Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:48F8:1044:1041:0:0:0:0/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

obvious from the edit history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Jones_(motocross_rider)&action=history FMSky (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's not sockpuppetry if a user's IP address is dynamic and happens to change over a period of 3 months. This doesn't preclude addressing any disruption through page protection or Administrative action, but does mean it's not something we're likely to handle at SPI I'm afraid. Closing. Recommend G6 in lieu of archiving. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Case moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:48F8:1044:1041:0:0:0:0/64 as the range was messing with the tables and templates. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jack Frost: No comment on the merits (and I do agree cases like this are usually best handled elsewhere), but the /64 is blocked, so if the block target starts editing from other IPs, that would constitute actionable evasion. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , that's a reasonable point, and in hindsight I explained my thinking quite poorly I agree that it is block evasion if the user begins editing again after they're lucky enough to have a dynamic IP address, as blocks apply to the user behind the account / IP address. However, in the case of dynamic IP addresses (even when it is as obvious as it is here) disruption is often better handled by page protection (at RfPP) or administrators acting directly through a report at WP:AIV or similar venue. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)