| Revision as of 16:50, 14 February 2008 editArchtransit (talk | contribs)4,173 edits →User:Deanrules← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:52, 18 February 2008 edit undoRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →User:Deanrules: archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{sspa}} | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| ;Suspected sockpuppeteer | ;Suspected sockpuppeteer | ||
Revision as of 01:52, 18 February 2008
- 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.
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
- Per history of Sovereign Harbour
- Vandalism by User:Deanhowell: here, here, here, here and here
- Vandalism by User:Deanrules: here
- 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)