Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tom Sayle (4)

User:Tom Sayle

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets
 * (openly admitted)
 * (openly admitted)
 * (openly admitted)
 * (openly admitted)


 * Report submission by
 * [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Same behaviour; welcoming self on talk page, awarding self barnstars and awards, notification of having Asperger's, editing some of the same articles/templates as User:Thomas Sales in the same way.
 * Appears to confirm previous identities here
 * Admits to IP vandalism here
 * Confirms all sockpuppets mentioned in this case in this unblock request.


 * Comments
 * Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
 * Notified.

You'd be blocking a range of at least 32k editors, mate.--Supersonic Pokémon (contact me) (global contributions and blocks) (local contributions and logs) (Barnstars) 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: can we block account creation from that IP range? Anyone who wants to create an account can just go through ACC to get one. Or are we talking about an enormous range? [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tom. When will you learn that you are banned from Wikipedia? It doesn't matter how many different names you create. [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I'm blocked, not banned. Also, you did get my message, didn't you?--Supersonic Pokémon (contact me) (global contributions and blocks) (local contributions and logs) (Barnstars) 17:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between 'ban' and 'block' is semantic. I did get your message, and as I replied, RTV explicitly states: "The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just the account. Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalising policy pages is a bad idea, Tom. [ roux  ] [ x ] 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed from the "suspected sock puppets" section as although the user and user talk pages exist, as redirects to, the account does not exist. — Snigbrook 17:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The user pages were deleted as I was editing this page. — Snigbrook 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this still running? Quite frankly, I admitted my puppet status with this edit, and also that I'm trying start afresh.--Supersoniquizard (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tom, you apparently don't understand. You are blocked for being abusive. Several of your edit summaries today are abusive. It doesn't matter how many new names you create, you are blocked from Wikipedia. [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added . Similar behaviour, including the userpage header, an identical SHA-512 commitment (which is highly unlikely to happen by chance), the same box of CSSes, contacting people with the headers "Hello" and "Your bot" etc etc etc etc Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know who Tom Sayle is. I know there are at least three sockpuppeteers in my assigned range of 79.73.xx and 79.74.xx as I created an account because I was pissed off with consistently being autoblocked and finding irrelevant warnings/blocks on my talkpages. As for that SHA-512 commitment, well, thats what you get when you copy and paste stuff from people who were mug enough to leave their account still logged in at a public terminal.--Stereotyper (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And here we go again. For any new SSP patrollers, this is the usual pattern: get exposed, deny it all, then eventually slowly admit the truth. [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only this, but after going through the other socks of this user, one thing you may find useful, is the fact that he does not recognise the account--Stereotyper (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but let me see if I've got this clear: you--a suspected sockpuppet of Tom Sayle--are suggesting that we believe another sockpuppet of Tom Sayle when he says he doesn't think you're a sockpuppet of Tom Sayle? Especially when you are displaying the exact same sort of behaviour as Tom Sayle and all his socks? How stupid do you think we are? [ roux  ] [ x ] 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were until you misunderstood therefore making it obvious, and canadians nearly always are, especially princes. Looks like you haven't read WP:AGF or WP:ATAOAGF.--Stereotyper (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Tom. AGF explicitly states that we don't need to assume good faith when it's been clearly demonstrated that the user is acting in bad faith. Given that you're now doing your usual misquotes of policy, I'm going to find someone to block you. [ roux  ] [ x ] 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to clerks: this has been confirmed by CU here. [ roux  ] [ x ] 04:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed as confirmed by CU. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions