Misplaced Pages

:Suspected sock puppets/Deanrules: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:11, 14 February 2008 editAllstarecho (talk | contribs)Rollbackers41,096 edits create case  Revision as of 16:50, 14 February 2008 edit undoArchtransit (talk | contribs)4,173 edits →User:DeanrulesNext edit →
Line 21: Line 21:
;Comments ;Comments
*] created the article on October 28, 2007 initially as a serious article but has since taken to vandalizing the article under both names. *] created the article on October 28, 2007 initially as a serious article but has since taken to vandalizing the article under both names.

Both users have similar names. Both users have vandalism edits in the same article. However, a conclusion of sockpuppetry is not a complete certainty. One of the users could conceivably be trying to pretend that he/she was a sock in order to block the other user. In view of lack of conclusive evidence that the two users are definitely socks but clear demonstration of vandalism, any prevention of disruption should cite vandalism, not sockpuppetry. ] (]) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


;Conclusions ;Conclusions
Case closed. Consider filing complaint about vandalism and/or warn editors using vandalism templates. ] (]) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)




Revision as of 16:50, 14 February 2008

User:Deanrules

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Deanrules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Deanhowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

- ✰ALLSTAR✰ 11:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence
Comments
  • User:Deanrules created the article on October 28, 2007 initially as a serious article but has since taken to vandalizing the article under both names.

Both users have similar names. Both users have vandalism edits in the same article. However, a conclusion of sockpuppetry is not a complete certainty. One of the users could conceivably be trying to pretend that he/she was a sock in order to block the other user. In view of lack of conclusive evidence that the two users are definitely socks but clear demonstration of vandalism, any prevention of disruption should cite vandalism, not sockpuppetry. Archtransit (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Case closed. Consider filing complaint about vandalism and/or warn editors using vandalism templates. Archtransit (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)