User talk:Cathexis1349

Hi
Hello, I am writing to you on my talk page instead of yours, since your page is semi-protected. I am dealing with a notorious racist sockpupet and as far as I can see on SPI case, you are also familiar with him. I am filing a SPI case about the same sockmaster and noticed that, he mostly edits via plenty of different ipv4s, ipv6s, etc. and despite his sockpuppetry is obvious with diffs, the range blocks are temporary and thus, will not work, i think. My suggestion is to open a Rfc to bann ip contributions on Wikipedia. 'Cause it's abusive and generally using by socking purposes. What do you think? If you agree, could you please help me regarding the issue? How can I open a Rcf and where? Cheers. Cathexis1349 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , do you have any suggestion regarding the problem? Cathexis1349 (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not going to find community consensus for generally blocking IP edits on Wikipedia, spare yourself the effort. There is no other way against that abusive political agenda editing than neutralizing it with sincere editing, and semi-protection for concrete articles under attack. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I can find the consensus, since I do not think that I am the only editor complaining about it. Actually, "neutralizing" the dynamic ip sock's edit requires more efforts than opening a Rfc to bann ip contributions on WP. Cathexis1349 (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just take a look at that sockmaster's ips. Even though there are plenty of diffs to prove sockpuppetry, the range blocks will not be more than 1 month or even 1 week. Plenty of ip ranges! I think it is unfair, because sock accounts are blocked indefinite but dynamic sock ips are not. The action is same but punishment is not. It encourages sockmasters to use ips when socking, instead of accounts. Cathexis1349 (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not mind you doing that, at least it will draw more community attention to the problem, maybe articles concerned will quicker and indefinitely be semi-protected, which would be good. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear 2A1ZA, semi-protecting the whole related articles looks a bit hard and unlikely. Moreover, the sockmaster(s) requests for unprotection, as we saw last night. But, yes. At least, it will draw more community attention to the problem. Cathexis1349 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)