Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness/Archive

Report date June 10 2009, 00:00 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Peter cohen

Multiple accounts mostly with few edits sharing an interest in Arab foodstuffs that have been adopted by Israel. Looking at the history of Za'atar There are two new accounts working in consort late on 9 June 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Za%27atar&action=history References in the edit caption ny Tastytreasure to land and food being stolen by Israelis are used by the main account on the talk page in this thread Talk:Za%27atar and in this thread on another foodstuff Talk:Hummus The Dalwadi puppet has also used similar terminology.
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

— Jake   Wartenberg  00:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Dalwadi6 and Tastytreasures are obviously related, but I am not sure who the master is. Requesting CU to find out. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates the accounts are unrelated. Possible Relationships need to be identified via behavioral or stylistic analysis. -- Avi (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Per Avi. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC) -

Report date June 21 2009, 00:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

suspected master: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090601100310&target=Supreme+Deliciousness
 * Evidence submitted by 98.194.124.102

suspected puppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.233.32.209

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.229.133.89

(98.194.124.102 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Yes this is me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.229.133.89, I wasnt registered yet, notice the last edit on 28th may and this Supreme Deliciousness account started at 29th may: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Supreme+Deliciousness

And this is the exactly same SD account that was created 29th may: look at the bottom, created SD page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090601100310&target=Supreme+Deliciousness so I dont see what the problem is. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

what about the other account: 81.233.32.209? this one continued to operate after 29 May. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Thats the one that wasn't me, I see he has reverted a lot of your edits, if someone clicks on "user contributions" on your talk page they can easily follow your vandalism on different articles and try to correct them, I see that he edits the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria article which I have never done, I know nothing about that church, also notice that he didnt edit the Asmahan article which me and you was in edit war over at that time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe you. Clicking on "user contributions" is exactly what you have been doing, following my edits everywhere and reverting them. Your defense, "I know nothing about that church," so "thats the one that wasn't me" does not stand since you have also edited Egyptians Omar Sharif (making him Syrian, then Greek, then Lebanese) and Stephan Rosti (making him Italian, then Hungarian), to make them ANYTHING BUT Egyptian. Do you know anything about those Egyptians than you do about the Coptic church? I highly doubt it. Yet, you followed me to those pages reverting my edits. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Of course I corrected the Michel Demitri Chalhoub and Stephan Rosti articles, you only have to see their names to realize they are not Egyptians. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your presumed defence just fell apart. This further shows your ignorance of Egypt & your general close-mindedness. Not all Egyptians have Arabic names. The question is why do you and your sockpuppets mess with Egypt when you are so ignorant of the subject? --98.194.124.102 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't designed to be an interrogation between the accuser and the accused. 98, you have a section above to submit evidence of sockpuppetry. SD, you replied appropriately in your comments section above. This section is for other users to make comments. Sancho 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Notations by Nsaum75 


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.194.124.102&diff=298192843&oldid=298155906
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.194.124.102&diff=next&oldid=298203560 --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been allegations of sockpuppetry at Golan Heights RFC. I've only briefly looked through Supreme's former IPs but it all seems to check out. I think this is just a bad case of ill-will. Accusations of wikihounding should be directed to the ANI boards, not here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't about Golan, me and him has had problems with Asmahan and farid al atrash articles, that was what I asked him about. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Admits it, but explanation is appropriate. Closing as no action needed. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Arab Cowboy
A review of Supreme Deliciousness's history of contributions will easily show that he has a clear agenda to propomte Syrian interests on Wikipedia.

Edit 1 (31 October) on Omar Sharif Supreme Deliciousness, using the IP, goes against mediation process on Omar Sharif and arbitration currently underway and against Admin Sancho's instructions (18 June): "SD, avoid original research. Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living personcle about a living person." and again he claims that Omar Sharif was of Lebanese descent in Arabic Wikipedia, as well as in this edit in French Wikipedia.

Edit 2 (30 October) on Farid al-Atrash Supreme Deliciousness, using the IP, goes against very laborious mediation processes on Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash that compromised the matter as to call them Syrian-Egyptian. In this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit Supreme Deliciousness, using the sockpuppet IP, again labels Farid al-Atrash as Syrian, and only Syrian.

Edit 3 (29 October) on Asmahan Supreme Deliciousness again pushes his Syrian agenda using the IP.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness is well aware that one account is needed for all Wikipedia in any language; he sees me log-in to all foreign-language Wikipedia using the same username, Arab Cowboy. And also, clearly, Supreme Deliciousness uses the IP's to go against the agreements and compromises reached with the mediators and the admins in English WP to push his Syrian agenda in foreign-language WP. For example, in Omar Sharif, he labelled Sharif as of Lebanese descent, which is exactly what Admin Sancho had told him not to do, and in Farid al-Atrash, he called him Syrian (4 times), and only Syrian, although the compromise reached through mediation was to call him Syrian-Egyptian.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness has admittedly used the IP's, and not his registered username, to make those controversial edits. It is not up to the "other parties" to decide whether this case is frivolous. This case is indeed very serious; problems with Supreme Deliciousness on these specific articles and others have been going on for months. Neither one of the "other parties" has so far challenged the fact that Supreme Deliciousness's edits in the foreign-language Wikipedia have gone against the mediation processes and compromises already reached in the English Wikipedia. I do not rely on Supreme Deliciousness's honesty in the least bit because he lies incessantly, however, I speak to the honesty of the "other parties" to testify whether Supreme Deliciousness's edits listed above were in-line with the mediation processes and compromises already reached.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy: Please post the policy or rule that supports what you say that different-language Wikipedia are all independent. How am I able to sign-in with the same username and the same account on all of the foreign-language Wikipedia if they are independant? Do we need to have the same mediation processes and go through all the arbitation processes that we have gone through on these articles for many more months to come in each one of the foreign languages? How much more of Wikipedia and human resources do we need to waste due to Supreme Deliciousness's sneak edits? The fact remains that he did not sign-in with his username, as I have been doing, while making those controversial edits, clearly to avoid being detected or associated with his own edits. This is sockpuppetry.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I have not created a wikipedia account in either arabic or french or any other version of Wikipedia, this English account is the only one I have. And I have edited without creating an account at those places. How is this sockpuppetry?

And also all my edits at other places have been in accordance with agreements at english wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
There's no case to answer here. Indeed, I'm surprised not to have seen this investigation dismissed already.

Neither account has been active on this Wikipedia. So no sock-puppetry here.

There is no rule saying that if you have created an account on one Wikimedia project, then you must create one on all other projects where you are active, nor that your accounts on different Wikis have to have the same names or be otherwise linked.

If you find the SD's behaviour problematic, each project has its own processes for you to raise the issues you have with him, but this is not the route to use.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is frivolous, issues between these users at either the French or Arabic Wikipedias belong there. The English WP has no authority over the other language projects and edits at those other projects have no bearing on what happens here. There is absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry whatsoever here. Not one diff has been provided showing that the user edited as an IP on any of the articles on the English WP, and even if they have that does not constitute "sockpuppetry".  nableezy  - 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Arab Cowboy, it does not matter what Supreme Deliciousness does on any other language Wikipedia. Neither of the listed IPs have any edits on the English Wikipedia. They cannot be, by definition, sockpuppets as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned.  nableezy  - 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The diffs that ArabCowboy provided above are edits made by different IP users altogether. I suggest this case just be dropped. A little insignificant Bloated on candy 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I took a quick look at 85.229.128.0/20, and I don't think rangeblocking would do any good as the range is very busy with other stuff. MuZemike 18:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Marking as closed, with no action taken. None of the IPs listed have any contribs, live or deleted. MuZemike 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Jalapenos do exist
Based on user contributions, it's pretty clear that Supreme Deliciousness and Ani medjool are the same person. They both chiefly edit articles on various hills in the Golan Heights and Israeli wine. Recently, they both mistakenly entered a deletion discussion on the wrong page within 10 minutes of each other ; they were the only ones to do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not sockpuppet! I try to correct several article that currently be slanted with pro-israel POV Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Ohh my god.. I have a problem with Jalapeno, going around to every single page and posting that Ani Medjool is my socpuppet, people might vote differently at the afd and Requested move at the article I created. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
The "wrong page" is what was linked in the edit summary listing the article for deletion (see here, I was actually confused by this as well).  nableezy  - 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Although checkuser may cast some light on this, my instinct is that these are two separate individuals. SD has a decent standard of English despite it being his third or fourth language behind Swedish, Syrian, Arabic and possibly French. AM's English is consistently poorer. It would take remarkable skill to carry out a charade in a foreign language having one id being consistently poorer in that l;anguage than the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My instinct is that these are two completely unrelated users as well... Partially because Deliciousness speaks pretty fluent english, while the other user doesn't speak english nearly as fluently.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all difficult to pretend ones languige skils worse than really. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
No action taken. I'm not seeing sock puppetry going on here, after looking at the behavioral evidence. MuZemike 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look carefully at the user contribution histories before closing this case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Pantherskin
Checkuser requested per this discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606. Several editors expressed their suspicion that the account Ani medjool is not a new account, and that this account is the sockpuppet of another account. The account edits almost exclusively in the Israel-Palestine subject area, with a strong anti-Israeli viewpoint. In fact the viewpoint is so strong and at times so crude that even those on the other side of the conflict suspected that this account is an agent provocateur that tries to discret legitimate edits critical of Israel.

I am not going to add account names of suspected sockpuppets as everyone in ANI and other debates seemed to have ones favorite suspect, usually with little evidence beyond editors editing in the same subject area as Ani medjool.

Note that although Ani medjool claims to be retired (after taking some heat on ANI), he has retired or taken long breaks several times in the past only to reappear after a few weeks.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There's currently no suspected socks listed. Are you referring as a sock of  or something else?  E lockid  ( Talk ) 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unclear who the sockmaster is. Some editors initially suspected User:Breein1007. Another suspect is User:Supreme Deliciousness as Ani medjool edited in the same narrow topic area (Middle Easter food and anything related to the question whether a place or organization is located in Israel, Israeli-occupied territories or Syria), supporting Supreme in talk page discussions. I haved added this user, although as I said it was unclear from the discussion who the sockmaster is. Pantherskin (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some diffs or links specifically showing a relation between Supreme Deliciousness and Ani medjool?  E lockid  ( Talk ) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm declining this. The ANI discussion ends up a far cry from requesting a CU and, as noted, if any user was suspected there, it was Breein1007.  Through some careful reading of edits, I can see why one might suspect AM and SD but it's very shakey, at best, and not worthy of being called a "connection."  I agree that there's something a little fishy about AM, but checkuser is not for fishing.  Barring any actual evidence that expands beyond beyond slight hunches, I don't think this needs to go forward. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 04:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Amory's decision to decline this RFCU as, marking as closed for the same reason. Also, per the reasons given here SpitfireTally-ho! 10:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

case moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Ani medjool, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cptnono
So this has come up at SPI before but was declined for check user not being used for fishing. However, part of the rationale for this is "to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." In bold on the same page it says: "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing" If a suspected sockmaster is required (it is not from my limited experience at check user), then User:Breein1007 and User:Supreme Deliciousness have been accused.

User:Ani medjool‎ has been accused of being a "strawman sock" to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side. The accusation was first made here The diff provided presents reasoning with plenty of diffs if you have the time to check them. It provides a decent enough case that others agreed that something was amiss at the ANI discussion. It boils down to the user having perfectly fine English originally and very bad English now along with some pointed editing.

So now that the user is back from retirement they are not able to effectively contribute. Editors from both political slants (it happens) are quick to revert or ignore requests by them since the edits are so over the top and partially since they appear to be a sock. It has been taken to their user page (some have been less than polite) and deleted after a response regarding Google translate that someone else did not buy. A checkuser is needed to either know if someone is just being what some consider disruptive (essentially clearing their name of the accusation) or if they are strawpuppeting (a whole other scenario). A checkuser would simply put this to rest.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Breein: Oh sorry about not being clear. I don't think you are the Ani and it doesn't look like most do. I just added you and SD as accused if they needed accused sockmasters. Didn't actually expect you to be dragged into it. Supreme is probably not the sockmaster even though they have also been accused.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And another follow-up: It keeps on going. I can't tell if this other user (one of the diffs above) is implying it is Breein or just venting overall though. It would make everyone more comfortable if the check was done.Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine Arab Cowboy then. Can we just get a check to put this away.08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I am so tired of being brought up on SPI and not subsequently informed. It's sickening that you want to have a discussion about me without even notifying me and requesting my input. I frankly don't care about your report CptNono, because Ani Medjool makes Wikipedia interesting, to put it lightly. If he got banned for any reason, it would remove a minor annoyance but a major source of enjoyment on Wikipedia. So do what you want, but I'm not participating in this any further. Breein1007 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I read the ANI case cited above in which User:Ani Medjool appears to be connected to this IP address. FWIW, that IP address locates to a similar (although not exact) geographical region for the IP address used by User: Arab Cowboy at the time Arab Cowboy registered their account last summer. It is also noted that there are no overlaps of timestamps in the contribution histories between the AM and AC accounts. (While there are overlapping timestamps between the AM and SD accounts). I would also assume the case relates to the account User:Medjool blocked for reasons listed at Sockpuppet investigations/Arab Cowboy/Archive. — Cactus Writer |   needles  07:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, do you have any evidence linking the Ani medjool account with anybody at all? If not, you should know that checkuser is not for fishing. You need to provide evidence linking accounts for it to be checked. This should be declined by a clerk.  nableezy  - 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to indicate that a checkuser is warranted. Pantherskin (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the case for nearly every user that edits in the topic area.  nableezy  - 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just go through that and look at the edit summaries of the two accounts, they're entirely different. Ani Medjool normally says something like: "i reply" or "i go away for a while bye", and also uses the word "clarify" often. SD's edit summaries are more structured, normally being full sentences with punctuation and proper grammar. I also can't see that in the linked UserCompare the two accounts are particularly supportive of each others edits. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Ani medjools English is worse than SDs - but it is relatively clear that Ani medjools bad English is faked. Not much we can conclude from the edit summaries either. Ani medjool seems to mostly revert in article space to versions supported by SD on the talk page, indicating that the Ani medjool account is used to skirt 3RR restrictions. It is also clear that both edit in very narrow topic areas - Israeli and Arab food, and places located in territories disputed between Syria and Israel. Pantherskin (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, please could you link to where Ani has supported SD's talk page opinion in the mainspace? I'm still not convinced either way, and I'm happy to listen to reasonable arguments that tie links between the named accounts. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't evidence of sockpuppetry, although some of the edits do indeed look like meatpuppetry. I am curious, however, as to why Arab Cowboy created a sockpuppet named "Medjool", when there was already a well-known editor in the I/P area named "Ani medjool".  Medjool isn't a common word in the English language, except for when one is talking about a specific type of date. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 01:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that distinguishes this request from the previous one closed less than two weeks ago, which has been reviewed by three different SPI clerks. If there are additional evidence, please provide diffs. Right now I'm not seeing anything that suggests that AM is more likely than not a sock. Please be reminded that frivolous or vexatious SPI requests may lead to sanctions. Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

. --Deskana (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by George
All three editors were editing the Za'atar article on June 9-10, 2009, and all three were involved in an edit war over the Arab and Israeli use of za'atar. If they are all the same editor, then they would have been using sock puppets to circumvent 3RR (and an indefinite block on Dalwadi6 for vandalism). I don't think behavioral evidence is enough (other editors have edit warred over the same material), which is why I've requested check user as well. ← George talk 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please close this case. I checked the archive, and apparently the editor was accused of being these two accounts over a year ago (when the event occurred), and was found to be unrelated to them. My apologies to the editor for the accusation; please close this investigation as quickly as possible. ← George talk 14:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I don't think Mr/Mrs S. Deliciousness uses multiple accounts. It's just a gut feeling I have. Chesdovi (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Marking for close per request above. TN X</b> Man 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

28 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Cave of the Ramban, a relatively obscure article about a cave in Jerusalem was created on Nov 3, 2010. Shortly thereafter, User:Supreme Deliciousness began a series of edits focused on changing the map depiction in the infobox He tag teamed his edits with User:Frederico1234 who began editing immediately after Supreme Deliciousness and made precisely the same edits mimicking almost verbatim SupremeD’s edit summaries. This by itself may constitute suspicious activity but there is more. Both Supreme Deliciousness and Frederico1234 share precisely the same POV and edit the same obscure article at precisely the same times. I can provide more detailed information on Frederico upon request but this may result in revealing additional personal information that they (SupremeD and Frederico) might not want others to see. Suffice to say at the very least, these two are Meat puppets and likely sock puppets. Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Could you stop picking on the poor sonovabitch please? This is the eighth SPI done on him (the last one not even a week ago) and not a single one has been legitimate. Half  Shadow  05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Two editors  editing the same obscure article about a cave, making precisely the same edits, with the same edit summaries, at near contemporaneous times, on multiple occasions. So you’ll forgive me if I’m a tad suspicious.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that Supreme Deliciousness has been framed for sock puppetry before (yes, quite literally framed, where someone else imitated their behavior to pretend to be their sock puppet so that they would get banned). It looks like Frederico1234 once edited their talk page using the IP address 83.248.8.71, which does map to Sweden, but I'm not sure how that compares to SD's IP address, and haven't looked at the behavioral evidence. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 08:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've revdel'd some stuff that may be outing. Obviously Admins can still see it. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning the revdel'd stuff, its not a sock, its an old account that I abandoned, explanation is here: I don't want my ethnicity, nationality or location revealed, which this old account does, that's why I didn't want it revealed here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can provide evidence but it may constitute outing. Also, a significant amount of material that established a nexus between Supreme Deliciousness and Frederico has been deleted by Dougweller. Some of it shows egregious canvassing efforts by Supreme Deliciousness while other material shows domicile and most of the information is already readily available on Wikipedia. I did not disclose information relating to Frederico because this information is not readily available and requires some extrinsic evidence and so revelation of this material may constitute partial outing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the inappropriate canvassing here: "The problem is that I was very inactive with that account and I didn't know any of Wikipedia rules, so at one point of time I did some inappropriate canvassing when I wanted to get attention to an article problem" "I didn't know anything about the rules here and didn't realize that I did something wrong." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have "sensitive" evidence, you should send it to a trusted admin rather than making innuendos here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * email sent--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Frederico1234 has been registered since 2007 and SupremeDeliciousness since 2009. They have (as far as I can see) edited one article in common. I would like to see some more evidence, otherwise I think this should be marked for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One article?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That I saw! I should be able to post a result on this later tonight or tomorrow. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  03:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I and another checkuser have looked at this- it is the two accounts are related.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  12:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing. Nakon  20:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

17 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

user:Public awareness definitely not a new account as he familiar from first edit with wiki markup.user:Supreme_Deliciousness was recently topic banned from all I/P articles and was very upset about it and even was blocked for admin harassment. They have same interest in articles like Libiya and Syria. Also user:Supreme_Deliciousness have made only few edit since he was topic banned. Note:There is my first report so if I done something wrong I am sorry Shrike (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Added user:Lutafisk their only edit was attackuser:nsaum75 about Middle eastern food articles that user:Supreme_Deliciousness have heavily edited and even WP:AE was opened against him.Though ended with no action but the attack happened in the middle of the process.--Shrike (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The user:Public awareness is clearly a duck. He is not a new user--Shrike (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Lutafisk may be Wolof359/other similar accounts: . --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No, . AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 17:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * . Sorry AGK, but I think there's some merit in running a checkuser here, and here's why. I'm not wholly convinced of a connection between Public awareness and Supreme Deliciousness, but it's clearly not a new account. This was their first edit - and that's not the edit of a brand new user. (Whose first edit is to the reference desk?) I think it's somewhat more likely that Lutafisk is connected to SD based on several things that I'd rather not disclose publicly. So at the very least I'm endorsing to find out who the socks are. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen, time and again, that 'new' users who edit a specialised project page and who would be suspected of sock-puppetry, are actually editors who have previously edited anonymously. There is no obvious abuse here, and I do not think that a check is warranted—even if a connection is vaguely probable (but when is it not?). However, as a concession to HelloAnnyong's eminent sensibleness (and my own rawness to the tool), I will defer to the judgment of another checkuser. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with HelloAnnyong here. There are relatively few IP addresses who regularly contribute to the "behind the scenes" part of the project, and several things "smell bad" here. After all, many checks are done specifically because the clerks are in doubt, so that seems like one of those cases here. Might also find some sleepers. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 22:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this may be suspicious, but since the userCompare tool shows that there is a 4 months gap between the collisions, I'm for erring on the side of caution for now:
 * checking, without prejudice if an other CU feels this should be instigated.
 * However, I have checked and they are  (open proxy).
 * -- Luk  talk 10:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * After studying both users' contributions alone, checking against  and . If new evidence comes to light, please feel free to submit a new request. - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough. I'll close for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)