Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ceauntay

User:Ceauntay

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

--Snigbrook ( talk ) 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User and user talk pages are being used for creating articles. had a similar user talk page and was blocked for using multiple accounts with a warning for using Wikipedia as a personal web hosting service. The first two do not have user pages but their usernames and contributions are similar to some of the other socks that are already blocked, for example Special:Contributions/Ceauntay36. More information on Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence

I think that the usernames which are practically identical, are a big giveaway, but the UserCompare results are here, anyway Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  14:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * At first glance this is not abusive sockpuppetry. It's just somebody who is using our system in such an unusual way it is hard to figure it out. I'd say it was innocent if it weren't for the fact that the indefinite block of User:Ceauntay back in March seemed to make no impression at all. He hasn't paid enough attention to notice that others are unhappy with his activities. I left him a note at User talk:Ceauntay43. Of course, if he wants to work on several article drafts at the same time he can use subpages in his user space. There is no need for separate accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's clearish that the account's aren't abusive, I'm just stating that they almost certainly belong to the main account. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They may be "article drafts" but they are not notable or verifiable, and would be deleted if they were in article space. These pages are not going to be valid encyclopedia articles.  Also the user has been blocked before and has created the new accounts for block evasion. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (In addition to the block for use of multiple accounts, another account, has been blocked for hoax articles.) --Snigbrook ( talk ) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just noticed Snigbrook's posting of the previous ANI thread, in the Evidence section. Also Ceauntay's RFCU, helpfully linked from 'rfcu,' above. I'd support an indefinite block of all these accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions


 * Blocked 39-44 for sockpuppetry. 37 and 38 may have valid contributions, and weren't used for the "Jane Hoop" nonsense.  Someone else may want to check those more closely. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All accounts are indef-blocked, including 37 and 38. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)