|
|
| Line 49: |
Line 49: |
|
Blocked accordingly. <sub>[[User:Gb|GB]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|C]]</sup> 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
Blocked accordingly. <sub>[[User:Gb|GB]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|C]]</sup> 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<center>The accusations of [[crime]] in <u>public space</> are judged by due process of [[law]] and in courts of law where this 'case' will be moved.</center> |
|
<center>The accusations of [[crime]] in <u>public space</u> are judged by due process of [[law]] and in courts of law where this 'case' will be moved.</center> |
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
- 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
Daynal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Rldavisiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Rldavisiv responded to a cluebot warning for blanking two articles by stating that he/she had started these articles. Article histories (here and here show that both articles were begun by indef-blocked user Daynal, who is using his/her talkpage for a WP:SOAPBOX of one sort or another. Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I gave the original user the opportunity to rename his account by unblocking him per his unblock request. Instead of filing for a user name change, he continued editing articles that are directly connected to his publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. In all likelihood the user could have resumed his editing with minimal objection, but now it appears that, after my reblocking him for the aforementioned actions, he went ahead and created a new account for himself. I do not see it as typical sock behavior, as there is some transparency, but his philosophical disagreements with how we work, which are completely absent in his private correspondence with me, are here evident, and suggest that he may choose to operate under his own rules and disregard the community's agreed-upon policies and standards. I'm uncertain how to respond to him now, as I feel completely deceived. For now, I intend to make public any further email correspondence of his with me for the sake of transparency; he would do well to instead correspond with all Wikipedians within the same framework as the rest of us. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse CobaltBlueTony's comments, especially regarding Daynal's potential for ignoring our community norms. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively.
Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts.
It is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts.
Sockpuppet
This is a 'sockpuppet account', however, the 'hand' can easily be found here
--75.104.157.17 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free intelligence is endowed with the potential for violating norms. If such were not the case, meaningful discussions of normativity could not exist.
--75.104.157.17 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Blocked accordingly. GBT/C 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The accusations of crime in public space are judged by due process of law and in courts of law where this 'case' will be moved.
