Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jbfwildcat/Archive

11 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This report arises from a months-long battle with multiple IPs at Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball. Every IP listed above has, at least once, added the appellation "(aka) 'The List'" to the heading "Cumulative all-time statistics". See:         User:Jbfwildcat has also made such edits,. I encouraged this user (via his/her talk page) to discuss these edits on the article talk page before re-adding them, after which Jbfwildcat ceased making the addition, but IPs persisted. Last week, I semi-protected the article to stop the IPs from making the change, whereupon Jbfwildcat (being a registered user) re-emerged to add it. Again, I warned him/her, which netted a response which seems to suggest that the IPs were either Jbfwildcat or someone connected to him/her. The block expired this week, whereupon IPs resumed the vandalism. I believe it is likely that Jbfwildcat is hiding behind anon accounts to avoid any potential blocks and to avoid engaging in discussion about the topic. I will renew the semi-protection for now, pending the result of this SPI case. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:20, 11 July 2011 (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

 * Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball was already protected. I think that'll take care of this for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

05 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All repeating the same reverted edits on the same article. Has been block evading and edit warring with multiple IPs and this user account for over a month. Blocked once for edit warring. Ignores requests to discuss issues of original research and ownership. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I concur with the report above. This should be slam-dunk case that may not even need an SPI but can be decided on obvious behavior. In any case, it would be good to have this on record so we can get this edit warrior blocked more quickly if he or she persists. ElKevbo (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also concur. Please check the first SPI case filed on this user for additional IPs that should be checked out. That case was closed quickly, with the closing clerk opining that semi-protection would be sufficient to deal with the issue. I disagreed with that conclusion, but I decided to see if the clerk was right. It seems my fears have been validated. A block is needed. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The main article was protected already. I blocked 70.157.0.0/16 for a week, as well as the other two IPs. And I've blocked the master 3 days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)