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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/PIO

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ducatista2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sir Floyd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Luigi 28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by DIREKTOR

• User:Luigi 28 likes to edit a lot via his IP, even though he was indef blocked months ago. He edits real often, and I've already suggested a range-block be implemented. Just have a look at the history page of the Foibe killings article [1]. At 12:35 today (August 19 2009), the IP of User:Luigi 28 made an edit. He was reverted at 12:58, and on 13:25 User:Ducatista2 reintroduced the IP edit (continuing to edit-war to keep it in). It is quite possible that User:Ducatista2 = User:Luigi 28
• User:Sir Floyd exhibits the same type of behavior as User:Luigi 28, and is pushing the exact same type of POV, with the exact same grammar mistakes. The evidence may not be as strong, but a check can't hurt given User:Luigi 28's "affinity" towards creating socks. Rgrds --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed on the basis that I think a technical check is needed to further show a link between Ducatista2 and Luigi 28, as both accounts have reverted edits and has had interactions with DIREKTOR. MuZemike 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Sir Floyd (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated. Ducatista2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Likely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case moved. Blocked and tagged. Closing. NW (Talk) 02:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

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

User:PIO is banned and a multiple sockpuppeteer. The newly appeared User:Pantaleone is as blatant a PIO sock as you could wish (not) to meet. The user page is the same style as confirmed sock Ciolone [2], proclaiming the user to be a non-Italian Italian. Going straight into battle [3] against various long established editors on behalf of various of his own confirmed socks is another giveaway. For those who don't speak Italian, the message to User:Il Palazzo talks about the problem of users from Croatia who oppose Italian users and Serbs on many articles relating to Istria and Dalmatia, who round up complicit administrators who then ban users who are not sockpuppets such as User: Luigi 28, User:Barba Nane, User: Ducatista2, User: Trusciante, User: MacLot, User: Miranovic and others. It accuses User:DIREKTOR of being extremely POV and anti-Italian and asks Il Palazzo to start an SPI case against DIREKTOR and others as socks of User: No.13. PIO is fond of accusing us of being socks of No.13 [4][5]. If any further evidence were needed, Pantaleone loves the article on Pallone [6], as did (scroll down) PIO and his sock Jxy. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined – behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is PIO. No CU necessary. MuZemike 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Tagged as a blocked sock. Already blocked. MuZemike 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

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

User:PIO is a banned multiple sockpuppeteer [7]. User:Vastaso is his latest blatantly obvious incarnation. With the account registered just two days [8] after User:Pantaleone was blocked [[9]], it went straight to PIO's article on Pallone [10], and by its fourth edit was calling me a "notorious psyko vandal" [11] and by the sixth edit was at the talk page of the (presumably unrelated and thus bemused) new user HK-90 urging him her to start an ANI report against me [12]. Begone. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Defending yourself against claims.

 Administrator note Obvious sock. Vastaso blocked. Spellcast (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Sock tagged. Next time, remember to tag the socks before marking as closed. MuZemike 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.