Wiki143:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01
- 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. 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 deatiled instructions.
User:Infoandru01
- Evidence
Obvious similarity of names, second one created 20:09, 2 May 2006 UTC during 24 hour block of Ndru01, and both editing the same articles to point to a fresh copy of the same content that has been deleted and recreated many times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern gnostic mysticism).
--Cedderstk 01:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comments
Suggest extending block in accordance with WP:BAN? --Cedderstk 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as probable sock evading 3RR ban William M. Connolley 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
????
The user Ndru01 was blocked only for 24 hours, right? So, why are you willing to ban? Furthermore, he is not hiding his real identity, I guess, and also is not using any swearing words. There are dozens of users around whose behaviour is much more violating Wiki's policies, but none ban them, maybe becouse they are Americans? SkySurfer
- Sorry, I meant WP:BLOCK#Expiry times and application and WP:SOCK#Circumventing policy. I'm not suggesting a permanent ban. But you do confirm this is an obvious sockpuppet.
- I am bringing to admins' attention the continued violation of the three revert rule on Gnosticism in modern times using the sockpuppet. This is so the timer can be reset (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Temporarily blocked user Ndru01 evading block). I believe this is proportionate in preventing a (small) edit war.
- I also notice that Infoandru01 has made at least one constructive edit today, although normal policy (first link above) is 'Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently'.
- (Repeated recreation of articles deleted under AfD also supposedly comes under 'vandalism', but I'm not making that an issue, since there are two of you contesting deletion. You can take this issue to Wikipedia:Deletion Review if you really feel strongly about it. I acknowledge some work has been done cleaing the article but it still needs a lot more.)