Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Clamorformore

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.

User:Clamorformore

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Clamorformore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Uscrob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Nikfranklehrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Nataliyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); KM2studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Sharvimj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Smeag91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Voodoorex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Prescott B.‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Added an argument for keeping to the afd... hours after the page had been deleted)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Blatant (and dreadfully amateurish) vote stuffing attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Jones

Comments

Seems to be well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry. It took me three tries to make a comment because of the disruptive edits causing an "edit conflict." Several socks were created within 10 minutes of each other.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a huge fan of Alexis Jones as well as Survivor and I'm sure the other people who want to keep her bio are as well. Who are you to say she is not newsworthy? Do you know how many people become stars over night? Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't an influential member of contemporary society. What is your personal vendetta against her? How does it benefit you to try to prove she isn't famous? Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to improve your life rather than attacking hers? Maybe you could use one of her empowerment lectures. I can't wait until she blows up even more and this whole thing shame slaps you across the face. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Con Amor,

-Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscrob (talk • contribs) 08:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If she does something notable, then the page can be recreated. No big deal. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the Alexis Jones discussion is irrelevant here. This page is for dealing with the sockpuppet allegations. Everyone of the socks should be banned, with a stiff block for the puppeteer.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You actually missed a few. There were two or three others who edited the article and talk page with arguments for keeping the page but didn't make it to the afd. It also might not hurt to include Lexijones1 (talk · contribs), who created the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Patent socks - passes the duck test so spectacularly it's almost insulting (leaving aside the fact that the comment above is insulting). I'd advocate blocking the lot of them for abuse of multiple accounts, and would have done it already if I wasn't on my public account... _{The public face of GB}^T/C 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sockpuppets blocked apart from Voodoorex, who doesn't appear to correlate with the other users. However if they do continue with the same trend then feel free to bring back here. Master blocked one week. Rudget | talk 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]