Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/85.178.128.251

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 this for detailed instructions.

User:85.178.128.251

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 85.178.128.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); MikeHalpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Tralala98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Leistikow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); MichaelScart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Atze88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 85.178.154.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Rjd0060 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added to by

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All accounts began editing within a few hours of eachother. All editing the same page (Eduardo von Spaahm), making similar disruptive edits. See their contributions.

Comments

I would say put User:MikeHalpert as the sockpuppeter, as the sockpuppeter seems to work in a dynamic IP range and this account seems to be the oldest. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that might be right. But it would require page moves and redirects...It is probably just better to leave it this way. I didn't know about User:MikeHalpert until today when User:Brewcrewer added it, but I created the report last night. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant the actual tagging, not the report. I am now changing the tags to sockpuppeter MikeHalpert i/o the IP. I am fine with leaving the report this way. --WinHunter ^(talk) 17:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for your help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious socks, all accounts involved blocked indef and IP involved given only temporary ban since the sockpuppeter works on a dynamic range. Temporarily semi-protected Spam King to prevent further vandalism by the sockpuppeter's IPs. --WinHunter ^(talk) 17:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]