote that, the account Supertusta made various edits which looked like crude attempts to incriminate Omnipaedista for sockpuppetry. Everything suggested that this was an account created for the purpose of framing Omnipaedista. I went to Omnipaedista's talk page and found that he/she had independently come to the same conclusion, and provided reasons which supported my impression. Also, along came Kallieriastus, an account the main activities of which were pursuing this issue. The account also wrote in exactly the same way as Basstonic and various sockpuppets of Plouton2, including the same kind of broken English, and repeated some reverted edits by Basstonic. Basstonic, Kallieriastus, and Supertusta have been blocked as sockpuppets, and there is nothing more to do here except for closing the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also blocked as a member of the same sockfarm. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)