Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mailcpathetsang


 * 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:Mailcpathetsang

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Vegaswikian 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Comments

From User:Vegaswikian:


 * User:Hihivegaswiki appears to be a sock puppet created by User:Mailcpathetsang. Apparently this all started when I speedy deleted Professional Information Security Association as spam after a nomination by User:Vgranucci.  The article was recreated by User:Mailcpathetsang and speedy deleted by User:WJBscribe as A7.  User:WJBscribe then restored it and moved it to a full AfD discussion on Articles for deletion/Professional Information Security Association.  After the deletion from the AfD discussion, several articles I have worked on were nominated for speedy deletions.  When warning were posted on the talk page User talk:Mailcpathetsang, a second account appeared and the only edits were speedy deletes of articles I have worked on.

From User:Mailcpathetsang:


 * User:Vegaswikian's submissions are accusing sock puppet from Mailcpathetsang and the evidence cannot and should not point to the fact that Mailcpathetsang is performing sock puppet. The deletion that Vegaswikian mentioned has an abnormality. Every deletion of a page should be given a 5-day discussion but Mailcpathetsang's earlier submitted case was deleted much shorter (with 2 days only) without a proper right for discussion Articles for deletion/Professional Information Security Association. The arguments FOR deletion can be summarized in 2 ways: blatant advertising (which that page has proved otherwise) and notability (with multi-citations from different sources). Despite both arguments were disproved by facts submitted earlier, the page was nonetheless deleted without proper discussion within the time allowed. As the onus of proof lies with Mailcpathetsang, unnecessary time and effort has been spent in substantiating a valid case rather than building more materials for public interests on to the page.


 * In above, Vegaswikian 's links only point to those with comments added. Vegaswikian 's comments only provide the evidences which are not relevant to these false accusations, namely only the speedy deletions that more than one users have submitted. If someone doesn't like one page then it is likely that another person would have the same problem. Representing Mailcpathetsang it is submitted that one user cannot control the actions of another user. The case is a mere coincidence and circumstantial and not a case of collaboration, as accussed by Vegaswikian.


 * Mailcpathetsang is not tied with Hihivegaswiki in any way. Mailcpathetsang has no knowledge of the existence of Hihivegaswiki at all. User:Vegaswikian's argument needs to submit further proofs that User:Hihivegaswiki is directly linked to User:Mailcpathetsang despite the overlapped attempts of similar pages. It is apparent that Vegaswikian's comments tries to block legitimate uses of Wikipedia by Mailcpathetsang.


 * It is hoped that Vegaswikian's future comments should provide stronger evidences and proofs in this/these accusations or any further unproved accusations that further wastes unnecessary time and effort for Mailcpathetsang.Mailcpathetsang


 * Conclusions
 * Obvious sockpuppetry. Hihivegaswiki is indef blocked, Mailcpathetsang is warned. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)