Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Owain the 1st/Archive

07 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

My default modus operandi is AGF and if my suspicions are wrong I would like to apologize to both accounts involved and reviewing administrators. There is definitely a possibility that both accounts edit from similar POV and unrelated. WP:DUCK side of things is that both account are active from first half of April 2011. User:Poyani account was registered on May 02, 2007, but the account became stale after 4 edits and 234 out of his total 238 contributions are made after April 11 2011. User:Owain the 1st account was registered on April 4 2011 and made 970 edits since. Owain appears as new and energetic account. Poyani was asked about his previous username. Both accounts actions appear highly coordinated in their talk and edit activity on Israel Defense Forces article, where I made one revert by taking turns reverting to overcome 1RR restriction of I/P controversial topic area. My intention is not in the area of forcing content change but in the field of ensuring cleaner editing environment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I would just like to ask how you were going to apologise being as you have not even informed me of this investigation? Anyway this is not going to amount to anything so I suggest you apologise now.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is better to wait for an apology than to demand one. Otherwise, what you will get will not be sincere in the slightest. –MuZemike 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt if he apologised on his own accord it would be sincere so it does not matter either way.He is just upset that he reverted something earlier on and made a big deal out of it when he was mistaken and reverted something that was agreed upon on the talk page against consensus.He brought it to my talk page and was proven to be in the wrong and then disappeared only to reappear here wit this frankly already lost case.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Helloannyong.You have seen some evidence? Why don't you let us in on it then?As this case has no evidence whatsoever.All I can see is that Poyani posted on the IDF article twice and I posted there a lot apart from that looking at his edit history he does not post on the pages I do.So produce your evidence that you have seen please. Owain the 1st (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I've taken a look at some evidence here, and I think it's possible - so I'm endorsing for confirmation. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The two appear ❌. TN X Man  13:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With HelloAnnyong's view on behvoir (possible) and the unrelated CU, i'm going to say this is not a sock. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)