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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

88.109.195.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.111.69.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- Fyslee / talk 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See also:

• Earlier AN/I report
• Talk: Circumcision

It looks like we have a pretty obvious case of block evasion and sockpuppetry. After serious edit warring and insulting other editors, User:Signsolid gets repeated warnings, which he promptly deletes, but finally stays quiet. An IP from England then appears using his same odd arguments and edit wars until blocked for 24 hours. Another IP from the same place appears less than 24 hours later (a block evasion) with the same odd arguments and continues the edit war. Then Signsolid reappears and continues his deletion attempts against consensus.

An administrator also has the same concerns, which were treated with disdain (twice) and the admin insulted. Signsolid then went ahead and ignored those warnings and edited against consensus yet again.

While deletion of comments and warnings from one's own user talk page is considered evidence that they have been read, this user seems to be intent on ignoring and hiding them, which is not collaborative behavior, and thus violates the spirit of Wikipedia. His attitude towards his own deletion of a warning was this insult to the warning administrator:

• Do I care about what you think? No. Signsolid (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC) [1][reply]

I strongly suspect that Signsolid has used two IPs to evade a block and continue an edit war against consensus and against warnings from other editors. Please perform a WP:RFCU, then block the user indefinitely and block the user's IPs if there is confirmation of abuse. This form of abuse is especially egregious and needs to be stopped. The fact that Signsolid returned and continued to edit war in spite of clear warnings indicates that preventive action is necessary to avoid repetition of this disruptive behavior.

This report is being filed with the encouragement of admin LessHeard vanU:

• As far a Signsolid, I think an WP:SSP report including that account should be made - as I have already indicated to Signsolid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) [2][reply]

This report includes much from a discussion at the circumcision talk page found here and here.

Comments

I have notified the involved party/parties. -- Fyslee / talk 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of this case, one IP has continued the edit war by deleting against consensus. [3] -- Fyslee / talk 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• I have blocked Signsolid for 24 hours, it's obvious those IPs are him. The autoblock should take them out of the game for 24 hours (which is as long as I would've been willing to block them for). Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---