Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spookee
- 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 sockpuppeteer
Spookee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Sevenneed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
KelleyCook (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Comments
Fairly obvious sockpuppet. Only two articles are edited by Sevenneed both of which Spookee has been warned about over 3RR over. They are the same wording. THES - QS World University Rankings and Wi-Fi.
Support Concur with KelleyCook. This is about as cut & dried as it gets. This is obviously an account created by the same user after being notified of WP:3RR to maliciously act against Wikipedia policy. User should be notified about Wikipedia policy, blocked for a short time, and labeled accordingly as a sock. — BQZip01 — talk 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked both Spookee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Sevenneed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours for violating the WP:3RR rule at Wi-Fi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm pretty sure that one of them needs an indefinite block, but I'll wait to see if the vandalism returns before indefinitely blocking one of them. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent call Elkman. I concur with the assessment (WP:BITE) — BQZip01 — talk 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spookee is the obvious master. Sevenneed should be indefed an obvious sock in vio of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely possessing a separate account is not a violation of WP:SOCK. As a relatively new user, I'd cut him a little slack on this one (I oppose the indef block). Giving fair notice and waiting for a further violation seems prudent here. Notification to all that there exists a sockpuppet and a master account can be immediate. I'm not saying this person should be given the keys to the kingdom, but they should be given a chance to reform and a zero to indef block on the first offense seems unduly harsh. — BQZip01 — talk 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. (usually I agree with you). He's using the second account to game the system. The master account isn't all that new, only the sock is. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize the account is "old", but with less than 100 edits, I think the 24-hour block would be adequate given that this is his first blockable offense. Just because I recommend it be done that way doesn't mean it needs to be done that way. If this were a clear repeat violation of policy, the penalties could certainly be much higher. (IMHO, a warning should probably be issued first, but a 24-hour block isn't that bad and still sends a message). — BQZip01 — talk 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. (usually I agree with you). He's using the second account to game the system. The master account isn't all that new, only the sock is. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusion
The second account, used for gaming 3RR, was blocked indefinitely. The user is free to continue using the main account. Jehochman Talk 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]