Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Omeomi

User:Omeomi

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Van Tucky 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * User:Cyber Shepherd is a newly created single purpose account that is defending the position held by User:Omeomi in the May 23rd deletion review for the article ZuluPad. Cyber Shepherd entered in to this long and complicated debate exactly echoing the position of Omeomi and "suddenly" finding a years old newspaper article that Omeomi has presented as his primary source in the argument, but was enable to provide. He also claims academic credentials, and the chance that a univeristy professor would happen on a several days old deletion discussion having made not one edit outside the discussion (except for a user page edit asserting his credentials), is extremely unlikely. In the face of mounting endorsement for my deletion of the ZuluPad article, this single purpose account regurgitating the position of the most desperate defender of one position is highly suspect. Van Tucky 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd mention--in addition to my comments below--that while you may have mounting support for the deletion of the ZuluPad article, you have nearly no support for the removal of applications without pages from the Personal Wiki article, which is what got us here in the first place. --Omeomi (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks very suspicious. If it's necessary we could do a checkuser. Basically there's no way we can consider Cyber Shepherd to be truly independent based on his editing history. For all intents and purposes he is a proxy or sock of Omeomi. I will note this at the DRV. Note also that these two accounts edited the DRV within 30 minutes of each other. . Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * If I had the source for the article, why wouldn't I have just posted it rather than coming up with some sort of elaborate scheme of having a fake university professor post it. Go ahead and do a checkuser, whatever that is. I don't know Cyber Shepherd aside from his postings here. --Omeomi (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shalom, now looking at some external links to ZuluPad forums and such, it looks like it may just be a case of canvassing. That might explain why the opinions align so closely and why a new contributor went straight for the DRV. However, I don't think a checkuser should be totally ruled out. Van Tucky 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you didn't bother to read everything posted on the Deletion Review page before accusing me of Sock Puppeting? Maybe you should at least do your research first? Like I said, go ahead and do a checkuser. In fact, please do, because right now you're accusing me of something without having any evidence for it whatsoever. --Omeomi (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, look! VanTucky posted within 5 minutes of me just now! Maybe we're the same person. That would certainly be an odd plot twist, wouldn't it? --Omeomi (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppet, and currently single purpose account, yes. But User:Cyber Shepherd has declared an intent to expand his Wikipedia activities on his user page (and no one has bothered notifying him on his talk page of this). Frankly, it doesn't smell of sock puppetry to me; the behaviors are distinct enough and Omeomi doesn't strike me as someone who would make this style of sockpuppet. The forum is sufficient, IMO, to explain this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have participated on the DRV, and I agree with Prosfilaes' assessment above --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the timestamps, I opened this before the evidence of canvassing showed up, and at this point I'd also agree with Prosfilaes. Besides, since the DRV is over and we're looking to prevent malicious editing on the subject (not be punitive), there's little point in exploring the matter further. Van Tucky 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you did. But you didn't notify either party (as per Wikipedia Guidelines) so neither of us knew that you'd filed this report. Let's see what that page has to say about reporting sock puppets:
 * Before creating a report...please be sure that...you have strong evidence. You provided no strong evidence, just your own theory.
 * All your statements should be supported by diffs. You've provided no diffs.
 * Assume good faith, if possible. Goes without saying. You told me I wasn't assuming good faith when I suggested that you may have an ulterior motive, so I dropped it. Not sure why you don't hold yourself to the same standards.
 * Notify the suspected users. I got no notification, and as Prosfilaes notes above, you didn't bother to notify Cyber Shepherd either.
 * And YOU'RE the ADMINISTRATOR? Isn't this the sort of thing administrators are supposed to know how to do properly? --Omeomi (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why I'm getting this hostility from VanTucky. Maybe VanTucky is just openly hostile to anyone who disagrees with him, but seriously, I've played by the rules, and I've done nothing to warrant being accused of Sock Puppeting from someone who didn't even bother to read the entire debate first. I've used the Wikipedia review process, and it seems reasonably clear that I'm going to lose that debate. That's fine. A number of administrators have mentioned that it wasn't the proper place to bring such a debate, but I didn't know that, and it seems that a lot of people didn't know that. It doesn't change the fact that the I'd rather help to improve the Personal Wiki page by consensus than to have VanTucky just randomly deleting entries, and that there is no Wikipedia policy that says that any entry on a page must have a corresponding Wikipedia article. Or that unsourced articles, like DidiWiki are a reason to believe that an application is more notable than applications that have no article at all. --Omeomi (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very plausible, even probable, that these are two separate people. The fact that Cyber Shepherd was a single-purpose account, regardless of whether he was a sockpuppet or not, was known to whoever closed the DRV. No further action is needed, and I assume good faith and will consider these accounts as two separate users. I suspect that Cyber Shepherd will not return.
 * Conclusions

To Omeomi: please calm down. We investigate these cases precisely because we don't want to jump to conclusions. When we see two users with very few edits voting in the same discussion, we get suspicious. Sometimes these users are the same person. Sometimes they're not. We don't know until we do an investigation.

If you feel VanTucky treated you unfairly, please talk to him about it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)