Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suaiden/Archive

08 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Suaiden created an article which was nominated for speedy deletion. A brand new account FrAugustine431 then came along and as its only edit removed the speedy nomination. Appears to be a sock. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I can't believe this. First off, I am the author of the text that was cited for "copyright infringement" in the first place, as well as an authorized administrator of the site which I supposedly "plagarized"! I sent a note clarifying copyright per the wiki guidelines, as well as the administrator for such things at the Abbey where the head of our Church is located. Further, I modified the text to where it had a 50% or so similarity to the original. Further, it has been marked for speedy deletion when only ONE section of the text was questionable. I do speak to Fr Augustine, who lives more than 30 miles away, and as I cannot remove these things myself he did remove it, because he could (I did let him know what was going on for the record, and he told me he removed the button). If you'd like to do a CheckUser, please do, because he'd be happy to respond, or better, I can provide phone numbers for all parties verifying authorization. Would this help? Suaiden (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No, phone numbers aren't going to help - and don't list them here, please. I have a feeling this is as described: two people who know each other and are editing in collusion. Suaiden, be aware that getting others to edit on your behafl is not acceptable. I initially blocked the sock, but then undid it. I'll let this go for now as it's only one edit, but be aware of our policies. Relist if there are new developments. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

19 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WP:COI sockpuppet, readily declaring his conflict, identity, and resolve to continue editing article space. Edit-warring at Pescetarianism with NPOV violations and claiming that the other editor (myself) is agenda-driven and implying that he, the sock, is not agenda-driven. No WP:Checkuser is requested, old accounts are stale and this sockpuppet has already declared his identity. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I have no evidence of sockpuppetry, and therefore I withdraw my accusation in this investigation, with apologies to Father Deacon . Elizium23 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm noticing a common theme with Elizium23 here. You're accusing me of a conflict of interest when I openly declared my interest, have now placed the declaration on my userpage (with my name), and now you're accusing me of sockpuppetry. I did have a previous account; when I lost the password I created another account. Considering my account names in question both have my last name, this makes little sense. I'm not misrepresenting at all.FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So how long do I stay a suspected sockpuppet? I've never been one and want to know how this affects me. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The original account wasn't blocked but warned. The original account stopped editing in 2011. Is there any current socking diff that you might have?  Wifione  Message 00:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't, because I'm not a sockpuppet. I've just-- per the Talk:Pescetarianism page, ticked this user off.FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing as withdrawn by filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)