Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BACON EXPLOSION/Archive

Report date September 30 2009, 02:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Given both the edits and the username combined, I'm just about 100% sure that TSCotCM is one and the same as which is in turn a sock of BACON EXPLOSION.  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs, review) 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs, review)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Why would such a thing be relevant? So what if another account is extremely similar, this account is still as clean and pure as a dove. No vandalization, or anything else that would warrant a ban or a block. Just as you can't throw the Son of a criminal in Jail for being related to a felon, you shouldn't ban an account for purely being similar to another account. You can monitor edits, ban if something illegal shows up, but seriously, this "pre-emptive strike" is just nonsense. Hypothetically speaking, even if the same person behind this account was behind the other extremely similar account, shouldn't the clean, markless record hold weight against fears of evil to come? Isn't rehabilitating and accepting a former vandal more important than preventing a possible re-occurrence? Why should such a person be continually punished for past misdeeds, instead of being re-accepted? These people deserve good faith, not bans. A warning? Totally in order once an offense has occurred. A ban? totally in order if account has multiple offenses through conducted by its editors. However, why allow these people to re-edit once their bans wear off if the turn around, create a similar account, and work? I have read the Its The Cookie Monster's page, talk page history and contributions. The only issue is the possible violation of what wikipedia is not (a social networking site). This is more than deserving of a slap on the wrist, and a warning. The BACON EXPLOSION account also shows no wrong, and I am not sure why that account was banned either! The log says "abusing multiple accounts". Neither the BACON EXPLOSION page or the Its the Cookie monster show or have shown any evidence of this. But saying that they did, why would that matter? Why have limited block times (eg. 6 months) for IP's creation of accounts if its illegal to have an account if you have been a vandal at any time? By this system, it would be impossible to overturn a new leaf. Therefore, the block of BACON EXPLOSION makes no sense, the block of Its the Cookie Monster makes no sense, and finally, my proposed block makes no sense by extension. Thank you for allowing my to support my own case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * User is advised to request unblock under the original account if he's looking for a new start. Nathan  T 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions