Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA/Archive

28 May 2010
Similar username, same MO. Adds vandalism relating to a group called "People against Wikipedia". -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs) 09:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Evidence submitted by   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

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)
 * Comments by other users


 * 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 &#124; 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)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

If possible for an IP block. It seems this is a repeating pattern.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 11:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved Merged from Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA1 as HerbEA was the first suspected sockmaster.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 11:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

✅. Couldn't find any sleepers, and ranges are too busy to be blocked. J.delanoy gabs adds 01:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

All accounts tagged and are already blocked.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)