Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blondonien/Archive

Evidence submitted by Catfish Jim and the soapdish
Editor is making use of a number of IP addresses as well as his/her registered user account. This may or may not be a deliberate attempt at sockpuppetry, but the net effect is that he/she is circumventing normal procedure regarding warning levels.

Editor and IPs both follow the same pattern of editing, concentrating on a relatively narrow and specialised range of topics, particularly Germanic and Celtic linguistic/cultural/historical topics. Edits typically advance the same fringe theories. An example is that of Picts. Academic consensus for the last century has been that they were Celtic, but in the space of four days three of the suspected socks sought to include the introduction of the word "presumed" to change the statement "The Picts were a confederation of Celtic tribes" to "The Picts were a confederation of presumed Celtic tribes"

Editing is carried out on English Wikipedia as well as on French Wikipedia by all five accounts. All IP addresses from Canada (three from Le Groupe Videotron, one from Sympatico).

Edits are typically disruptive, promoting a non-neutral POV, removing sourced material, adding original research. 76.65.240.91 has been routinely warned for disruptive editing and blocked twice in 2009: once for 31 hours; once for one week. 66.130.4.20 has had similar attention, being blocked twice in 2009: once for 31 hours; once for 48 hours.

User account Blondonien, 66.130.71.39 and 70.82.96.145 are all of more recent origin and are beginning to receive warnings. However, because edits are now currently coming from five different sources, the individual has managed to keep their warning levels at relatively low levels: 66.130.4.20 is at level 2; 70.82.96.145 is at level 1; 76.65.240.91 is at level 2; and Blondonien at level 1. Ordinarily, this user would have been blocked from editing by now. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
– Behavioral evidence and editing patterns clearly indicate that the IPs are Blondonien; no CU necessary. That said, I am hesitant on blocking right now as no action has occured for about 5 days; any blocks now would appear to be more punitive than preventative. My suggestion would be to let an admin know or re-report if the same activity picks up again. –MuZemike 01:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The IPs haven't edited in days and in some cases, months. TN X Man  14:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)