258:. To summarize the report, I explain why I think it's a case of sock puppetry; Bobby999 was a vandalism-only account that I blocked, and a few months later a similar user name, Bobby998, appears and begins contributing constructively. To make sure the two accounts aren't the same, I suggest that Check User be done on both accounts to verify that Bobby998 is (or isn't) a sockpuppet of Bobby999. After it is approved and performed, if Check User verifies the two accounts are of the same IP address, I block Bobby998 indefinitely because sock puppetry is not tolerated on Knowledge. If Check User verifies that the two accounts are not of the same IP address, it doesn't mean it's not a case of sock puppetry. Bobby999 still could've switched IP addresses, but since there is no evidence of it, Bobby998 is not blocked and can continue editing Knowledge. If Bobby998 eventually begins vandalizing, I deal with it like I would any vandal. If Bobby998 is indefinitely blocked and a Bobby997 appears, then I know it's probably a case of sock puppetry.
1051:
account from a previously blocked user from contributing makes sense. There are, of course, situations where a rigid application is necessary, if we've moved from blocks into bans, either community or arbitration committee, then it's the user and not the account that isn't permitted to edit, and when you're looking at someone who has been banned, rather than a simple account that was blocked for vandalising a half dozen articles, there's almost always a very good reason to block any and all new accounts immediately. There's also practical reasons for not enforcing unblock requests on a previous account, it's not unusual for passwords to be forgotten, no e-mail addresses used (unless we're now enforcing the use of an e-mail address with accounts, it's been that long since I've registered an account) so password retrieval can take place.
865:- I agree that one month of heavy editing does not give the experience that speading out the editing would give. I think the lack of experience is shown in the answers to the questions. The original block v ban mistake, the topic ban v ban, and a editor who has a similar name to a blocked vandal that is editing constructively should not be subjected to a sockpuppet investigation. There is no basis to suspect other than a similar username. I do not think you are ready at this time.
160:
and if necessary I will delete them. In addition to all this, I will patrol
Requests for page protection and protect pages that are experiencing a high level of vandalism. I understand that there must be quite a number of vandalism edits to an article before it can be permanently protected. I also understand that articles that are going through DYK and ITN may deserve temporary semi-protection, and if necessary I will grant it.
885:. Only 1 month of real editing experience, and that's nowhere near long enough. Candidate has done some impressive work in that time, and I feel sure that a future RfA will succeed after they get some deeper and wider experience in various areas of Knowledge policy. I'd suggest giving it another 6 months and then think again.
159:
I intend to continue to deal with vandalism by patrolling recent changes. However, if I am made an administrator, I will also keep an eye on
Administrator intervention against vandalism and, if necessary, block the vandals that vandalize one too many times. I will watch for new, unencyclopedic pages,
755:
I admit, I probably shouldn't have kept it going as long as I did. But everybody makes mistakes; I'll bet there is not one perfect admin on
Knowledge that has never made a mistake. The difference between a ban and a block is this: a ban is the removal of editing privileges on one or more articles. A
229:
site, saying that it was a reliable source, too. I then told them that it was not a reliable source, either. Since I told them that they need to cite material, they asked me for a source that proves I'm right. I told them that I didn't need a source for my talk page, and they asked for a source for
1000:
Answer to question 4 isn't good, nobody cares (or certainly shouldn't care) if someone vandalises and comes back 3 months later with a new account and contributes constructively, by all means keep an eye on the account, perhaps check a few edits if it looks like there's something dubious going on,
598:
You seem to be on the right track, but I think it's a little too soon. I noticed that you went back and cleaned up the articles you created earlier, which is good. Also, your CSD work is mostly okay, although you haven't really tagged many pages yet. I'm kind of ambivalent regarding your answer to
246:
You indefinitely block a
Vandalism only account (named Bobby999) after it has been sufficiently warned (ie a vandal edit after a level 4 warning). The vandal comes back 3 months later under a new account, Bobby998, which is obviously similar to the original account. This time, the user has made 2
181:
by welcoming new users. Also, as a recent changes patroller, I must make sure every new article is up to
Knowledge standards. If I find a largely unwikified new article, if it is a notable subject, I help make it more encyclopedic. If it is not a notable subject, I nominate it for speedy deletion,
1050:
It's technically correct, but the project is supposed to be led by the need for content and content creators, not a rigid application of the rules. WP:IGNORE is excessively quoted, but turning a blind eye to sockpuppetry policy if its rigid application is going to result in a useful, helpful new
176:
By far, my anti-vandalism work is my best contributions. I patrol recent changes and revert any and all vandal edits that I can locate. I also appropriately warn the vandals, and if necessary, report them to the
Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have also begun to take part in the
324:
Say there are two accounts, Rocketboy75 and
Rocketgirl75, that both contribute to Knowledge on the same articles and in the same ways. If an SPI reveals Rocketgirl75 is a sock of Rocketboy75, I feel a ban without warning would be in order. Also, assume that an IP address vandalizes Knowledge
718:- Per talk page discussion listed in #3. I'm glad that you assumed good faith at first, but when that IP linked you to fake websites that were meant to attack you, you should have known that the user was acting in bad faith. They even admitted that they were just trolling you, and you still
230:
that statement, too. So I told them that you don't have to cite that the sky is blue, and they pretended to be the "all-powerful admin" that was going to grant me administrator rights. I told them that IP addresses couldn't be awarded adminship, and there is no one all-powerful admin.
1128:
line that has been written for you isn't brilliant in the slightest. Being a fast vandal-fighter is by no means a key to adminship. You need some more time to get used to the various areas which admins operate in. More experience will also render better answers to the questions.
1001:
but only block if there's damage being inflicted on the encyclopedia. We don't undertake punitive blocks, we don't punish people or block accounts any more than is necessary. You'll get a feel for when to block and when not to block though, so I wouldn't worry too much.
848:
I think that doing some two thirds of your total editing in the current month has not allowed you time to become adequately conversant with wikipedia policy details. for example, in your comment above you are describing a "topic ban" which is not the sam as a "ban"
1021:. If a user is blocked (for vandalism or any other sort of disruption), they are not allowed to start editing from another account. That's called block evasion. The correct procedure is to request an unblock of the blocked account and proceed from there.
325:
immediately after being unblocked. A block without warning would probably suffice here, too, if the IP address has been blocked multiple times. If it hasn't been blocked multiple times, then a warning or two must be issued before another block.
190:
186:
189:. I was busy with final exams, so I only got to copy edit eight articles. However, in those eight articles I copy edited 24,155 words, which is not a bad number when you think about it. I am planning to participate in the
253:
This case would appear to be a case of sock puppetry, but since I don't know for certain, I've got to do some investigation. First I express my concern that Bobby998 is a sock puppet of Bobby999 by filing a report at
694:. There are statements in the answers to the questions that are technically wrong; but the answers demonstrate obvious thoughtfulness. The canddiate's experience is a little thin, but the record looks very good. --
1156:
This isn't too bad. Good work on the rollbacking, but also I would like to see a few more articles created. I am just not sure if this user understands all the
Knowledge policies, like every admin should do.
626:
The answer I was looking for was an automatic (block evasion) block, and for bonus points, leaving a message on the user talk page explaining that if he wants to contribute wikipedia he must use the
221:
article, saying that La Roux was actually a guy. I remained calm and asked them for their source. I also told them that uncited material didn't belong on
Knowledge. They gave me a link to
1210:
Ahhhh this is painful. Ban vandals? The only one person who may ban a person is Jimbo. I do appreciate your work but I'm on the fence, leaning oppose, may want to rewrite that in Q1.
788:— Not enough experience for an admin, however, there is potential in the future. I think accepting a nomination for a rather new editor is a bad idea, especially when the nom is
530:
525:
193:, which will increase my copy editing skills even further. I sometimes participate in evaluating Featured Picture Candidates, and even have nominated a couple photos myself.
203:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
986:
379:
1272:
722:. Also, in question 1, you said that you would ban vandals who vandalized one too many pages. As an admin, you would need to know the difference between a
366:
989:
247:
legitimate edits but since you originally blocked the original VOA, you assume these 2 accounts are related. How do you handle the situation? Thanks :)
652:
Moral
Support to avoid pile on. You seem on the right track please take the comments generated form this RfA to heart and come back in 3-6 months.
182:
usually according to CSD. That is just my recent changes patrol work. I have also had experience copy editing articles. In fact, I took part in the
146:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
520:
373:
599:
Q3, which may have been going a little too far. Overall I feel that you need a bit more experience, so I suggest trying again at a later date.
992:
468:
435:
359:
99:
1254:
409:
403:
983:
950:-- a bit too early, like the above editors said. If you keep it up and try again in 6 months or so, I think you'll have a good shot.
756:
block is the prevention of a certain IP or user to edit Knowledge. I misused the word 'ban' in that question, I'll admit to that too.
546:
113:
616:
Actually, both you and the IP are wrong. La Roux is neither a guy or a girl, it's a musical ensemble consisting of a guy and a girl.
556:
1194:
1104:
586:
418:
30:
17:
745:
730:. Keep up the good anti-vandalism work, and come back here in about 6 months or so when you've understood policies better.
494:
1163:
980:
890:
178:
515:
217:. I reverted the edits by the IP address that was talking to me because they introduced improperly cited material to the
634:
on the original account, explaining how he must convince admins that he will not vandalize and not create new accounts.
1183:
As per Minimac, you should probably get in some more article work as well as vandalism. Good job on vandalism though!
1095:
and accepting a poor nomination. Just the fact that you agreed to run with that nomination statement makes me oppose.
665:
582:
510:
855:
1199:
915:
461:
1237:
886:
762:
489:
353:
331:
294:
264:
214:
210:
133:
93:
836:. I wish this candidate the best, but strongly feel it should take more experience than this to get the mop.
1239:
1220:
1204:
1175:
1141:
1116:
1083:
1060:
1045:
1030:
1010:
995:
967:
941:
918:
894:
873:
857:
840:
824:
764:
750:
703:
686:
671:
647:
612:
590:
333:
296:
266:
135:
118:
78:
108:
225:
site. I told them it was not a reliable source, based on the name. They responded by providing a link to
850:
699:
1253:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1189:
1109:
909:
454:
1232:
1218:
1043:
757:
739:
645:
349:
326:
289:
259:
128:
89:
780:
773:
607:
431:
310:
551:
979:
to me. You may make a good admin someday, but as now, you simply lack the experience. Sorry, --
1169:
960:
679:
Not much for me to say, and this is the first time I've ever "!vote"d here, but I do support.
103:
1134:
1130:
1092:
976:
903:
833:
695:
629:
57:
1184:
1099:
1026:
727:
719:
683:
69:
1213:
1079:
1056:
1038:
1018:
1006:
732:
640:
621:
285:
278:
238:
183:
832:- At just over 3,000 edits, and most of those in the last month, this seems a case of
1266:
837:
723:
601:
273:
255:
1158:
951:
929:
867:
318:
Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
73:
1022:
680:
656:
63:
1247:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
209:
Yes, I have been in edit conflicts before. One such conflict can be found on
1074:
1052:
1002:
800:
102:) – He has beaten me to vandalism a lot, second in speed only to ClueBot.
218:
1257:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1072:, would like to see a bit more experience in multiple capacities. --
434:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
1124:- you shouldn't really have accepted this nomination. The opening
446:
222:
906:; give it a little more time and you'll make an excellent admin.
226:
1037:
Interesting. Would my response in moral support #3 be wrong? –
450:
125:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
624:
I was looking for. Keep up the good work but not quite yet.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
170:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
153:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
397:
391:
385:
288:
by Bobby998 is "Good hand" and "Bad hand" accounts.
56:
Final (6/14/2); ended 21:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC) per
975:You've got a great username, but this looks like a
539:
503:
482:
416:Edit summary usage for The Utahraptor can be found
1017:Err, that is a rather peculiar interpretation of
581:Looks like this user will make a good admin. --
462:
8:
469:
455:
447:
430:Please keep discussion constructive and
1231:Done. Like I said, I worded it wrong.
7:
277:: In which way did Bobby998 violate
1273:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
309:Additional optional question from
237:Additional optional question from
187:May 2010 backlog elimination drive
24:
127:I hereby accept this nomination.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
191:July backlog elimination drive
1:
926:. Per above and weak nom. -
620:Moral support. Not quite the
142:Questions for the candidate
1289:
347:Links for The Utahraptor:
256:Sock Puppet Investigations
1240:17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1221:17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1205:16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1176:16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1142:21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1117:20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1084:20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1061:21:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1046:20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1031:21:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1011:20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
996:19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
968:19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
942:19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
919:19:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
895:18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
874:18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
858:18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
841:18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
825:18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
765:17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
751:16:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
704:21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
687:21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
672:19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
648:18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
613:17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
591:16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
334:21:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
297:19:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
284:The correct violation of
267:18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
136:15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
119:00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
79:21:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
1250:Please do not modify it.
272:Follow-up question from
39:Please do not modify it.
583:Andromedabluesphere440
1133:) All the very best,
184:Guild of Copy Editors
31:request for adminship
637:I have more to learn
552:Global contributions
887:Boing! said Zebedee
516:Non-automated edits
436:their contributions
179:Welcoming Committee
1127:
495:Edit summary usage
438:before commenting.
40:
1125:
936:
784:
777:
639:A for effort. –
638:
617:
611:
565:
564:
38:
1280:
1252:
1235:
1216:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1187:
1172:
1166:
1161:
1139:
1114:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1041:
965:
958:
940:
937:
934:
913:
881:but with strong
870:
852:Anthony.bradbury
823:
822:
820:
815:
810:
805:
778:
771:
760:
748:
742:
735:
668:
659:
643:
636:
633:
615:
605:
604:
511:Articles created
471:
464:
457:
448:
421:
413:
372:
342:General comments
329:
292:
262:
131:
116:
111:
106:
77:
66:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1255:this nomination
1248:
1233:
1214:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1170:
1164:
1159:
1150:
1135:
1110:
1105:
1100:
1097:
1039:
961:
952:
933:
930:
927:
907:
868:
816:
811:
806:
801:
799:
797:
758:
746:
740:
733:
712:
670:
666:
657:
641:
627:
600:
575:
566:
561:
535:
499:
478:
477:RfA/RfB toolbox
475:
445:
417:
365:
348:
344:
327:
290:
260:
213:in the section
144:
129:
114:
109:
104:
87:
64:
61:
53:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1286:
1284:
1276:
1275:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1234:The Utahraptor
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1178:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1119:
1086:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1035:
1034:
1033:
998:
970:
944:
931:
921:
897:
876:
860:
843:
827:
769:
768:
767:
759:The Utahraptor
711:
708:
707:
706:
689:
674:
664:
650:
618:
596:Moral support.
593:
574:
571:
570:
569:
563:
562:
560:
559:
554:
549:
543:
541:
537:
536:
534:
533:
528:
523:
518:
513:
507:
505:
501:
500:
498:
497:
492:
486:
484:
480:
479:
476:
474:
473:
466:
459:
451:
444:
441:
427:
426:
425:
423:
414:
350:The Utahraptor
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
328:The Utahraptor
313:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
291:The Utahraptor
261:The Utahraptor
241:
234:
233:
232:
231:
197:
196:
195:
194:
164:
163:
162:
161:
143:
140:
139:
138:
130:The Utahraptor
90:The Utahraptor
86:
83:
52:
50:The Utahraptor
47:
45:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1285:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1268:
1258:
1256:
1251:
1245:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1167:
1162:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1132:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1094:
1090:
1089:Strong oppose
1087:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1071:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
997:
994:
991:
988:
985:
982:
978:
974:
971:
969:
966:
964:
959:
957:
956:
949:
945:
943:
939:
938:
925:
922:
920:
916:
912:
911:
905:
901:
898:
896:
892:
888:
884:
883:Moral support
880:
877:
875:
872:
871:
864:
861:
859:
856:
854:
853:
847:
844:
842:
839:
835:
831:
828:
826:
821:
819:
814:
809:
804:
795:
791:
787:
782:
781:edit conflict
775:
774:edit conflict
770:
766:
763:
761:
754:
753:
752:
749:
744:
743:
737:
736:
729:
725:
721:
720:fed the troll
717:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
692:Moral support
690:
688:
685:
682:
678:
675:
673:
669:
667:Contributions
662:
661:
660:
651:
649:
646:
644:
635:
631:
623:
619:
614:
609:
603:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
572:
568:
567:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
545:
544:
542:
538:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
508:
506:
502:
496:
493:
491:
488:
487:
485:
481:
472:
467:
465:
460:
458:
453:
452:
449:
442:
440:
439:
437:
433:
424:
420:
415:
411:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
371:
368:
364:
361:
358:
355:
351:
346:
345:
341:
335:
332:
330:
323:
320:
319:
317:
314:
312:
308:
307:
298:
295:
293:
287:
283:
282:
280:
276:
275:
270:
269:
268:
265:
263:
257:
252:
249:
248:
245:
242:
240:
236:
235:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:La Roux Edits
212:
208:
205:
204:
202:
199:
198:
192:
188:
185:
180:
175:
172:
171:
169:
166:
165:
158:
155:
154:
152:
149:
148:
147:
141:
137:
134:
132:
126:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
112:
107:
101:
98:
95:
91:
84:
82:
81:
80:
75:
71:
67:
59:
51:
48:
46:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1249:
1246:
1209:
1180:
1153:
1136:
1121:
1096:
1088:
1073:
1069:
972:
962:
954:
953:
947:
946:Regretfully
928:
923:
908:
899:
882:
878:
869:~~ GB fan ~~
866:
862:
851:
845:
829:
817:
812:
807:
802:
793:
792:one sentence
789:
785:
738:
731:
715:
691:
676:
654:
653:
625:
595:
578:
429:
428:
406:
400:
394:
388:
382:
376:
369:
362:
356:
321:
315:
271:
250:
243:
211:my talk page
206:
200:
173:
167:
156:
150:
145:
124:
96:
88:
55:
54:
49:
44:
34:
28:
1137:Orphan Wiki
696:Mkativerata
557:User rights
547:CentralAuth
540:Cross-wiki
531:AfD closes
443:Discussion
85:Nomination
1131:WP:NOTNOW
1126:paragraph
904:WP:NOTNOW
834:WP:NOTNOW
632:|reason}}
526:AfD votes
521:BLP edits
392:block log
239:Tommy2010
58:WP:NOTNOW
1267:Category
838:Jusdafax
677:Support.
602:decltype
504:Analysis
483:Counters
360:contribs
274:Amalthea
100:contribs
1181:Neutral
1154:Neutral
1148:Neutral
1019:WP:SOCK
630:unblock
579:Support
573:Support
367:deleted
286:WP:SOCK
279:WP:SOCK
219:La Roux
1186:Derild
1160:Minima
1122:Oppose
1093:NOTNOW
1070:Oppose
977:NOTNOW
973:Oppose
948:oppose
935:ASTILY
924:Oppose
910:Salvio
900:Oppose
879:Oppose
863:Oppose
846:Oppose
830:Oppose
796:long.
786:Oppose
734:Eagles
726:and a
716:Oppose
710:Oppose
622:answer
490:XTools
311:wiooiw
74:enlist
1215:Tommy
1111:comms
1101:fetch
1040:Tommy
1023:Nsk92
993:Whale
990:Sperm
728:block
658:RP459
642:Tommy
432:civil
374:count
65:Sonia
33:that
16:<
1171:talk
1091:per
1080:talk
1075:Cirt
1057:talk
1053:Nick
1027:talk
1007:talk
1003:Nick
984:High
963:meru
902:per
891:talk
741:24/7
700:talk
608:talk
587:talk
419:here
404:rfar
386:logs
354:talk
227:this
223:this
110:1337
94:talk
70:ping
987:Fin
981:The
955:Shi
790:two
747:(C)
724:ban
681:dff
655:--
410:spi
380:AfD
115:b0y
105:T3h
1269::
1212:–
1196:21
1191:49
1174:)
1082:)
1059:)
1029:)
1009:)
917:)
893:)
849:--
702:)
684:gd
628:{{
589:)
398:lu
322:A:
316:5.
281:?
251:A:
244:4.
207:A:
201:3.
174:A:
168:2.
157:A:
151:1.
76:}}
62:{{
60:.
37:.
1201:☼
1168:(
1165:c
1129:(
1106:·
1098:—
1078:(
1055:(
1025:(
1005:(
932:F
914:(
889:(
818:o
813:n
808:o
803:m
798:—
794:s
783:)
779:(
776:)
772:(
698:(
663:/
610:)
606:(
585:(
470:e
463:t
456:v
422:.
412:)
407:·
401:·
395:·
389:·
383:·
377:·
370:·
363:·
357:·
352:(
97:·
92:(
72:|
68:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.