Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot

message: Here's another to check out: User:WhyAllThisAnimosity. —Doug Bell talk 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported on the project page and permablocked. Thanks, Doug.--Kchase T 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Note that two range blocks were applied on Dec 4 for 48 hours.  They are on 68.30.0.0/16 and
70.8.0.0/16. These blocks may need to be renewed as Cplot has shown no sign of letting up on his activities. More blocks may be needed on other ranges as there have been reports of Cplot getting around the block.  A checkuser request is pending to try and nail down the ranges. --StuffOfInterest 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range blocks 

message: Due to links to my talk page, I've been able to trace a few sock talk pages which still have Cplots propaganda diatribe.  The ones I've noticed are:
*User talk:ItsALostCause
*User talk:DuckAndCover
*User talk:ItWillNeverEnd 
*User talk:StopPropoganda
*User talk:WowYouClownsSuck
I'm curious if those pages should be left for future evidence or deleted to deny Cplot a platform? --StuffOfInterest 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been redirecting them, but since he knows how to do links to historical page versions, that's not a solid solution. They should probably be deleted by an admin. --tjstrf talk 04:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftover propaganda 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, but here it is.
RandofThieves was blocked after a rather trollish post to the WP:Help desk. If you pull up the history for the Help Desk, there's been a series of identical posts by users, such as ThouDothProtestTooStrongly,207.168.161.13, 67.173.127.205, 24.148.91.147, 75.3.9.12, & 66.73.80.206. At least one of the IPs has been labelled a potential sock puppet of Cplot. All have been blocked, thanks to a helpful admin, but I thought it might be worth pointing out here, due to the label of one IP as a potential Cplot puppet. -- Kesh 03:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editing pattern is classic Cplot.  It appears someone else has already added him to the list. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Cplot? 

message: I am trying to find out why Cplot was banned, and I have the following impression:
*Cplot is currently evading the ban (in violation of policy)
*"(S)He" is succesful in doing so
*this is causing a lot of work for admins, and creates a lot of confusion
*I see an indefinete block without much of explanation or chance of parole
*Cplot is a very inexperienced user; it is easy to accidently violate the guidelines since there are so many that the best thing is to be bold and learn via trial and error.
I think the world could be a better and nicer place if Cplot was re-admitted *and* would behave. I can see no harm in trying this.
Please respond here or on my talk page. If you should oppose, please provide me with links to a full account of evidence to support the ban, and your motivation for continuing the ban (till... when?). — Xiutwel (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Period.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the contribution history, this editor made hundreds of useful edits for months on econ/marxism and astrology-related articles.  Then in late November 2006, he started editing the Sept 11 article and just went off the deep end in the face of content disputes.  Since then he has engaged in petty harassment and block evasion.  I don't think an unblock would suddenly convince him to drop the whole dispute and go back to being a productive contributer.  If he really wanted to "reform", he could create a new account (which is obviously easy for him) and keep that account in good standing. —Dgiest c 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about giving Cplot another try?