- 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
- Lord Mordley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- LordMordley82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Lord Mordley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Two Three SPA accounts with almost identical names. It doesn't get any more obvious than this.
- Comments
Yes, which is why there's no point in opening a report in cases like this. Two accounts who are obviously the same new user, but no abuse. More than likely it's a newbie who forgot the password to his first account.--chaser - t 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm restoring and refiling this so another admin can have a look. Removing the AFD tag [1] is more abuse than I initially saw, but I expect these accounts to all go inactive by the time the AFD closes. Block? Or just leave them tagged?--chaser - t 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has become very clear during the course of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Aggleton, the article these accounts created and edited, Jen Aggleton, is a deliberate hoax article, carefully constructed to appear as a legitimate article. This seems to me to qualify as vandalism and deliberate disruption. I think that all three LordMorley accounts should be indef blocked. Nsk92 (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was suggested at the AfD that this is a returning banned user, but I'm not sure what that was based on. Even if it is, they will probably move on to another new name, if they haven't already, seeing as they've been "caught". On the other hand, I don't see any harm in simply blocking all three and seeing if they ever bother to come back and appeal the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Jen Aggleton has been deleted as CSD G3 (vandalism). I still think it is a good idea to indef block all three LordMorley accounts, as a preventive measure, so that they are not used for further disruption. Nsk92 (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Not too concerned about the "sockpuppetry" itself, but due to the creation of what is clearly a hoax article, and the unclear relationship with User:Boshinoi (who appears to be a banned user or an imitator of a banned user, and who showed up to comment at the AFD), I think it prudent, per Nsk92, to block all three indef as vandalism only accounts, to prevent further mischief (at least by these three accounts) later on. --barneca (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, blocking indef is valid even if there is no relationship to Boshinoi; but the possibility of a relationship is a reason to bother to go thru the motions of blocking inactive accounts, rather than just leave it alone. --barneca (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]