Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lanternix/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lanternix

Lanternix (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date May 7 2009, 00:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Falastine fee Qalby (talk)

Lanternix, an editor who is known is to edit Copt-related articles on the topic of the Arab conquest of Egypt, filed a bad faith edit war report on me and he used a sockpuppet to revert me shortly afterwards. That sock puppet has been blocked.[1] Today he used the account user:Caponica to revert me on another unrelated article, this revert reinstated a nonsensical, irrelevant fragment and removed referenced, relevant information.[2] He reverted me twice now. I believe this is Lanternix because as you can see Caponica is a new account, his third edit was to revert me, and he writes on the same subject as Lanternix.[3] If this isn't sockpuppetry then it is meatpuppetry. Whatever the case is, this is clearly wikihounding and the sockpuppeteer account needs to be blocked too.Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, that paragraph that Caponica placed in the article Copt was entirely plagiarized from this source [4] It is a great possibility that the source is copyrighted. If this user is indeed Lanternix, a long-time Wikipedia editor, then we may have many cases of copyvio. His edits have to be looked into.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC) As you will see from the contributions, the IP addresses sole edits are to revert me on the articles I mentioned. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator BozMo echoed my thoughts "It is too much to believe that this editing pattern combined with the anon IP edits and other associated socks are the natural edits of a new user." [5] he has blocked user Caponica as a sock of Lanternix. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are further comments made by admin Bozmo:

Identifying sock puppets is not just a matter of IP addresses, it is easy to play with IPs. Genuine new users whose first move is to enter an edit war and verbatim reintroduce material from an earlier version are pretty suspect. [6] [7] [8]. When there is clearly a roving IP in a range doing the same reverts [9] [10]. And they then line on other articles [11] [12] it is too much even for Matilda's Aunt to swallow. Life is too short for this kind of nonsense. Stop it or your main account will get indefinitely blocked too. --BozMo talk 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That comment was taken from this thread -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Does anyone who simply disagree with you automatically qualify for a sockpuppet of Lanternix?!!!! Did that thought EVER cross your mind that your changes are abhoring and made in bad faith that there are so many users upset with them?! You have been constantly damaging articles about Copts and I don't believe Copts on Wikipedia will let it go by easily. Plus you have been repeatedly breaking the 3RR rule. It's about time you stop and I want an honest investigation of IP addresses done by unbiased Wiki admins to clear my name from this crap. Also, when you report me for something like this, I want to be notified so I can defend myself! I consider myself lucky for having seen this nonsense by chance! I will continue to revert your vandalism of Coptic articles and I will start reporting every single 3RR violation of yours. --Lanternix (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify you, on your sock's page. Btw I assumed you stopped using the Lanternix account after it was discovered you were using a sock. I mean you have been gone for 8 days now disappearing after you caught operating a sockpuppet. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sock's page? And how exactly am I supposed to know that such page existed?!!! If you think that you will be able to scare off the many users who disagree with your edits by simply claiming they are sockpuppets then you're dreaming. At any rate, we'll wait and see the results of the investigation. --Lanternix (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
  • I agree with the comment by Luk below that there isn't compelling evidence that Inflatablemattress (talk · contribs) specifically is a sock, because the account was created on the same day it edited: it is not an autoconfirmed account and cannot have any further editing access over an anonymous IP. Regardless, all of the users/ips listed have made the same edits, so this should warrant a check. ~ Troy (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, the semiprotection expired on May 8 and InflatableMattress reverted on May 9. So the article wasn't semiprotected at that point as I had thought. Though I think it makes no difference as Lanternix will create user accounts and use his IP to revert.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is fair enough to assume that this is a possibility, in which you may apply the duck test. At the same time, however, as edit warring is not warranted, neither user should continue to revert at this point--especially not if sock puppetry is possible as it only complicates the matter. Please stop reverting and use dispute resolution instead. ~ Troy (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a copyvio, reverted by others and myself. Dispute resolution is irrelevant, you just simply delete the copyvio. Though, as indicated in his edit summary, Lanternix has now supposedly reworded the passage[13], though I haven't checked if he really did and I haven't reverted him. BTW in the same edit summary, he said I was vandalizing but I am letting that slide. Copyvio should be deleted immediately, no buts or ifs, when a user can reword the passage to eliminate the copyvio concerns, then of course that is when I back down. Though with Lanternix, he uses very strong POV language but I really don't have time to address that. There is no edit war on my part. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that, neither you nor Lanternix have decided to discuss possible revisions on the talk page. Copyright violations can be worked around on the discussion page. ~ Troy (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you are defending the placement of copyvio by the use of sockpuppets. But at this point, you are just beating a dead horse since it is been temporarily resolved. If you still have issue, take it to the appropriate venue maybe the article talk page or AN/I if you wish to beat the dead horse even further. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm certainly not defending copyvios by stating that you should discuss them. Nor am I beating a dead horse, for that matter; I'm simply pointing out that there is no reason in denying that you weren't edit warring. ~ Troy (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I am for following policy with regards to blatant copyvio, and you are for using dispute resolution with unruly sockpuppets regarding copyvio. Nonetheless, your comments on the sockpuppetry are appreciated, your attempt to discuss something that has nothing to do with the sockpuppet case is just not appropriate. You see, the copyvio was just a minor sideissue that was dealt with outside this case. The problem reported here is that Lanternix is using sockpuppets to be disruptive, it didn't matter whether or not the edits were copyvio. Again, this is not and was never a place to discuss whether my and other users' deletions of copyvio was appropriate or not or whether we were edit warring. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In the case that content disputes are an issue, then I am not against another venue for discussion. Also, I understand if you're annoyed or bumfuzzled, it happens to me all the time when it comes to sock puppetry, but you just keep calm. In the meantime, you'll just have to wait for the results. ~ Troy (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Troy! Thanks for your contribution to this matter. Falastin is clearly edit warring and is, for some reason, attempting to undermine articles about Copts and Coptic history. You have known me for a long time, and you know I have no problem discussing matters to reach common grounds on disputed articles. I will certainly NOT be willing to do the same with this user based on this conflict. I would be not be surprised if he is the one who created all these accounts to make it seem as if I am operating sockpuppets. You have known me for years on Wiki, and you know I never use such strategies. At any rate, thanks again for your contribution. It has been nice hearing back from you :) --Lanternix (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is really interesting: a few minutes after accusing me of operating these sockpuppets, Lanternix reinstates the sockpuppet's version on Anti-Arabism article [14]. That is his second time. If you want to distance yourself from the sockpuppets you don't go about reverting back to their versions especially on an article you have never used your main account to edit with. You also have used your main account to revert to the sockpuppet's version (albeit with some rephrasing) on Copt.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very interesting indeed. First all, caponica is NOT a sockpuppet, and neither any of these other accounts on this page. And you repeating it over and over will not make it true. And had you looked at Caponica's page, you would have realized that I wrote him that I will back his edits because of the unfair treatment he received on Wikipedia, thanks to you of course, and his banning from editing. As you may have realized, I was never interested in articles about Israel, but I am backing Caponica's edits now because this is the only fair thing to do. And I will continue to do so until he/she comes back. As for the Copts article, I have been attempting to reconcile your edits with that IP edits. You should be thanking me for that. --Lanternix (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Additional information needed I can't see why you added Inflatablemattress (talk · contribs) to your report. -- Luk talk (lucasbfr) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Copt was semiprotected, so that Lanternix couldn't restore the copyvio to the article using his IP address, he registered as Inflatablemattress to restore the copyvio.[15] That is inflatablemattress' first and only edit. BTW, Lanternix has reported me for 3rr on that page (I was reverting copyvio). Lanternix also now used his main account to restore his sock Caponica's edit on Anti-Arabism. If not sock puppetry then meat puppetry. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.—Requested by PeterSymonds

 Clerk endorsed After discussing with Nixeagle, we feel there is enough evidence to bump this up for checkuser attention. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is enough evidence here for me to see a possible connection but not enough for a block on it alone, nor is there a lack of evidence which would lead me to close the case with no action. So with that, if possible some extra evidence would be nice. —— nixeagleemail me 18:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course CU posts while I edit :(. No edit conflict though :S. Anyway the results explain why I was seeing some related editing. Now the question is what to do with Inflatablemattress's IPs. —— nixeagleemail me 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Red X Unrelated Lanternix is unrelated to any of the users or IPs listed, they are in different parts of the world. However, Inflatablemattress seems to be related to all of the IPs. --Versageek 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk note: I blocked the account listed by the CU, but not the IPs. They share a /8 range and so blocking them would be like a game of whack-a-mole. Worth looking into semi-protection if this continues. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is user:Caponica related to any of the users? If not, I guess you should unblock him -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was unblocked by the blocking admin. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report date February 16 2010, 19:15 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Nableezy
[edit]

Lanternix has long attempted to remove any mention of Egyptian Christians from the article Arab Christians. Currently the user has been edit-warring to remove Egyptian Christians from the list of populations in the article. The IP has come to carry on an edit war that Lanternix began. Lanternix has been blocked for sockpuppetry in related disputes and the account itself bears a strong resemblance to the banned account User:Zerida. However, these IPs traces to mobile wireless providers, so this may not conclusively show a relation if Lanternix sticks to logging in on a land line. I think the behavior pretty clearly shows the IP is used by Lanternix, but a CU to see if there is anything more definitive may be warranted. nableezy - 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lanternix, I have never accused Miss simmworld of anything, please do not lie. And you have been caught using socks to further edit-wars with other users, it would shock me if these IPs were not you just based on how quickly the reverted after your reversion. Though I do think there may be no technical confirmation of the IPs as I think you were using a mobile phone to make these edits. Wouldnt hurt to check though. nableezy - 19:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly, but if you wish to request a CU feel free to open a case page. nableezy - 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am accusing you of using the above IPs. Where have they been shown to be other people? nableezy - 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See your block log, particularly the last block by Yellow Monkey. nableezy - 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Qvxz9173
[edit]

These users Lanternix and Miss-simworld have a long history of vandalising the Christian Arab article. The user Lanternix has made 75 edits and Miss-simworld made 115 edits. [16]. Evidence they support the same agenda: [17]. The user Miss-simworld has made numerous unconstructive edits in support of this agenda: Unsourced Deletion Vandalism: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Unsourced POV Edits [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

Other |Only "Miss-simworld" could insert POV tags |Then adds POV Contents |Then removes POV Tag after adding POV contents

The user Lanternix has made similiar unconstructive edits (which are very numerous and the following is just a sample): [53] [54] [55] [56]

The user Lanternix has been dormant for 2 months are recently return to execute a series of unconstructive edits in support of Miss-simworld. Lanternix is the older account. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I said that a source for St. Maron's identity should provided (I took no position on his ethnic background): [57]. Also, your claim of being baptized at birth, should raise questions about you being Christian. What church baptizes new-born infants? Was the priest with your God father and mother already in the hospital waiting for you to be born? --Qvxz9173 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On this planet, baptism is done during infancy, not at birth. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do you fail at grammar, you are feeling the pressure in keeping your fabricated made up story straight. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Funny how everytime someone disagrees with the user above, he accuses them of sockpuppetry! That same user accused another user, namely User:Miss-simworld, of sockpuppetry on the talk page Talk:Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. He also accused another user before called Zerida of being a sockpuppet of myself, also simply because that user disagreed with him. This user attitude clearly relies on intimidation of the opposing party rather than on any kind of civil behavior. I will not defend myself here, because I have no doubt that the investigations will prove I am innocent. On the other hand, I request that this user be strongly reprimended and warned for his intimidating behavior! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using the same logic as the above user, please investigate the relationship of user:Qvxz9173 with the above user, since they seem to be always making the exact same edits! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppets you are accusing me of being were eventually proven to be other people. Do your homework properly. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was in regard to that statement of yours: "you have been caught using socks to further edit-wars with other users". Got it now? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat myself again, "The sockpuppets you are accusing me of being were eventually proven to be other people". Let me know how many times you'd like me to repeat this. The fact that blockers only realize this weeks later is a fault on their part, not mine. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 20:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we support the same agenda. I am in fact proud of that. This does not mean we are the same person. There millions of other people who adopt the same agenda as well. Good luck! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is so called Christian had the nerve to ask me to source that Saint Maron was NOT an Arab.Not even the Muslims would call Saint Maron an Arab. My section is well sourced! perhaps the most sourced section in the entire article. Yes we are proud to fight the racist pan-arab bias POV and when a user like Qvxz9173 cant confront an argument only resorts to name calling VANDALISM(see paste) and agressive behavior they false accuse others of being socks when chances are they are the sock! This user has a clear bias against people objecting to the Arab identity in a way he even resorted to childish editing. Me and Laternix are NOT the same person lol i doubt we even live in the same country.

Here is an example of one his racist vandal POV editing he even admitted to and there is evidence.

Christian Arabs are Christians from the Arab world that are ethnic Arabs. Due to controversy by a vocal minority of racists/bigots, there is also the claim of the existence of "Arabic-speaking Christians" that are Christians from the Arab world who reject the Arab identity label. It is also alleged by the racist promoters of the Arab identity controversy that Christian Arabs are not really Arabs, but only identify as such, which is a claim rejected by Christian Arabs.

It is because of agressive Pan-Arabist POV bullies Qvxz9173 we fight the Pan-Arabist racism and falsification of history!♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with all of ♥Yasmina♥'s statements. Also, there is an ongoing investigation here as to whether Nableezy and Qvxz9173 are in fact the same user. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA! I'm sorry, I know this probably has nothing to do with the current topic, but I could not prevent myself from laughing at Qvxz9173 's last comment about baptism :D:D:D Kind of raises the question what kind of planet he's living on! "Was the priest with your God father and mother already in the hospital waiting for you to be born?" HAHAHAHA! :D:D:D --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am currently laughing right now LOOOOOOOOOOOL I just saw that now,how stupid hahahahaha what an idiot to be baptised at birth means you were baptised as a baby which is the case for me. he actually thinks it means that I was baptised RIGHT AFTER being born, inside the hospital with the preist and everything lol how simple minded ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the internet, NOT a spelling Bee I am a very fast typer hence i dont pay too much attention to grammar errors. However you have just showed yourself not to be very bright ;) what story? I dont remember re-reciting my life story here not that is any of your business, I am a Christian and very proud to be one.If this wasnt so funny this would almost be turning into a mini inquisition ♥Yasmina♥

HAHA, I KNOW! Simple-minded is indeed the correct expression to describe the dude. I guess he/she was never baptized, hence their confusion ;) Now we know who is Christian and who only pretends to be in order to mess up Wiki articles. As goes the saying: Lying doesn't go too far! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 22:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nableezy 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: Closing per CU findings. Everyone here is advised to "play nice" from here on. –MuZemike 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 January 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Lanternix's block log shows that he was previously blocked for sockpuppetry on October 19, 2009 for this account. His most recent block began on December 25, 2010, after this discussion. About 1 day after the block began, the account JPosten was registered. This account began by supporting Lanternix's (who signs pages with "λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ") previous edits to the article ([58], [59], [60], [61]) in which he re-inserted dubious claims or original research. Lanternix identifies as an Egyptian Coptic Christian on his userpage and has an extensive editing history focusing on what he perceives to be the oppression of the Coptic community in Egypt. For example, in his userspace, he has been developing Coptic human rights. JPosten has also edited in the same topic areas: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. I suspect he may also be running additional sockpuppets, though I am not sure. However, based on JPosten's registration time, his editing of two dissimilar topic areas in which Lanternix was also editing, and his expressed support of Lanternix's edits, I am certain that he is Lanternix's sockpuppet. Planuu (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Confirmed the following are related:
20 January 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Lanternix was previously found by a checkuser just a few days ago to have used sockpuppets on Criticism of Muhammad and other articles as a result of a sockpuppet investigation I had filed. Lanternix's edits to the article ([68], [69], [70], [71]) consisted of re-inserting dubious claims or original research and then attempting to use unreliable sources or sources that in some cases did not even support the text he had been inserting. Some days later he used a sockpuppet (JPosten) to support his insertions. Lanternix was indefinitely blocked following the checkuser.

Theseker registered two days ago and within 10 minutes began a series of significant edits, all of them showing an experienced familiarity with wiki markup. For the purposes of comparison I will focus on this edit by Lanternix and cite line numbers from this edit. Theseker's second edit added one of the exact same references Lanternix had added (line 123). In a subsequent edit, Theseker added much of the same material regarding women Lanternix was re-inserting (lines 77-88), and the exact same formatting indicates that Theseker copied this from a previous revision of the article. In this edit, Theseker introduces a reference from one of the same unreliable websites Lanternix attempted to use (line 123).

I've also added user Thaimoon, as this new user was also able to immediately use wiki markup properly to point to an older revision of my talk page, and then expressed support for another editor who had been reverting to Theseker's (and thus Lanternix's) edits. Thaimoon parallels the use of the account JPosten, described above, to support Lanternix's edits on the talk page. Planuu (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
10 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The account Fire Green Horse was registered on May 8. The user immediately created the article 2011 Imbaba Church attacks, complete with references (the second edit by the account was to add {{reflist}}). Within 17 minutes of creating an account the user had made an article that looked like this. Lanternix's main editing topic was Coptic Christianity and attacks on Copts in Egypt.

Since then, the user has shown to have an unusual familiarity, unusual for a new account, with Wikipedia procedures. A day after registering the account, the user appears at WP:RFPP (diff). The user has also edited a template first created by Lanternix and later edited by another one of his socks (diff). Lately, the user has been making the exact same edit that Lanternix had made in the past. Material removed from the Egypt article on May 13 (removal) that Lanternix had previously edit-warred over was re-inserted by this user in early June ([72]). The exact same sources and language were used by Lanternix ([73], [74]). After reverting the edit by the "new" user, the "new" user shows the same inclination to repeatedly re-revert the material. I find it unbelievable that a "new" user would share the exact same focus as Lanternix as well as somehow use the exact same language and sources as Lanternix (phrases to look at in the Egypt diffs above are "converting to Islam does not even require going to court." sourced to AINA, "Christian Copts are under severe pressure and siege, and usually live in fear for their lives" sourced to an op-ed, the list goes on) Nableezy 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same person:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lanternix/Archive&oldid=1147948898"