Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Pioneercourthouse
This case was originally being handled via other means, but added here when the series of Beenturns## accounts began to be used.

This issue began in Dec 2006, so the presumed puppetmaster may be difficult to link to the newer edits due to age of those edits. I can see from the deletion log that there was an original case under this name that has the deletion summary "moved ot IP check" on Aug 13, 2007. update: I found a case in the archives, and have linked it below.
 * (blocked Dec 26, 2006)
 * (blocked Oct 1, 2008)
 * (blocked Oct 1, 2008)
 * (blocked Oct 1, 2008)
 * (blocked Oct 1, 2008)
 * (blocked Oct 1, 2008)
 * (blocked Oct 1, 2008)
 * (blocked Sep 25, 2008)
 * (blocked Oct 1, 2008)
 * (blocked Sep 29, 2008)

In addition to the above recent accounts, additional past WP:SPA accounts have been active for the same content issue (updated: these earlier accounts were addressed in a previous Checkuser case that is now archived).
 * (blocked Aug 12, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)
 * (blocked Aug 11, 2007)

Additional accounts that are even older exist, and can be listed upon request. See also:
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pioneercourthouse
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pioneercourthouse


 * Code letter: A, F

The issue stems around content that has been edited to the Pioneer Courthouse Square. See also WP:ANI.
 * Supporting evidence:

All of the Beenturn## showed account creation times within minutes of each other; and all acounts named are WP:SPA accounts whose focus is on the article mentioned. Note: two accounts have additional edits, which appear to have been made for the sole purpose of becoming autoconfirmed so as to get around the semi-protection restriction on the article. Once autoconfirmed status was reached, only edits to the article involved were made by these two accounts. These accounts were and.

All accounts that have edited the article have made the same addition to the article (not all examples are shown below):
 * , Dec 24, 2006: - this IP was previously identified as Pioneercourthouse via Checkuser, despite his denials.
 * , Dec 26, 2006: (one example of four by this username to the same article)
 * , Jan 7, 2007:
 * , Aug 11, 2007:
 * , Aug 12, 2007: (one example of twenty-three by this username to the same article)
 * , Sep 25, 2008: (one example of five by this username to the same article)
 * , Oct 1, 2008:
 * , Oct 1, 2008: (one example of four by this username to the same article)

All accounts involved share common editing habits on talk pages such as forgetting to sign the posts; describing actions against Pioneercourthouse as "rude" ; claiming actions of other editors and admins to be "unscrupulous"; etc.

At least one account may only be a meatpuppet - for which the self-confirmed their at least that much of a connection: Mediman43.

Past community remedies and discussions:
 * Prior semi-protections of the article:
 * Discussion of sockpuppetry issues here: WP:ANI
 * Sockpuppet case: Suspected sock puppets/Pioneercourthouse (created Aug 10, 2007)
 * Previous Checkuser case: Suspected sock puppets/Archive/August 2007 (Created Aug 10, 2007)
 * Submitted mediation (no action taken): Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Pioneer Courthouse Square (created Dec 26, 2006)
 * Submitted mediation (no action taken): Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square (created by Beenturns21 on Sep 28, 2008)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If all of the accounts are indef blocked, what is the purpose of the checkuser request? -- Avi (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The initial intent was to ensure no further user accounts were waiting to be used, to sneak around the blocks ... and to block any if they did exist. At the time the request was filed, the Beenturns## accounts were turning up (three were never used, they were simply found after the first three were used).
 * After the past week with no further activity, it's possible that no further pre-created accounts are waiting to be used. In that case, it's reasonable to put this request on hold until/unless further evidence comes up. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ There is reasonably sufficient evidence at this time to list the following accounts, including sleepers, as related:

-- Avi (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All blocked.  MBisanz  talk 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Underlying IP(s) blocked for six months. -- Avi (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts also appear to have been tagged, as well as blocked. Anthøny   ✉  17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''