Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deco Da Man

User:Deco Da Man

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

– N96 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * Similar userpage vandalism on User:Chingyhayden. – N96 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

Josh da man was blocked, and Deco Da Man was hit by an autoblock. Obvious sockpuppetry. Both users indeffed.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Comments copied over from Deco Da Man's talk page by Yksin:

Comment to admins from a bystander: I have only "known" Deco Da Man for a couple of days based on a problematic edit he made to an article I've done a lot of work on (see my message to him above about being careful about placing speedy delete tags, & his reply to me on my talk page. I did quite a bit of research on Deco Da Man's edit history before I wrote to him, & I found no reason to disbelieve any of his presentations of himself: he is a 13 year old kid from Australia who is a relative newbie to Wikipedia, has acquainted himself more with fiddling around with his own user pages than with edits out in the big wide realm of Wikipedia & does not seem well-acquainted with Wikipedia policies (which frankly, Deco Da Man, I think you might want to pay some attention to), but at the same time is good-willed & willing to learn from his mistakes. You also might note that his presentations of himself on his main user page were backed up by other information out on the net. For example, a Google search on his real name or on his nom de guerre of Deco Da Man will turn up pages that back up his claims. This is basically a smart kid who probably knows more about computers than I do, even though I work with them all day, but is perhaps a bit lazy about learning about policies & proper deletion prodding, etc.

I was suprised to find him accused of sockpuppetry. On looking at the edits between him, Josh Da Man, & Chingyhayden -- even before reading his explanation above -- I theorized exactly what he claims to have happened: kids engaging in typical kid behavior that in fact was of no harm to anyone. This looks to me rather like a case of forgetting the principle of "be kind to newbies", assume good faith, etc., and seems a case rather of overreaction to simple kid exploration of this community. Again, no harm was done, & there certainly were very few edits to result in such a consequence as indefinite blocking. So basically... I guess you could say I'm an adult (47) editor who has lived with a 13-year old kid, & I'm speaking up to ask you to give this one a break. Regards. --Yksin 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another comment to add: given the patience which all Wikipedians are asked to exercise in cases of even very blatant & disruptive vandalism, with levels of user warnings etc., the swiftness with which these kids were hit with indef blocks on the basis of very few edits & very little warning was pretty darn devastating. And unduly harsh.  And also, thank goodness,  pretty unusual. Particularly after seeing the patience with which a couple of admins dealt with a disruptive editor earlier today... I'm pretty appalled at the harshness exercised here. --Yksin 08:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)