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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Babaloo40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See discussion here as well as here.

Comments

TravelingCari has indef-blocked Babaloo40 and blocked Hearsomeinfo for 24 hours. This makes sense to me. I considered that Babaloo40 might be the same as Babalooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Babalooobabalooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there is no evidence to support this. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm happy to report that Hearsomeinfo has not resumed his/her spamming once unblocked. Only one of the company's articles is salted, glad it was all finally made clear. I don't think there's any question of this sockpuppetry though. Hope s/hell stick to one non-spamming account. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I support Travellingcari's decision. Babaloo40 is indef-blocked, but Hearsomeinfo is free to edit. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]