Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tennis scores 2

User:Tennis scores 2

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk Sign 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

The username is exactly the same. A possible single purpose account as both users have used there userspace as a tennis scores record. Wikipedia is not a webhost. StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk Sign 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence
 * However, as Wikipedia isn't a webhost, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, I know. But the fact that these are the same person is definite (i think). StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk Sign 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragonfly67 gave an interesting reason in his block log for Tennis scores. 
 * Comments
 * +250 edits to userpage and 1 edit to an article = not a useful contributor

Regardless of the merits of this rationale, the same rationale applies to Tennis scores 2. He has just two edits to Alexander the Great, and all other edits are to his userpage. The similarity in names complements the similarity in behavior. These are one person.

That being said, since at least some admins would disagree with Dragonfly's original block, I will seek an outside opinion. My suggestion is that the block is valid and a block-evading sock should not be allowed to continue editing in the same behavior pattern that got him blocked in the first place, but I'm open to a dissenting opinion. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I add, as an aggravating factor, that both of Tennes scores 2's edits to Alexander the Great were reverted by established users on that page. Apparently he introduced an unreliable source. So the net result is that he has zero useful article edits so far. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet were reversed, so I corrected it.  Enigma  message 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we still need one of them blocked. StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk Sign 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reports at SSP do not get immediate attention, so patience is what is required.  Enigma  message 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Very obvious. Indef'd. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions