Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PennyLane100
- 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
PennyLane100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Dylanharvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
But|seriously|folks 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I believe this sock was created to support the user's efforts at Nathaniel Street-West. PennyLane100 has no edits unrelated to this article. Dylanharvey spent about 15 minutes on other articles, making 5 edits. All of the rest are related to Nathaniel Street-West.
DH was created about three hours before PL100 left this message on my user talk page defending his editing of Nathaniel Street-West. That was the first edit PL100 made after I tagged Nathaniel Street-West for COI issues, and also PL100's first edit in about three weeks.
A day later, we have this as DH's 4th ever contrib, claiming he just happened to notice what was going on to one of his favorite Wikipedia articles and supporting PL100's editing. Since then, PL100 and DH have been backing each other up on the article's talk page.
Both PL100 and DH share a distinctive style of writing, including lengthy paragraphs and the unusual misconception that talk page notes should be preceded by a "title". See [1] and [2]. They also both erroneously believe that I prodded the article, nominated it for deletion and made other comments, suggesting they do not understand how the page history works.
I wouldn't care so much, except that both PL100 and DH have now expressed opinions, in their similar and distinctive styles, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Street-West. Ordinarily, I would have blocked DH as a sock by now myself based on the quack test. I am uncomfortable doing that because of my direct involvement with the article, so I am presenting it here for review. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Totally agree with BSF and kudos for recusing yourself. Dylanharvey is indef blocked and PennyLane100 warned not to do this again. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
