Content deleted Content added
→28 May 2010: fix |
It is now clear there is no intention of being constructive. |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::The user does not appear to have ambitions of being a helpful contributor (I think the "People Against Wikipedia" notes make that clear), and most of the vandalism reversions have been done with uncivil edit summaries. I think a sockpuppetry block on the second sock is warranted, but I agree that it should be accompanied with an invitation to request an unblock with the main account and contribute constructively. -- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's Fool]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Lear's Fool|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lear's Fool|contribs]])</small> 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
::The user does not appear to have ambitions of being a helpful contributor (I think the "People Against Wikipedia" notes make that clear), and most of the vandalism reversions have been done with uncivil edit summaries. I think a sockpuppetry block on the second sock is warranted, but I agree that it should be accompanied with an invitation to request an unblock with the main account and contribute constructively. -- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's Fool]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Lear's Fool|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lear's Fool|contribs]])</small> 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Yes. I was doing a good deal of assuming good faith, because there were some sort of constructive-looking edits. However, the editor's subsequent editing history has made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of being constructive at all. I no longer think there is any point in even inviting them to co-operate: this is clearly a vandalism only editor, and the sooner we get rid of them the better. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments |
;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments |
||
{{RFCU | None | No2ndletter| endorse}} |
{{RFCU | None | No2ndletter| endorse}} |
Revision as of 14:34, 28 May 2010
HerbEA
- HerbEA (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA/Archive.
28 May 2010
- Suspected sockpuppets
- HerbEA1 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- HerbEA2 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- HerbEA3 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- HerbEA4 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- BrehHaha (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs)
Similar username, same MO. Adds vandalism relating to a group called "People against Wikipedia". -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
Left a message on my talk page using a derogatory word and abetting on an anonymous IP's vandalism. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am adding User:HerbEA2. Similar user name, similar user page. This account has made some useful edits, unlike the others, but also some unconstructive edits. However, it is clearly the same user avoiding the block, so should we block this one? If we want to give the user another chance then it would make sense to invite the user to ask for a lifting of the original block, rather than continuing to use a block-evading sockpuppet account. This would be my preference. If, on the other hand, we do not wish to give another chance, since it seems a new user will appear every time one is blocked, we could do with an IP check and possible block on account creation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The user does not appear to have ambitions of being a helpful contributor (I think the "People Against Wikipedia" notes make that clear), and most of the vandalism reversions have been done with uncivil edit summaries. I think a sockpuppetry block on the second sock is warranted, but I agree that it should be accompanied with an invitation to request an unblock with the main account and contribute constructively. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I was doing a good deal of assuming good faith, because there were some sort of constructive-looking edits. However, the editor's subsequent editing history has made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of being constructive at all. I no longer think there is any point in even inviting them to co-operate: this is clearly a vandalism only editor, and the sooner we get rid of them the better. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The user does not appear to have ambitions of being a helpful contributor (I think the "People Against Wikipedia" notes make that clear), and most of the vandalism reversions have been done with uncivil edit summaries. I think a sockpuppetry block on the second sock is warranted, but I agree that it should be accompanied with an invitation to request an unblock with the main account and contribute constructively. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: None (Unknown code )
Clerk endorsed If possible for an IP block. It seems this is a repeating pattern. Elockid (Talk) 11:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Moved Merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA1 as HerbEA was the first suspected sockmaster. Elockid (Talk) 11:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)