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.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

151.49.9.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

151.49.53.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

151.49.7.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

151.49.9.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

151.49.7.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Diff: [1] Diff: [2] Diff: [3] Diif: [4]

Same history of template blanking/vandalism - similar prefix IPs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Not much we can do short of a range block, but we'd have to block 151.49.7.5/17, which could cause a lot of collateral damage. I think WP:RBI on the individual IPs would be better until the user gets tired of it. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]