A new user registered yesterday, Neetandtidy and immediately has become involved in heated discussions at articles which has seen another editor (Gravyring) blocked. The user has already confirmed that they have previously edited here using a different account. On seeing that this new user was spelling my username incorrectly some alarm bells starting ringing and after a quick search I came across this edit of one of the very few people who has gotten my username wrong. I then had a look at this new users contribution today for other signs of MMN MO (policy and swearing) and it wasn't hard to come up with...
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Are we now penalizing users for familiarizing themselves with wiki policy? This is hardly a qualifying trait of sockpuppetry and nor is swearing. It may be a tad uncivil but then so is this edit summary [3]. 212.183.128.82 (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who this is, but the following accounts are the same:
Over recent weeks, two serial block evading sock abusers MickMacnee and Factocop have been disrupting article covered by The Troubles Arbitration. The most recent CU uncovered quite a list of socks. Two other accounts were also blocked as a result of their disruptive edits, Gravyring and Hackneyhound, with both accounts being linked together. Hackneyhound was blocked by Elen of the Roads for blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet, outlining the rational here. A number of unblock requests have been declined, by Tnxman307 here, followed by The Blade of the Northern Lights here who found the behavioral evidence rather convincing and also by Boing! said Zebedee here. The editor has had to be told a number of times not to use their talk page to attack other editors, with me being one of them I should note. These editors have been linked to Factocop. Here are some of the edits of the most active socks:
IP confirmed in talk page posts. [14][15]
Small selection to give you the idea.
As a result of the constant sock abuse one of the target articles has had to be page protected on three occasions.
I was compiling a list of the number of socks on this article when this latest editor showed up. I would be grateful if you could have a look. The only concern I have with this latest sock is that it is blindly obvious, if you know what I mean. Possibly too obvious. Thanks in advance,
Regards, Domer48'fenian' 20:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.