Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LuisMatosRibeiro

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:LuisMatosRibeiro[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

User:PanAndScan 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recently, there has been a great deal of vandalism to the Holodomor article. Article was protected against IP editing, then uprotected a few days ago. Immediately, IP addresses in Portugal from the same range began re-adding a POV category to the article against consensus. The IPs seem to point to User:LuisMatosRibeiro, who is indef blocked for making the SAME edits to the SAME article. I believe he is circumventing his block by editing under dynamic IP addresses. Suggest blocking the range of IPs that keep committing the vandalism.

Comments

Conclusions

The fact that it's a range of IPs implies that it's a network used by multiple people, indefinitely blocking those would potentially block a lot of people. Semi-protecting the article is, unfortunately, better. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]