The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Fredrick day

[edit]
Suspected sock puppeteer

Fredrick day (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Prior reports
Report submission by
Evidence

Procutus early activity:

Account was created as User:BLP-vio-remover, see [2]
An aggressive cleanup agenda is characteristic of Fredrick day, see User:Killerofcruft et seq
"Hi" talk creation common with Fredrick day socks: [4][5]

edits to Cooper Brown

Plus nine prior edits.

Having been vandalized by Fredrick day IP, I looked at IP contributions and saw the above edits to Cooper Brown. So I reverted. And then IP from this range edit warred, followed by a revert from Procutus.

Common theme of Fredrick day is that I'm supposedly stalking him. However, I only respond to vandalism and harassment by checking contributions of the IP vandal.
See also [12] where this IP acknowledges being Fredrick day.
(I stubbed the article.)

Procutus then dropped a 3RR warning on my Talk:

and demanded I go to checkuser.

and added:

This vigorous response to sock suspicion is characteristic of Fredrick day.

Procutus was blocked by TenOfAllTrades:
22:57, 1 September 2008 TenOfAllTrades (Blocked: new section)[17]
Procutus responded with:
22:57, 1 September 2008 Procutus (lol - excellent the next stage is complete.)[18]

When checkuser has actually been filed, or when it was clearly coming, Fredrick day has always bailed.


Respectfully submitted, --Abd (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Even though Procutus has been blocked, and was an obvious sock of Fredrick day, I'm filing this report for the record, so that a history associating Procutus with Fredrick day is permanently available for future consideration. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This appears to be an accurate report. This diff is particularly convincing. I have tagged the account with a sockpuppet tag. It is already blocked by another administrator.

Perhaps we want to gather up the evidence and file an abuse report with the banned user's ISP. I am not familiar with the procedure, but I think at least a few of our administrators are. Somewhere there is a page documenting that procedure, I think. Jehochman Talk 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to figure out how to file a report for the range.[19] I didn't get any help. I could, if asked, come up with a very long list of abusive edits from that range, associated with Fredrick day, with a few being in the past month. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arggh! I also see that I didn't list this SSP report, being distracted.... Because the new account involved was blocked, it went on the back burner. Tonight, if someone doesn't beat me to it.--Abd (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd closed this as confirmed, but I'm COI.... Jehochman could close, or anyone else confirming the sock. While checkuser might turn up something interesting -- Fredrick day occasionally makes mistakes -- I'm not sure it's worth the effort. --Abd (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More