Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sallicio

User:Sallicio

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

L. Pistachio (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Both usernames commented in Articles for deletion/Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety, giving substantially the same argument. User:Orthodoxpharoah's only 2 edits are to the AfD and his user page. The other two edits on that user page are from User:Sallicio. The account was created Jan 12, and it appears that Sallicio is now bringing it out for use in this AfD.
 * Evidence


 * Comments

written to lord pistachio Hello! You should really reevaluate your interest in this. That "sockpuppet" is my partner in the Police Department of which I work. He is also an editor (however not as active as I). I asked his opinion and he wrote what he felt on the subject. I would suggest that you check out WP:CALM and try not to take things personally and stop looking for things that aren't there. After all, this is just Wikipedia. I assume that you did some sleuthing on the user that "supported" my cause. I helped him get his account going a few weeks back, so that is why I am on his history. Believe me, if I were to create a sock puppet...you wouldn't know about it. If you have any questions regarding my "integrity" please feel free to contact me at any time. I would also recommend that you assume good faith in the future. Before putting allegations on someone, perhaps you could bring your thoughts to their attention first before making such malicious allegations (that is a fairly bad thing to accuse someone of without getting one's facts together first). That's water under the bridge, and I realise that you are still somewhat young and perhaps a little overzealous. But, back to the issue at hand; I wouldn't be opposed to a merger if you are so adamant on doing something, because the BSUPD is still on the List of law enforcement agencies in Maryland. And to keep the consistancy (within the list) perhaps we could simply put a redirect to the main university article. I think this is a fair balance for the both of us, don't you? It would be very wiki of you to remove the allegations from my page now that I have explained who Orthodoxpharoah is. Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
 * As an uneffected bystander, even if he's "your friend", and not you yourself, you really don't have a leg to stand on. The fact that the account has no editing history save for an edit to his user page reeks of something bad.  I mean, what was he supposed to do, disagree with you?  I'm sure you would not have been for his including his opinion had it not lined up with yours.  --    JT   Holla! 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All I would ask of User:Lord Pistachio is that he remain objective and look at all evidence provided (as a courtesy I'm sure he would want done if the tables were turned on him) Thanks to all for an objective look. Sallicio (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
 * very true, but the issue at hand is whether he is a sock puppet or not. he asked what i was doing on my MDT (computer), I told him, he wanted to comment. so he did. I don't fault Pistachio for thinking what he did (I might've thought the same thing if the tables were turned). However, whether he is credible for my defense of the article is irrelevent here (which I knew when he was writing it, but he wanted to be a part of it anyway). But I appreciate your input! Sallicio (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
 * Even if what you say is true, that this new user is a friend of yours, then it constitutes use of a meatpuppet, which is pretty much the same thing. I find even that difficult to believe, however. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A meatpuppet is, "a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it, similar to a sock puppet." It does not constitute a meat puppet, nor have I ever suggested it as such. Like I have said before, Orthodoxpharoah was created a few weeks back. He inquired to what I was typing; I told him. It is very simple. The only thing that is wrong is that he is new and gave his opinion. When one starts to realize that he or she is wrong the "well anyways" start to slip in. Now, I understand that all the jury here has to go on is circumstancial evidence, (as it is quite impossible to have direct evidence in a forum such as this) I proffer some questions all should ask themselves when investigating this or anything else:
 * Does the suspected person have an established history on the site?
 * What contributions has the suspect given?
 * Does the suspect have a history of suspected sockpuppetry?
 * Does the suspect have a history of starting or participating in heated debates?
 * Does the suspect fit the "profile" of a user that would have sockpuppets?
 * Does the alleged sockpuppet fit the profile as such?
 * Again, as an unbiased, objective party, the account would either fall into a sockpuppet or meatpuppet category. If your "friend" was completely objectionable (unlikely), he should have refrained from commenting at all, since it's highly unlikely a new user with no edit history would be familiar enough with WikiPolicy to make an educated ruling on the matter.  --    JT   Holla! 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. So I am guilty of poor judgment and having my "friend" (<---that really is unnecessary, as it denotes that the word is dripping with sarcasm which has already been established earlier) comment on my AfD. I knew at the time that it wouldn't help my case with the AfD, but it seemed to get him interested in becoming an editor, so it was worth it to me to lose the AfD case if it got him excited about doing stuff on wikipedia. He had only marginal interest when we created his account a few weeks back. The whole "sock or meatpuppet" thing didn't even cross my mind. So part of guilt is intent, which there was none. If there is anything more I can clarify, let me know. Thanks for being objective, Jason82. Sallicio (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Hi, I saw Sallicio's request for comment on the administrators' noticeboard, and so am commenting (although I am not actually an administrator). I have read Sallicio's side of the story, and am inclined to believe it. May I ask why the above individuals are not? (I ask because I may have missed some relevant point of fact.) --Iamunknown 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing this as a case of naivety with no intent to harm. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions