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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Wren21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99Walkerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

• recreation by 99Walkerman of AFD-deleted article created by WOverstreet

• Wren21 (talk · contribs) most edits to WOverstreet-created articles
• recreation by Wren21 of PROD-deleted article created by WOverstreet
  • This is over one week old, so not actionable, and included here for informational purposes.
• 128.164.213.231 (talk · contribs) most edits to WOverstreet-created articles
  • This is over one week old, so not actionable, and included here for informational purposes.

• WOverstreet has been indef blocked. Sock puppets being used to evade block.

Comments

This is going to need a checkuser, so I will ask for one. The anecdotal evidence is strong but not overpowering. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The last deleted revisions by WOverstreet match exactly what his socks submitted, despite the fact that their user creation logs show the accounts were created after the first deletions, respectively. Both blocked indef. Checkuser unnecessary. WOverstreet would do well to stop creating sockpuppets and follow our sockpuppetry policy. If he does that, he might get unblocked and welcomed back in a month or two. If not, his socks will continue to be blocked and their articles deleted. It's up to him.--chaser - t 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---