Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spookee

User:Spookee

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

KelleyCook (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

and and
 * Evidence

Fairly obvious sockpuppet. Only two articles are edited by Sevenneed both of which Spookee has been warned about over 3RR over. They are the same wording. THES - QS World University Rankings‎ and Wi-Fi.
 * Comments

Support Concur with KelleyCook. This is about as cut & dried as it gets. This is obviously an account created by the same user after being notified of WP:3RR to maliciously act against Wikipedia policy. User should be notified about Wikipedia policy, blocked for a short time, and labeled accordingly as a sock. — BQZip01 — talk 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked both and  for 24 hours for violating the WP:3RR rule at .  I'm pretty sure that one of them needs an indefinite block, but I'll wait to see if the vandalism returns before indefinitely blocking one of them.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent call Elkman. I concur with the assessment (WP:BITE) — BQZip01 —  talk 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spookee is the obvious master. Sevenneed should be indefed an obvious sock in vio of WP:SOCK — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merely possessing a separate account is not a violation of WP:SOCK. As a relatively new user, I'd cut him a little slack on this one (I oppose the indef block). Giving fair notice and waiting for a further violation seems prudent here. Notification to all that there exists a sockpuppet and a master account can be immediate. I'm not saying this person should be given the keys to the kingdom, but they should be given a chance to reform and a zero to indef block on the first offense seems unduly harsh. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. (usually I agree with you). He's using the second account to game the system. The master account isn't all that new, only the sock is. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize the account is "old", but with less than 100 edits, I think the 24-hour block would be adequate given that this is his first blockable offense. Just because I recommend it be done that way doesn't mean it needs to be done that way. If this were a clear repeat violation of policy, the penalties could certainly be much higher. (IMHO, a warning should probably be issued first, but a 24-hour block isn't that bad and still sends a message). — BQZip01 —  talk 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusion

The second account, used for gaming 3RR, was blocked indefinitely. The user is free to continue using the main account. Jehochman Talk 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)