Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SimpsonsFan08

User:SimpsonsFan08

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

&mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

MrWP registered recently, and placed a help tag on his talk page, claiming not to understand how Wikipedia works. SimpsonsFan08 replied (diff) no more than a minute later.
 * Evidence

SimpsonsFan08 then made this edit which appears to have been intended for creation under the MrWP account, since this edit was reverted and replaced by MrWP with this edit. MrWP proceeded to give SimpsonsFan08 a barnstar (diff) and nominate him for adminship here

Obvious socking here. Reccomending indef block of MrWP and 6 months for SimpsonsFan08.  MBisanz  talk 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * This message was intended for another user. It was as a thank you, as I forgot, to say thanks for the credit for my barnstar graphic design. SimpsonsFan08   talk 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, I have no authority over MrWP. I liked to be thanked. Block him if you want. SimpsonsFan08   talk 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support the six month ban for SimpsonsFan08. The "misplaced post" argument is not convincing, as the message never showed up anywhere else. It seems more likely that the poster forgot which account he was editing from at the time. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Blatant sock, the messages were 2 mins apart and word-for-word the same (except for a bit added to the beginning) - a 6 month block sound good, no need to wait and see what the autoblock does. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of the more egregious examples of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT puppetry I've come across. The block on MrWP stands. Endorse that completely. However, surprisingly, I don't support 6 months for SimpsonsFan though. While completely subverting the system, I think he feels/felt his position as an admin would be beneficial. I suggest a month. I trust after that expires there will be no motivation to do anything like this again. Dishing out the barnstars is eyerolling as well. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The autoblock has caught Simpson by the way. Yet, I do think this is an example of gross stupidity, not anything malicious. I really don't think it warrants a 6-month block. It hasn't been used to vandalise articles, nor has it been used really for disruptive edits; only for a naive and doomed to fail attempt at vote-stacking. If Simpson owns up to it then a week should suffice. Woody (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User has confessed. Recommend reducing block to a week. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am rescinding my 1 month recommendation. I think 72 hours would be more appropriate now, as I am assuming good faith on his contriteness. He's learned. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 72 hours, a week, doesn't matter, I'm fine with whatever. This ended a lot better than it could have, especially for the first time I've ever reported suspected sockpuppetry. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * indef blocked, waiting for comments on SimpsonsFan08  MBisanz  talk 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reblocked with autoblock enabled to see if it catches Simpsonsfan08. John Reaves 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See diff Autoblock seems to have worked. Woody (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have blocked for 72 hours. Woody (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)