The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sock puppeteer

Ovlem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

• NotUlsterScots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Dinari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 78.16.227.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Berby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• MiddleEastlands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikipéire_(3rd)#User:Wikipéire (to avoid duplication)

Report submission by

• Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• Special:Contributions/Ovlem
• Special:Contributions/NotUlsterScots
• Special:Contributions/Dinari
• Special:Contributions/78.16.227.225
• Special:Contributions/Berby
• All three accounts appeared around the same time, and have the same edit patterns. They even are editing the same article within minutes to revert other users edits in edit wars. There could be more and I will report more if I see them. User:Ovlem is currently undergoing a 24 hour block for 3RR editing that has just been set, it remains to be seen if any more potential socks appear to take up the slack this leaves (if this is indeed a sockpuppetry case as I suspect.)

Comments

• Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).

• • Comment I was just looking at the odd patterns in this user's (Ovlem) edits when BenWBell opened this sock note. Even if not a sock, (although the evidence would suggest it is) the patterns of Ovlem's edits suggest at least issues with WP:SPA (user singularly removing all refs to "Republic of Ireland" and little else), and WP:STALK (focusing purely on reverting the edits of a single user). Guliolopez (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I can 100% deny the charges of sockpuppetry, those accounts have nothing to do with me. Those other accounts maybe well be socks of each other but again have nothing to do with me. A check user will back that up. Also that stalking accusation is a bit strange. You're looking for something thats not there.Ovlem (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see a check user run on this. I wouldn't be blown over if these accounts were socks of a better known editor, although I'm not suggesting any particular one, as I don't know! The edit histories show a remarkable knowledge of policy, edit summaries etc etcTraditional unionist (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I want this over as soon as possible as both Traditional unionist and User:Ben W Bell have been reverting my good edits as I am a 'suspected sock'. Its quite corrupt. I expect an apology from those two editors when the evidence proves that I am not sock.Ovlem (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None will be forthcoming. The evidence appears damming, and if it is incorrect, suspicions are nonetheless utterly warranted.

What evidence? I am disappointed to hear that. It is a poor reflection of yourself, as an editor and more importantly as a person.

• Most/all of these are surely Wikipéire at work. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Wikipéire_(3rd). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MiddleEastlands' first edit was a revert at Great Britain at the Olympics, supporting Berby and Ovlem in a revert war when Berby had just gone over the 3RR limit. Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone just do a CU and put this to bed, and confirm or deny the allegations here. BigDunc^Talk 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Opened at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ovlem. Guliolopez (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added User:Pureditor to it (in case he is missed when checking for Wikipeire) and another recent case, Bell V Bell (here).

For whatever reason (no-one has explained it to me yet!) I am being accused of being a sock puppet of this editor. I would encourage a checkuser so people can stop bothering me!ThatsGrand (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have linked you to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ovlem#Ovlem, where you have have been suspected, not the Ovlem SSP. Please follow the link.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that thanks.ThatsGrand (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The RFCU case has now been concluded. Please check here for the results. Thanks - Alison ^❤ 05:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]