Evidence

The IP's and usernames below have been used, sometimes to make legit edits, sometimes to make edits which are blatant vandalism, but almost all edits show a particular pattern:

animosity to football (soccer) and affection for rugby league

changing of articles referring to football (soccer) as football

animosity towards John O'Neill and Alan Oakley for their supposed dislike of rugby league and promotion of football (soccer) in its stead

various edits to do with suburbs of the Sutherland Shire of New South Wales

stereotypical misspellings, like 'commen' and common style of edits and comments on talk pages

All IP's trace back to Telstra Bigpond in NSW. By the similarity of some of the edits I think I'm justified in suspecting it is one person with a broadband account that has a floating IP of some sort (sorry, I'm not up on the technical side of things).

Many edits follow on from other edits in a similar vein - I suspect they are one and the same person.

As an aside, when I was making up the list of IP's, I noticed that there were prior users NSWelshman (talk · contribs) and Licinius (talk · contribs) who were permanently blocked for sockpuppetry who had similar editing styles.

60.225.200.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.225.202.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.225.217.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.225.218.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adding weight to that notion is that Topcattheirrefutable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) this morning removed a sockpuppet warning from 60.225.218.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that had previously been removed by that user and restored by me. This was kinda the last straw for me, and made my decision to make this report easier.

I think it’s possible that they are all one and the same person.

Comments

Since posting this, and the various userpage warnings, topcattheirrefutable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has vandalised my userpage with a sockpuppet warning (ripped off I think from a warning on one of licinius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s puppets' pages, as placed by either user:snottygobble or user:grant65.

He's also hopped into the John O'Neill page, just like some of his suspected co-sockpuppets. Notably, he's used the term 'troll' again, which is otherwise uncommon on here because of WP:Civility and WP:AGF

I suspect that it's simply one person who is attempting to avoid detection of his repeated edit warring and vandalism by either editing while not logged in or by using a succession of new usernames. Dibo 08:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added more IP's today - there's a whole bunch in that namespace 60.225.*.* - all stem from the one ISP, all seem to have a similar set of interests and common style of edits. Have noticed the phrase 'troll vandal' a lot, plus animosity to Tancred and myself.

topcattheirrefutable also placed sockpuppet tags over Tancred's user pages, which was reverted by CattleGirl. topcattheirrefutable also removed the sockpuppet tags from his own page which was also reverted by CattleGirl. Dibo 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If user:Dibo wants to spend all his time clutching at straws, than jolly good for him. If you look at his contributions, you will see he is obsessing over this and has made little to no contribution to the encyclopedia over the past month other than devote it to stalking for identities(most of which are so wrong that this humble chap has got a case of the chuckles. His user patterns are similar to Tancred and reflect the same obsession with calling soccer "football", which in the relevant articles is unusable and incoherent. This is not englishi[pedia but an encyclopedia that should reflect commen word usage. I really do not think babout soccer enough to have any animosity and I believe that Dibo is on the pipe -=['].

Homily I have literally hundreds of sockpuppets which I use often to create anarticle and than forget about. I am not ehinger222 but I am the other ones. I generally obey no rules except try to improve the content in the ways that I can... and if I want to send some idiot that would rather not contribute to the encyclopedia and meaninglessly stalk me off on a wild goose chase, can anyone blame me?

And if I was to be convicted and banned(hahahaha) what exactly would I be convicted of? I have not used socks to rig elections and content admission. I have also performed literally thousands of edits about any thing I can contribute to and along with thousands of anonylous others, done it in a manner that suits me.

p.s. You should ban Dibo and Tancred for being nobbys.

Thanks for the reading... I will continue to go about my improvements whatever the conclusion. 13:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Topcattheirrefutable

I can verify these comments posted by user: Dibo. I have reverted the sockpuppet tags on all of these user's pages, as it seems apparent that neither Dibo nor Tancred are sockpuppets, however, topcattheirrefutable definitely does not help his case by removing the sockpuppet tags. CattleGirl 10:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions