Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/24.168.46.238
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read thisfor detailed instructions.
User:24.168.46.238
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
24.168.46.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
64.38.198.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.38.198.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.38.198.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.38.198.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Edward321 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CyberGhostface 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
After 24.168.46.238 was blocked for harassment and legal threats, 64.38.198.61 posted, admitting to be 24.168.46.238 and asking for the ban to be overturned [1] While the edits as 64.38.198.61 were civil, they were also obviously false to anyone who had followed 24.168.46.238's edit history.
Now 64.38.198.53 has posted [2]. Edit summariers show they are continuing 24.168.46.238's personal attacks on Spirot [3] and Cyberghostface [4] and is signing themself as ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you!
Also, User:64.38.198.54 (again in the same IP) has reverted CyberGhostface's removal of the previous vandals.
- Comments
This user also went as much as going through my talk page and harassing people who I was having unrelated discussions with, as with the case of User:Famguy3 here. He also signed my talk page with "CyberGhostface, you are an antagonistic scumbag and a cowardly faggot!"--CyberGhostface 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the last three IP's are editing around a block, yet none are banned for anything near the puppetmaster's block lenght. Edward321 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- The IPs are dynamic, so a lengthy block on a single address isn't going to help much. It looks like a range block has been put in effect, hopefully that stops this nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]