Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Codeplowed (2nd)


 * 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.

User:Codeplowed

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Vagary 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * User:Codeplowed was recently blocked for sockpuppet use. Two new accounts are continuing his editing patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagary (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 May 2007


 * Concur.  Diffs:  and  show the same disruptive pattern as the blocked accounts. Those diffs are the only edits so far from two new accounts created immediately following the block of Codeplowed & sockpuppets.  I am an uninvolved third-party who responded to the initial alert at WP:WQA.   --Parzival418 Hello 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Please note there is no problem with the behavior of User:Vagary. The sub-section on the talk page at Talk:DeVry University was placed there by the blocked COI SPA puppetmaster account. User:Vagary's report here and his editing is in good faith as corraborated by multiple good faith editors on that talk page.  I'm mentioning this only because of the misleading title that appears in the evidential diffs.   Part of the blocked user's actions were to attack various editors, including Vagary;  this is just one small example. --Parzival418 Hello 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A checkuser is unnecessary. These are clearly throwaway trolling accounts that appeared in support of known puppeteer Codeplowed the moment he was blocked. They are obvious and blatant socks, and I have blocked them indefinitely. Furthermore, since these accounts appeared at a time when Codeplowed's confirmed IP was blocked, it is likely that a checkuser would be inconclusive, which would only prompt indignant declarations of innocence from Codeplowed. Hesperian 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Socks already blocked by Hesperian (and for what it's worth, I fully agree, obvious throwaway socks), no reason to leave this one open. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)