Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rbaish

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:Rbaish

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by: futurebird 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user came out of nowhere and replaced text to Black supremacy that User:Rbaish had replaced previously. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_supremacy&curid=65426&diff=103774314&oldid=103772515

User ~~vandalised~~ POV editing the page Cool (aesthetic) [1]...twice [2] three times...[3]...[4] ... four times.

Editing the IFD tag [5] (I have no idea how an IP user would know about this)

Edited my userpage [6] Looks to me like Rbaish was just bein' friendly. You are a graffiti fan so he put a little there. But you deleted it. NIMBY? <--unsigned comment from 71.112.7.212

Tried to imform him of this but he deleted it from his talk page [7]... twice [8]

Has a history of deleting warnings from his talk page [9],

Rbaish deleted an entire sourced section and a graphic from White Christian male twice, even though I had brought up the idea of adding this new and sourced information on the talk page to help balance the article. 10:51, March 1, 2007 (deleted info was restored by user:Berserkerz Crit and then deleted again within the hour --> ) 11:42, March 1, 2007 I have not reverted this change to avoid an "edit war" futurebird 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ... thrid time 17:40, March 1, 2007 futurebird 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~71.112.7.212 deleted information from Cool (aesthetic) again... this is getting old. ---> 22:10, March 1, 2007~~ Doh! All IPs must look the same to me. This was not 71.112.7.212, but rather 71.224.241.18... futurebird 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rbaish vandalized new article on Health and intelligence, changed the name of section heading from "racism" to "racism as an excuse" here 14:56 March 11, 2007 and here again 17:48, March 11, 2007 Shortly after IP 71.112.7.212 questions the Notability of Joseph L. Graves --> 19:24, March 11, 2007, 71.112.7.212's edit was not hostile, although, it may have been less than warranted. I include it to show that both of these users seem to focus on new articles that I create. futurebird 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This doesn't seem to have any evidence of "sockpuppetry", it's just futurebird's criticism of Rbaish's editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs).

Comments

A discussion which is mostly about the conduct of another user has been moved to this case's talk page. Please restrict your comments to the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone clarify exactly how these accounts are being used to circumvent policy? I see some behavior which is possibly a matter for dispute resolution, but I don't see a clear-cut policy violation (for example, the account/IP combo being used to violate 3RR). --Akhilleus (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can editors that create these things without a coherent rationale be sanctioned or censured? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs).

Conclusions

Rbaish has already been blocked for disruption, as has the IP. I'm relatively certain it's the same editor, but we shall hope he's learned the lesson. Regardless of that, disruptive editing can and will lead to a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]