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.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

UKJ17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

82.38.218.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

UKJ17 created nonsense page Jim Lethbridge, which was quickly flagged for speedy deletion. UKJ17 was deleting the speedy deletion tags, and picked up a couple of warnings for this. 82.38.218.45 then appeared and began deleting the speedy deletion tags. - RJASE1 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A sock-puppet is surely an account; this is what is sometimes called a mock-puppet. The trouble is, it's difficult to tell the difference between that and someone merely not logging in when they edit. As the person wasn't using the device to get round a block, to create the false impression of support at an RFC, and AfD, etc., wouldn't it be better just to ask him to make sure that he logs in when he edits (and, perhaps, to block him for a brief period for persistently removing the speedy notices)? This submission seems needlessly bureacratic and time-consuming. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing when I did the nomination. In this case, the short amount of time between edits to the article by these two accounts made it pretty plain to me that this was an intentional attempt to avoid being blocked due to excessive 'speedy' warnings. I just wanted to nip this behavior in the bud and get it on the record in case of recurrence by the same individual. RJASE1 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Jim Lethbridge has been deleted, UKJ17 has *no* contributions, so I suggest this case be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No activity from UKJ17, so no reason to take action. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]