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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Circuit Judge ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Auroranorth ( sign) 08:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence

Circuit Judge is unquestionably a sockpuppet of Porcupine. He has admitted to this ( [1] [2]) and says that he will use it only occasionally during his ban (he didn't - it was in use all the time - see [3]).

Comments

• Aside from the deletion notice I added above, it's 'in use all the time' because it's less than 3 days old and I'm trying to set it up the same as my main account.-- Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• User:Auroranorth-where is this statement that it will only be used seldom? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• User:Circuit Judge/Porcupine--Yes, I know there are legit cases of sock use, but there's enough here to warrant looking into. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Conclusions

Closed by nom.-- Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Reopened pending input from User:Martinp23. It is a major COI violation to close a case on yourself. Porcupine/Circuit Judge--Do not do this again. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

closed by nom, not by subject... Orderinchaos 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Uh, no it wasn't, Porcupine/Circuit Judge closed it, see [4], Auroranorth was the nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

See the link I added in the diff you just showed. Auroranorth expressed an intention to close it, I just helped out. Anyway, it's closed now, so stop editing it!! :-) Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

On consideration I agree with Rlevse on this one - Aurora was more than capable of closing it himself, but did not opt to. Apologies to Rlevse on my part for the confusion. Orderinchaos 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Porcupine asked me to block his account on IRC - the ultimate, mutual aim being to have him stop editing until 20th January. It saddens me greatly to see that one week later, he has already got a new account and is using it rather extensively (or so the contribs say). If one is blocked and really wants to revert vandalism, then editing from an IP will work, as will waiting for 5 or so minutes for another patroller to pick it up. Porcupine has put me in a difficult situation with this. He isn't really making a violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK, yet he is violating an agreement I thought I had with him, and him with himself. I'd suggest that he speak to me on IRC ASAP, and that this SSP report be closed in the meantime. Mart inp23 12:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Closed wiht no further action taken. Even I can't see any WP:SOCK violation per sé. It is just unfortunate that Porcupine got dragged in a mud-slinging contest by Auroranorth. — Edokter • Talk • 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply