Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/138.40.153.43 (2nd nomination)

User:138.40.153.43 (2nd nomination)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

RolandR (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

Identical tendentious edits, to those made by already banned sockpuppeteer. Borne out by continued harassment on my talk page, and by remarks on his/her own talk page
 * Evidence

Unblock accepted- don't abuse the rules of this site to enforce your viewpoint you intellectually dishonest fraud. Talk to me directly like a real person or leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwalker400 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 October 2008
 * Comments
 * Jwalker: your account was created today. Unless you have a valid argument, there's no reason to believe that you're not a sock. ~ Troy (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A subsequent unblock request by the still-banned puppetmaster confirms explicitly that this is another puppet. RolandR (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that he's a sock, but this situation strikes me as a bit strange. Hold up on blocking until he replies on his talk page. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "strange" about this? S/he has been blocked for a month for "disruptive and tendentious editing", making an "utterly unacceptable edit", "plac(ing) a comment in the article", "edit warr(ing) over an "original, POV, unsourced addition (in a topic area already under ArbCom restrictions" and then "indulg(ing) in personal attacks" . The blocked puppeteer then admittedly creates a new sock, which repeats all of the same behaviour. And s/he HAS replied, at length, on the talk page, leading another, previously uninvolveed, editor, to comment "Quit blubbering". This editor has made it clear that s/he has no intention of observing WP norms and peactices, and will continue with the same behaviour. Why has the sock not been blocked, and the IP prevented from establishing more socks? RolandR (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Primarily, I'm concerned that the editor has been almost tag-teamed by others. He was blocked for an inappropriate username, sure, but after that it all just turns into an overkill of templating regardless of what he says. I'm not surprised that he's frustrated. I don't agree with his POV pushing or personal attacks, but we took a new editor who did one wrong thing and punished him way too much (in my opinion). You have to realize that we're not training a dog; you teach a dog not to bite by smacking it. Good luck doing the same with a human.
 * Anyway, I realize that you feel he's done enough to deserve this but at least wait for him to reply to my prompt. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read the comment just before yours, deleted by Avraham, you would realise that there is a whole swathe of "editors" whose intent is not to improve Wikipedia, but simply to introduce an extremely partisan POV, to abuse critics of Israel and Zionism, and to bully and harass me and other editors in the hope that we will retire in frustration from this peoject. And then you would not have the gall to accuse me of "tag-teaming" this vandal. The fact is, several anonymous or single-purpose editors (or, more likely, one editor using several accounts) have attempted to introc=duce the same offensive comments into Israel and the apartheid analogy -- including an attack on Black Africans for "stealing" the land in Sourth Africa -- and have been promptly reverted by many different editors who have been working to improve the article. On this occasion, after being teverted by me, by Fieldday-sunday, by J.delanoy and by Tarc, this editor commenced to harangue and abuse me on my talk page, and repeatedly replaced the comments after they were removed. S/he was blocked, and immediately created at least two sockpuppets (one with an inappropriate username attacking me) to continue with this edit war. Immediately after these were blocked, and while the IP was still blocked for a month, this new sockpuppet was created, and again continued with the same pattern of tendentious POV editing, harassment and abuse. Frankly, I am astonished that anyone should attempt to gloss over this, and could view this as simply "a new editor who did one wrong thing". This is a serial vandal and bully, who surely has no place in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if he continues to introduce material against consensus and policy, then that's that and he'll be blocked. However, you don't exactly see anyone explaining why what he is doing is taboo (except the multiple templates and blocks that have been handed out). I'm not saying you're in the wrong, but I still think this could be handled more effectively. Besides, I haven't dealt with him before, so let's see what happens. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Leaving to MoP to decide. This one is a tad stale anyways. Scarian  Call me Pat!  17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)