Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pflanzgarten (5th)

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:Pflanzgarten

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same pattern of reverts and misleading edit summaries as previous socks and puppetteer (Examples: [1], [2], [3], and Charterhall admits it), suggests block evasion (Pflanzgarten is on a one month block)
Single purpose account to edit Jim Clark
~~Currently active - last edit 02:23, 6 November 2006~~
Edington Mains was blocked by an admin since this report was posted
New suspected sock now appeared Hunzerug, again a sole use account reverting in an identical manner, fails to engage in any discussion at the relevant talk page and using misleading edit summaries. Last edit 02:31 UTC November 7, 2006 M100 09:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three new sockpuppets appeared shortly after page protection was removed. Idential revert, with misleading edit summaries, two sockpuppets being sole use accounts on this article. Last edit 02:14 UTC November 24, 2006. M100 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm adding 3 more suspected sockpuppets of Pflanzgarten: User:BT44, User:312T, and User:Charterhall, and I'm adding examples of similar edits/edit summaries. This is getting pretty obvious right now. --I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have now indef blocked the 5 accounts listed in this report. Is there any way short of page protection we can guard the article from this kind of low level attrition? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tactical nuclear strike would be the only effective method :) The current full page protection is I fear the only thing that will prevent Pflanzgarten and his socks from editing this article. The side effects are obvious for all other legitimate editors and users but it's the price we have to pay. A pity because there is a lot that could be done to this article given the verifiable sources available. Just one obsessed idiot ruining it for everybody. M100 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I requested full protection yesterday evening to stop the edit war, and it was granted. --I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time we block all 3 IP ranges this user was seen with. Something tells me that's the only way this user will stop (excluding sending a report to the ISP, that should only be a very last resort). // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All users blocked by different administrators. The IP range and newer socks were blocked by Essjay. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pflanzgarten. // I c e d K o l a 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pflanzgarten

zproxy.org