Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piper987/Archive

Evidence submitted by Singularity42
Piper987 is currently indef blocked for vandalism.

Prior to the account's block, one of the vandalized pages was Ledford Middle School. Specifically, see and.

216.237.210.104 made the same types of edits at Ledford Middle School, but stopped when Piper987 was indef blocked. However, the IP made the following edit today:

The IP has also recently started adding references to subjects that Piper987 kept creating inappropriate articles about. Singularity42 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: MJM123 was just created, and began making the same edits: . Singularity42 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * MJM123's attempt to blank this section probably just confirms the allegations. Singularity42 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
That was my friend's account. And she really wants to get back on here.

Conclusions
MJM indefinitely blocked and tagged, IP blocked 2 weeks. MuZemike 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Singularity42
Same pattern as Piper987's other edits (i.e. edits to Ledford Middle School). Created just as the last sock was blocked. Evidence I added in archived case applies to this one. Singularity42 (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Comments by Tcncv - It appears to me that the edits by Piper987 were good-faith edits that were repeatedly reverted without explanation, and the escalation of warnings and resulting block were (in my opinion) unnecessary. Possibly a case of WP:BITE.  --  Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not that is the case (and remember, 1) Piper987 alone recieved plenty of warning for various acts of vandalism, 2) including the IP, various editors went all the way up each level of warnings on this article alone until a block was given, and 3) an admin expressly warned Piper987 about the vandalizing that specific article, and an admin eventually felt there had been sufficient warnings to hand out a block), Piper987 was blocked, Piper987 has used socks in the past to get around the block and we have to assume that they have discovered doing that is wrong (based on the socks getting blocked), and Piper987 continues to use socks to get around the block. There is an appeal process for blocks, and it does not include sockpuppetry. Singularity42 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess whatever the situation was starting out (and I see that the user had a lot more history before October 20), I have to concede that at this point, it has now unfortunately evolved into a simple case of sockpuppetry. --  Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser request
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention to check for sleeper socks and underlying IP/range. MuZemike 17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Rosalie187 indefinitely blocked and tagged. MuZemike 17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That IP you blocked before was a very static IP that Piper has had since August, so I converted it to a hardblock and extended your block to 3 months. Dominic·t 10:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)