Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnny Spasm

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Johnny Spasm

Johnny Spasm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnny Spasm/Archive.

16 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 216.229.167.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.3.20.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

Pretty obvious block evasion by Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs) who was blocked for three months - his 5th block for various forms of disruption. 71.3.20.47 basically admitted it by trying to blank Johnny Spasm's pages, but then the IP started editing so I blocked it. Now 216.229.167.71 is making almost the same edits so I blocked it as well. Are there other socks? Can we hard-block them for a while? Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• If Johnny Spasm is 216.229.167.71, I support an permanent ban from Wikipedia, per this edit on August 16 where he commits the exact act that got him blocked for three months in the first place, senselessly blanking 80% of a well-sourced article. He has exhibited that he will never learn from his mistakes, and continues evading his blocks to disrupt Wikipedia. Three months is not enough. Blocking is not enough. This user needs to be permanently banned from editing. Vodello (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Permanent ban. Concur w/Vodello, for reasons he stated. Socking on top of rampant disruption? Just the sort of thing that drives good editors away from the project, and eats up its resources and skews its results. Now I better understand why he was so cavalier about being blocked, at the time, saying "whatever. I really don't care", and that he wasn't asking to have his three months reduced.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• A ban proposal would have to be made at WP:AN (or maybe WP:ANI?) Wknight94 ^talk 11:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk declined – To me, it's pretty clear that these IPs are Johnny Spasm; no CU needed. Otherwise, go forward with WP:RFC/U or a ban discussion at WP:AN (not ANI, please I beg you) if necessary. –MuZemike 19:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

---