Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cusop Dingle

– This SPI case is open.

Cusop Dingle

Cusop Dingle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cusop Dingle/Archive.

31 January 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• 81.141.31.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These two accounts collaborated at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Christian Concern with an outcome that appeared to me to be against WP:NPOV. The evidence from the users' contributions is not conclusive, and if there was no connection between the IP editor and User:Cusop Dingle then it will help to clear the air. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• OK, this is silly. For the record, I am not 81.141.31.250, I have no connection with them and no idea who they are. I edit from a stable IP address which is nowhere near the IP.

So why are we here then? 81.141.31.250 posted a concern at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Christian Concern, which is a board I help out at. It so happened that I thought there was some merit in their comments, and went to the article, paring it down to assertions that were duly relevant and verifiable by reliable sources. Subsequent edits by other users have found better sources for some of those assertions and the article is looking better IMHO. User:Fayenatic london didn't like some of my edits and posted a sneaky remark at the board insinuating some connection between me and the IP. I called him on it and now here we are. The only reason FL has launched this accusation, which is thoroughly lacking in any merit, is that I happened to agree with the original poster and, as far as I can tell, FL doesn't. This agreement is what FL chooses to describe by the loaded term "collaborated". FL is wasting their, my and everyone else's time: I shall expect an apology when this is all over. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Apologies for causing offence with my choice of words, and for taking people's time, although I believe the checkuser process only takes a minute. For the record, I have already stated my agreement with three out of four points by the original poster, but CD went further and removed all criticism from the article. This had the appearance of POV editing, and some arguably misleading edit summaries gave rise to a prima facie case. I'd be happy to withdraw this SPI but presumably it should now be left to finish its course. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why FL thinks that repeating his complaints about my editing a certain article will advance this investigation, but I suppose it gives him another venue to repeat these false and unsupported allegations. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---