Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/05hepburn3

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:05hepburn3

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 05hepburn3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 17:34, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Evidence

User with a nearly indentical name - user:05hepburn2 - has been blocked under the same conditions of sockpuppetry. Also, both accounts have been used for almost the sole purpose of editing the Hepburn (surname) article, edits which have been reverted and re-applied. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 18:10, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Comments

This is a big mess. The page Hepburn (surname) was recently protected, and now that protection has been lifted it's been attacked again by sockpuppets. I'm going to request that protection be put back in place, and User:05hepburn3 and User:Billibob49 should be indef-blocked as socks - no comment on the other alleged users involved. Yechiel Man 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound comments and sound reasoning. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 21:49, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Comment: 05hepburn3 has been blocked because his name is too similar to 05hepburn2. Perhaps that should be added to the list. « ANIMUM » 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his name and purpose are very similar to the user pointed out are already constitutional to the evidence in the sockpuppetry case. Thanks for blocking him though :) -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 22:09, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Note: I have actually unblocked 05hepburn3 (talk · contribs) per their unblock request. I was involved in detangling the mess on that article earlier today and noted that their single article edit was actually a vandalism revert. It's not immediately apparent, though, because of the mess of sock-puppets. I shall monitor the article and this user for a while just to be on the safe side. I suspect that some of the other sock-names may indeed be impostors of this user as their edits are quite different and more in-line with the OhFive editor - Alison ☺ 09:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever my opnion counts for, I have to disagree. I think that there is more to be seen from this user now it is unblocked, and that it is yet another sock. Check out all of the socks for User:OhFive to see what I mean. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 10:07, 22 June 2007 UTC)

Conclusions

While the username similarity is...striking, to say the least, I don't see any abusive edits from 05hepburn3, in stark contrast to OhFive, who was blatantly vandalizing. Given that, I don't believe they're socks, though perhaps friends or acquaintances who used similar usernames. Regardless, it doesn't appear that a block would serve to prevent any harm here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]