Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive

Report date February 8 2009, 01:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Katr67 (talk)

Same MO as the others, with the added twist that they are now edit warring with each other. Same article as the earlier investigation: Pioneer Courthouse Square. See also Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square. Anyone following the several years' worth of disruption of this article should be able to see that these fit the pattern. Let me know if you need diffs or more evidence. Katr67 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note that all of these except Poter99 and the IPs have been indef blocked as socks of the original blocked user. Katr67 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Sigh…First of all, this is EXTREMELY frustrating. I have nothing to do with the “vandalism” of this article. I have been continually harassed (especially by Baseball Bugs and Katr67) ever since I arrived and began making comments on the discussion page of Pioneer Courthouse Square. They appear to have done this simply because I expressed opinions contrary to their own and they they are SO INTO “catching” this “vandal” that they assume that anyone who contradicts their master narrative is automatically a vandal. I was automatically assumed to be a vandal despite this obvious evidence to the contrary:

1.	I never once have added the controversial sentence into the article although I have had ample opportunity and been continually accused of being a “vandal.” 2.	I have repeatedly REVERTED edits by the “vandal” and encouraged him/her to bring the relevant issues to the talk page. 3.	I suggested a change to Pioneer Courthouse Square on its discussion page that was agreed upon by the editors. The change was subsequently MADE to the article upon my suggestion 4.	I have contributed to other pages on Wikipedia, reverting vandalism and making edits which have been agreed upon by editors and NOT REVERTED. This is despite being trailed and harassed by Katr67 who has attempted to revert several good edits I made. 5.	I have never been blocked or banned due to vandalism. I was only blocked temporarily once for being “uncivil” to Baseball Bugs following his repeated harassment and accusations that I was a “vandal.”

I admit that I have not always been the friendliest of editors and I have made mistakes. I have occasionally been uncivil to other editors because I believed so strongly in what I was doing. But several editors seem obsessed with getting me banned. I do not appreciate being lumped in with the Pioneer Courthouse Square “vandal.” Please STOP HARASSING ME and remove me from this list of suspected "vandals" immediately. I have not done anything wrong. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit war with each other is interesting. What we really need here is an IP-based 'trace' to see if there are more accounts that have been created and haven't been used yet; today's entry, User:Meanskeeps, has been sitting around for many months, with tiny little edits, before the socktroll began. tedder (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Adding one IP address from when this all seems to have started on Oct 26, 2006. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

One curiosity that raises suspicions about Poter99 is that in addition to having had very little activity, and nearly all of it connect with this subject, when Meanskeeps re-posted the old paragraph about the homeless at 4:51 on the 7th Poter99 was on it just 2 minutes later  and then an apparent "edit war" between the two ran until 5:11, when Meanskeeps was blocked. Then at 15:42, the next sock Samoboow came along, and the edit war ran until 16:02, when Poter99 reverted the 16:01 entry by Samoboow who was then blocked. The eyebrow-raiser is that Poter99 just happens to show up at the right time in both situations, in what looks like a classic "straw man" situation to make himself look good. Of course, that could be coincidental. Presumably the checkuser will be able to tell, especially as the activities of Poter99 and the 2 socks were in such close proximity timewise. Here is the history summary:. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In any case, a checkuser of the IPs used during that edit war will either confirm or deny that Poter99 is a sock. If not, great! If so, it's good to know. The MO seems fairly clear. tedder (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Katr67 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - Tiptoety  talk 05:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All the below listed accounts blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ =  =  =  =  = .   and  are the same as the group above. The rest are . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 26 2009, 05:23 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Katr67 (talk)

Same MO as the original case. Let me know if you need diffs. Thanks.

yes we need diffs, and an explanation if we are to run a CheckUser. Reference to the original case is not enough. Mayalld (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What we're seeing is similar patterns of behavior and interests between the most recent sock and the suspected new sock. Another player recently was Poter99's strawman sock.
 * Evidence submitted by Baseball Bugs (talk)
 * On Jan 7, Poter99 asked for the Pioneer Courthouse Square page to be unprotected because he wanted to do some editing:


 * On Feb 26, Smratlik asked for the page to be unprotected because "it has been blocked for a long while":
 * It has actually only been blocked since Feb 7, after Poter99 and his sub-sock Samoboow got into a fake "edit war" to try to make Poter99 look good:


 * On Jan 7, when asked what he specifically wanted to edit, Poter99 gave evasive and increasingly defensive answers:


 * On Feb 26, when asked what he specifically wanted to edit, Smratlik gave an evasive answer: I refrained from confronting him this time and instead took it to WP:AIV, where he was warned for his personal attack on the marriage license article (see below)


 * On Jan 24, Poter99 took a break from PCHS stuff and deleted a paragraph from the Marriage licence article, with pointed comments:


 * Smratlik was created on Feb 12, and among his first edits, Feb 15, was the Marriage licence article talk page: and taking an immediate inflammatory shot at another editor:  He then sat dormant for 8 days until starting in on the PCHS article again.

So what we're seeing so far is similar interests, and similar volatile attitude. This has been an obsession with this one user since October 26, 2006. It started with this totally original research comment about the homeless in PCHS, and attempting to insert variations on this OR paragraph have been the user's quest ever since.

No one has notified the latest suspected sock of this request. Should we? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Quack. Thanks for assembling the evidence Bugs.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Katr67 (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The account's behaviour is too similar to ignore, and the checkuser evidence suggests we must base a decision on behaviour. Had this been an ordinary SPI case, the account would have been blocked per WP:DUCK, so in this case, I'm willing to believe they are the same user. Blocked and tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * This case was endorsed by clerk  Tiptoety  talk 05:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * some indications that the account is related, and consistent geographical location, but behavior will have to be the guiding hand in this case. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 18 2009, 14:43 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Baseball Bugs

It's the same M.O. as other recent socks. A recently-created user asks for the page to be unprotected. A user explains patiently why it's still protected. User because defensive as soon as the sock issue is brought up, characterizing such questions as accusations. But in our experience, no one but the socks argue for the page to be unprotected, so such questions are natural and reasonable, and the user's response looks excessive, overreacting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've copied this over from Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse per a request at WP:AN. D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Per conclusion below. Um, OK, does that mean someone is going to block him then? Katr67 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Quacking like a duck. CU not needed. Mayalld (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Blocked by CU.  Syn  ergy 22:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 22:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 21 2009, 00:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Check out the first and second contribs. This is not a new account, and infact admits to being a sock.
 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Another PCHS sock from just yesterday was. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU is required to see if there is rangeblock potential on this new sock's range, as the owner obviously evaded a previous block.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

to check for rangeblock potential. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * We've got two and only two IPs here. One of them is an IP associated with a business, and Corpiestre and a number of other accounts, some completely legitimate, have used it. Then there's the IP that Uikopdep, Horneldinkrag, and Fondesep and only they have used, and it's the only one they've used; it's on a national ISP, and there's no way of geolocating it. You'll have to go on behavior to link them. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Behaviour makes this conclusive; both accounts attack other editors who were involved with. Both are blocked though. Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 26 2009, 02:23 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by MuZemike

User contribs nearly match that of, , , and many other already-blocked socks of Pioneercourthouse. Actions indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 02:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also added to the above report - the reasons are identical to that for Vivianaponkhead. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely PCH again. Only real reason for CU is to see if there are any other accounts, as this person has a habit of creating accounts en masse. (EC, I was adding pleebusy too) tedder (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Looks like we've now got two more articles we need to indefinitely protect from that character. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ Vivianaponkhead = Pleebusy, and one more. All blocked now. -- Versa geek  03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * all tagged now. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 26 2009, 21:19 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by EncMstr

This new user immediately requested reduced protection on Pioneer Courthouse Square. This MO has been used by confirmed sockpuppets of Pioneercourthouse. I believe a community ban of the user was widely agreed to at WP:AIV about a month ago, though I don't know how bans become official. Attempts to make this unsourced edit have been ongoing since October 26, 2006.

If Davisomalley originates from the same IP, it's yet another attempt to waste our time, and he can be blocked.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

The user was already community banned about a week and a half ago. New socks can now be blocked on sight.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * It was actually just this past Friday, the 22nd, as per this: What I'm having trouble finding now is the recent sock who was making exactly the same argument as the one today, to give his "friend" a chance - i.e. a chance to post the same nonsense he's been posting since 10/06. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it - who posted this  at ANI. I think someone deleted it from ANI before it got archived. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested by —EncMstr (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

DUCKy, not to mention already blocked. CU not needed. — Jake   Wartenberg  21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Report date 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Barek

Very loud quacking coming from this account. These are the identical types of edits added by the sock accounts, , and to other articles.

Request a checkuser, as this particular sockpuppet has a long history of creating sleeper accounts to get around semi-protection of articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update, the sock Obleaop has now been blocked indefinitely. Still requesting a check for sleeper accounts due to past behavior of this puppet master to create sleepers, as the user has already created 6 known socks in the past 24 hours. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Mostly need a sleeper check and/or underlying IP check. An abuse filter has been put in place - by  - and turned on, and I am doing blocks on sight.   Wknight94  talk  18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * to check for sleepers. —  Jake   Wartenberg  18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All tagged. Icestorm815 •  Talk  19:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ All of the above & the following sleepers -, , , , , , , , and . All blocked.  applied to the underlying IPs. -- Versa  geek  19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! Take the rest of the day off: you've earned it. —EncMstr (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup

- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Barek

Very loud quacking coming from these account. These are the identical types of edits added by the sock accounts, , and , among the many others established socks to have added this content to articles.

Request a checkuser, as this particular sockpuppet has a long history of creating sleeper accounts to get around semi-protection of articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Given the sockpuppets found last time, this probably warrants another check. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ = all of the users listed under socks are the same user, the tie to Pioneercourthouse is behavioral and fairly strong. I have the underlying IP for a week, it appears to be a public terminal. - Versa geek  17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

All blocked and tagged by another admin. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 7 2009, 12:15 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Tedder

These are obviously socks of our friend Pioneercourthouse (see Long_term_abuse/Pioneercourthouse; the real issue is if there are more accounts that have been created, as our friend loves to create dozens of "sleeper" accounts. tedder (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Nja 247 14:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * - To check for sleepers. Tiptoety  talk 19:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also:
 * --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 18 2009, 08:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by EncMstr

These are obvious attempts by banned user Pioneercourthouse to vandalize. See Long_term_abuse/Pioneercourthouse. There are likely more accounts waiting to be blocked :-)  —EncMstr (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

PCH is known for creating large sockfarms, CU is required to check for sleepers as well. I will try to provide more substantive reasoning if required, but this has been enough in the past.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First ✅ set:
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Second ✅ set:

Brandon (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ?! That user has been active and in good standing since 2005!  (And I just blocked and then unblocked him).  What happened there?  Sharing of the same proxy perhaps?  I know PCH has been using German proxies lately.  The rest above have been (or already were) blocked.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah fuck, I grabbed one I shouldn't have when I was copy pasting them out of the range. I'm not sure why he showed up on the German range but the user it not related at all. Brandon (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * First and second sets blocked and tagged with . <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 19 2009, 15:58 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Additional user accounts being used by banned user Pioneercourthouse to vandalize. See Special:AbuseLog and Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse. This user has a long history (several years) of using sockpuppet and sleeper accounts, so there are likely more accounts waiting to be blocked. Also, the most recently known IPs had already been blocked, to the user has changed to a new, likely open proxy, to continue his soapboxing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Barek


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by - Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Luk  talk 16:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Blocked and tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 27 2009, 19:00 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets






 * Evidence submitted by Wknight94

Latest bunch of known Pioneercourthouse socks (Sfagadgad is the only one I'm not definite on). At this point, his edits are barely recognizable (makes me wonder why he bothers anymore, especially after three years, but I guess it's some sort of really goofy habit), so checkuser is the only way to really root out sleepers. And maybe an IP or range block that actually has some teeth? Wknight94 <sup style="color: blue;">talk  19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

See also diff Katr67 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I thought that was in the last run.  Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  20:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

— Jake   Wartenberg  19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

is.

✅ =

has no edits that I can see, and I am not particularly familiar with this puppeteer's modus operendi when it comes to account names. Based solely on technical evidence, I'd say it's to be related.

I couldn't find any sleepers. The range could possibly be blocked, but it is very large, and I doubt it would be effective. I think having another CU take a look would be a good idea, so I won't mark this as completed just yet. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the history for edit filter 175. It's a private filter which specifically disallows attempted edits by PCH.  See also Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse, particularly the full story link there.  —EncMstr (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

– tagging the check as completed. There's no need to check on the latest-added one as that's clear. MuZemike 08:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Marking as closed again. User:Defenderofpooty indefed. MuZemike 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 6 2009, 09:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by EncMstr

Obvious to anyone familiar with this case. Undoubtedly there are a number of sleeper accounts associated with the IPs of these users.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I just added a couple, including "Thetruthofiot" [sic] who not only admits to being a sock but claims it is he who is the one who has been abused for three years, while creating more socks than J.C. Penney. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Also note that he created yet another sock, Fergiepergel, after pleading his case at Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square‎ and before anyone responded there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet another self-admitted sock Aagropotint who claims (as some of his other socks have) that somehow we are forcing him to make all these socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Added four more, based on edits with same m.o.: Zergolpelf, Delphiniasa, Oosda, Philoresper, Jeezebeel, Bakersyozens. Checkuser is needed to find other sleeper accounts. tedder (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And added Ohmydookie. He's complaining he can't edit his original talk page. Maybe we should let him do that and see if there's any hope of this guy "reforming himself". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding Max Antean, an Axmann8 impostor who is also impostoring Pioneercourthouse. Or is he? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Missed one: Selliefrumperg. Katr67 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested by —EncMstr (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Note to reviewing clerks/checkusers: Given the rapid and extensive proliferation of socks, I have carried out a small range block in which many of the above accounts fall, as an interim measure only. I recommend a more in-depth review. Please note that one uninvolved user was also granted IPBE in the small range block.  Risker (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * The range that Risker blocked has been expanded, with two more IPBEs granted. All accounts listed here have been blocked and tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date October 2 2009, 19:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Wknight94

The usual Pioneercourthouse nonsense. These were created a couple weeks ago so I imagine there are more. The last block obviously no longer applies. Thank you. Wknight94 <sup style="color: blue;">talk  19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by Tony Fox

This is an obvious continuation of the vandalism from this obsessed long-term abuser. I've been informed that there is a hard rangeblock in place to slow this editor down; seems the editor has found a new range to play with, and is using aged socks to attack the usual targets. I recommend a quick CU and an extension of the rangeblock if possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Didn't see Wknight had already filed this. Apologies; remove if required. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

✅ =
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * . <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All accounts are blocked. Ranges are too large to block, unfortunately. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Tagged appropriately. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Report date October 5 2009, 11:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Wknight94

More of the usual. The last bunch above - mostly sleepers - were blocked earlier. But another sleeper Monthleftterperv edited subsequently so obviously there are more lurking. Thank you. Wknight94 <sup style="color: blue;">talk  11:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Just an observation that Denverpaindoc does not fit the pattern at all. I've never seen the socks do anything but minor edits and certainly not supply citations. Maybe it's just a new MO, but it seems like a radical departure from previous behavior. Katr67 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I mentioned that too but the blocking admin says it's him. If it's not, it's at least an open proxy and those aren't allowed anyway.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  16:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, I found no new sleepers directly associated with Denverpaindoc. I did noticed the departure from pattern, but there is no question that that account was part of a set of sleepers created together by the same user (though&mdash; possibly&mdash; by a different sockpuppeteer).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Katr67 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ Our friend seems to have learned the joys of proxies. A couple more sleepers squished, but not much more can be done atm. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions


 * Accounts all blocked and tagged indefinitely. Closing. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tedder
"Erector Euphonious" is an exact anagram of "Pioneer Courthouse" (1); openly admits to being a sock; immediately replies to an ANI thread about pioneercourthouse socking. Requesting checkuser to clear out the dozen other socks that are likely to be floating about.

If you aren't aware of the context of Pioneercourthouse, see this writeup. tedder (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also displays an interest in anagrams, as evidenced by his early "contributions" and also by comments about it, trying to drop us hints: Could well be a sock or impostor of, who in turn was a sock or impostor of a number of Axmann8 impostors back in the spring. Could be all the same guy, or one impostor, or a bunch of impostors, and may be too old to tell now, but a sweep would be good. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pledges to "reform", if only we'll let him: Similar to comments made on ANI by other generically related socks around mid-summer. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jumps into arguments and tries to further enflame them, as he did with me here: and tried to do with BQZip01 today, which was the tipoff. Same M.O. as the various PCH socks this past summer. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, look at his edit history - he edited, "clue", "sock", and "anagram" within 5 minutes of each other. We're a little slow here, it seems. :( →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, he's now got us scrambling for evidence, which I am sure is part of this continual game he plays. So much for WP:DENY. >:( →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one of the items he commented on is vaguely referred to (by others) as "LC", which refers to a user called Lightcurrent, who also has endless socks and is also known to hang around the ref desks. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 18:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by tedder (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

✅ and blocked a bit ago. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Were there any others to tag and bag? tedder (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but the ranges are pretty busy, so I am hesitant to issue any blocks now. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  22:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tedder
New user who is quacking like crazy. The evidence of Wikipedia policy, combined with their first edits being to the abused page, is pretty clear. For the insanely long history, see Long-term abuse/Pioneercourthouse. I'd tag and bag myself but the curious accusations on my talk page make that inappropriate, so a CHU to find other accounts would be most helpful. tedder (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
This user may be "unrelated", but I concur with the ear-splitting quacking. Katr67 (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by tedder (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * ❌. Brandon (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Katr67
Copistopplayer already blocked. Same MO as the others--background is here. Ballaucus recently marked "not related" but please check against ip of Copistopplayer as they both emerged recently. Luycasperflogger is a "new user" who responded on Ballaucus' talk page. Let me know if you need more diffs, but this is *yawn* the same old same old. Please check for sleeper socks. Copistopplayer was created over a month ago in order to get around semi-protection at Pioneer Courthouse Square. Katr67 (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Sir or Madam,

I entreat you to please not further violate my deeply guarded privacy by inspecting my ip address for supposed connections to a "fiend." As has already been determined, I am an unrelated user of this fine project. Although my speech may be somewhat stilted and perhaps excessively mellifulous, it is thusly so because of the manner in which I was raised. In this manner, I do speak and write. I do sincerely believe that I may be a victim of retaliatory "checkusers" and certain gentleman withinthis encyclopedia (or shall I say "apparent fiends") are attempting to link me with a true "fiend." As privacy is a closely guarded notion within this project, I entreat you to not allow certain individuals to continually link me with a certain "fiend." Please allow me to continue forward upon my peaceful way and no longer be subjected to excessive retaliation. I should emphasize, however, that perhaps this apparent "relation" is in some way a good-faith effort to rid ourselves of those who would do the project harm. I remain willing and able to work with those who needlessly accuse me for the betterment of this encyclopedia. While I entreat you to please not inspect my ip address and violate my deeply held privacy, if you do choose do so in any event, I am hopeful that you will fully and completely EMPHASIZE that I am not linked to any "fiend" within this project. As you make your decision on this fine day, I invite you to inspect my edits. I have made no wrongful edits, and while my statements may be somewhat colorful, I have clearly contributed to the betterment of this community. I await your kind response. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Circumstantial factors concerning Ballaucus - first, s/he has an edit summary style that's similar to Pioneercourthouse's (an abundance of "disgusting", for instance), and second, s/he was asking tedder here to remove what s/he termed "utterly non-notable" information from articles, which rather ties in with what people have been telling PCH about the text about homeless people (the difference here being, of course, that the school fires information is sourced, unlike the homeless people information). PCH has a history of experimenting with various writing styles that don't quite work (for instance this rather poor attempt to look like a foreigner) and there is something about the super-formal style of Ballaucus that just doesn't ring true to me. Again, all circumstantial, and if the SPI came up with not related I guess it could all be a coincidence. --bonadea contributions talk 09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Katr67 (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * PioneerCourthouse is definitely back which means occasional sleeper checks are necessary. Agree that some of the phrasing by Ballaucus is very similar.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  12:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

✅ =

The last one is not on the same ISP as the others, but it geolocates to the exact same place, and his contribs line up. Furthermore, the other accounts show that he is capable of editing from very - interesting - ISPs, so I am not willing to accept that difference. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All blocked.  Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * All tagged too (by someone else). Closing. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * A previous check here turned up . Now there is  editing similar articles.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  19:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  19:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged, edits almost identical to other account. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, that account is pretty obvious. I added the IP which quacked minutes before the account was created.  Anyway, it's been quite a while since a check was run, and all the previously confirmed accounts will be stale, but I think a sleeper check on User:Denverpaindoc80021 and the IP is warranted. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 19:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, nothing else of interest. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This case was marked as closed, but the IP has not yet been blocked. Is this intended? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now done. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  22:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
LTA returning to activity six months after indefinite semi-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square was lifted. Edits to that article and interaction on their user page passes the WP:DUCK test with flying colors. Previous activity is waaay too stale for CU, user has already been indef'd per WP:NOTHERE and past practice during their last period of activity was to simply WP:RBI, but noting their resumption of vandalism here for the record. --<b style="color: green;">Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk 21:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Account since blocked. Tagged as suspected. Close. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same Freasham28 edits to Pioneer Courthouse Square. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Account has been blocked since the filing of this report. Comparing checkuser evidence to the account, they both geolocate to the same large country. Tagged as suspected. Close. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)