Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/69.157.117.117

User:69.157.117.117

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer
 * - indef-blocked already
 * - indef-blocked already
 * - indef-blocked already
 * - indef-blocked already


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Postoak 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

Briton, English people, Recent single-origin hypothesis extensive history of vandalism to User:Wobble page diff. see also evidence User:Wobble/sandbox/2.
 * Evidence

Definitely a match. They're all in the same IP range, they edit the same articles, and the edit summaries show the same disruptive pattern and usage of language. I recommend blocking all these IPs for a week. Regarding concerns of collateral damage, I have not seen any unrelated edits from these IPs in the contribution log. Yechiel Man 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments

The "gangsta" style language is a big clue. In fact 69.157.101.107 and 69.157.117.117 both used the term "pffft in an edit summary. They use the term "dat" and "yo" and "da" as well and make rude comments (such as "read yo own talk page biatch" and "rite back atcha yo, u didn't give a reason or anythin. U know how I do, hahahah", and "3RR yourself boii, and yo, read what i sputtin on yo talk page and this one, hahaha".) as well as poor spelling and grammar. It is quite obvious that these are all one in the same. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 03:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have had a very long history of conflict with this user. He is a very aggressive POV-pusher and has vandalised my user page on many many occasions. I suspect these users to be socks of User:Epf but have been reluctant to pursue this because Epf has made some good contributions, but they display an identical POV, they edit each other's posts and seem to have identical IP addresses and be from the same location. This is St Catherines in Ontario and is registered to Bell Canada evidence. Alun 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP's are probably best dealt with by semi-protecting the target pages, at least temporarily. However, I've not seen any IP vandalism to them in the last few days, so I haven't done so. If it kicks up again, consider requesting semi-protection at requests for page protection. You may find an admin willing to range-block them, but I don't know that we've exhausted all other methods of dealing with this. MastCell Talk 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any recent vandalism from the unblocked accounts, so I don't think there's anything more to do here. As MastCell says, if the vandalism flares up again, semi-protection will probably be a better move than a range block. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions