Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco/Archive

11 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Admits to it, see also and. Admits to having been here for two years breaking a variety of "fascist" rules, so there's no telling how many accounts there are. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

He writes: ''I plead guilty, sir. I highly recommend that you remove all the evidence, including my accounts and ban my I.P. address and the ranges. I'll take full responsibility for my actions. Thank you for your investigation.'' -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * CentristFiasco may be stale, but based on duck should be indef blocked like all the others. No one will object. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that he's only blocked for edit warring until March 18, 2012. Shouldn't he be indef blocked for abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion as well? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While blocked as an IP, he edited with a username (Lane). But I don't see much abusive sockpuppetry or block evasion. I'd suggest an indefinite block for other reasons, which are quite adequate. -- Hoary (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He went through three registered usernames (that we know of) while also using an IP. Most of his editing history has been disruptive, and some of his editing was done while blocked using newly-created accounts listed here, i.e. block evasion. What other reasons were you thinking of? If those reasons are sufficient, can we act on them now? My main concern is that he can return on March 18, which is a mild block considering the crimes, and considering no evidence that he has learned anything, nor any indication he's even capable of doing so. Since such blocks are protective, not punitive, I'm hoping for an indef block now to prevent further disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
CentristFiasco is, but the following are ✅ as each other:



The relation of all of them to the IP is fairly obvious at this point. --MuZemike 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

17 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New user User:Encyclopedist J appears to have the same agenda regarding the Occupy Wall Street article, and use the same language in describing it, as User:Mr. J. Lane.
 * Encyclopedist J's edit summary: "As an Encyclopedist, I'm worried that this article has been essentially hijacked by Occupy Wall Street sympatheziers or "insiders". Added: Templates to Attract More Contributors Challenging this Article."
 * Mr. J. Lane's edit summary:"To help new contributors to actually come into the Talk Page without seeing all the templates."
 * Mr. J. Lane's talk page comment:"...I'm reverting back in a couple of hours because apparently, this article has been subjected to Occupy Wall Street insiders."
 * Encyclopedist J performed the same image replacement as Mr. J. Lane on Occupy Wall Street, using the same image uploaded by Mr. J. Lane.
 * Encyclopedist J added infobox data characterizing the Occupy Wall Street movement as Marxist, just as Mr. J. Lane did.
 * Encyclopedist J also seems to believe that capitalizing words he thinks are important constitutes standard English grammar, as seen below, just like Mr. J. Lane did repeatedly on Talk:Occupy Wall Street, and in his major revision of Occupy Wall Street.
 * These two comments by Encyclopdist J and Mr. J. Lane are nearly identical. Equazcion  ( talk ) 15:00, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

You've got this all wrong, sir or madam, because I'm not a "sockpuppet" by any means. What makes you think I'm this individual that you speak of? The only argument that you cast that might be convincing is the image that I decided repost on the Occupy Wall Street page; I read through the Talk Page sections then I've seen that image, the person you're accusing me of being, in a section. As I looked upon the details of the original image I've realized that the image, the ballerina and bull poster, is indeed a copyrighted image by Adbusters.org or an individual who most likely copyrighted it for order to be used in an advertisment. In the introduction of the article itself, it explicity states and also the image details that the image is the image used for an advertisment. According to the Wikipedia Rules, you cannot use images like this even for fair use, this is the rules. For the grammar similarities, I'm rather questioning whether English is your first language or not because there is absolutely nothing significant about my writing, it's merely Standard English. Encyclopedist J (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * there is absolutely nothing significant about my writing, it's merely Standard English. No it is not. -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is a matter of opinion, Hoary, and is irrelevant to this case since what I've stated above is factually true.

Link:

Encyclopedist J (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's just one, "Encyclopedist J". You say: the image that I decided repost. It's news to me that "decide" is followed by a bare verb in standard English. I'll refrain from pointing out the other oddities. As for the capitalization mentioned above (of course not really a matter of language, but merely one of orthography), Mr J. Lane: "You Got Yourself a Compromise"; Encyclopedist J: "Sockpuppet Case Still in Investigation. No Evidence. Reporting You for Edit Warring." -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this person is just engaging in bickering and not stating anything relevant to my case. Encyclopedist J (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Encyclopedist J is definately CentristFiasco. Compare with this edit by another sock.  Check out "Causes," "Methods," and "Sides."  It's all identical.  Also, the username.  One of CentristFiasco's other socks was Mr. J. Lane.  WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:DUCK says block.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Technical evidence not conclusive. It's . Amalthea  11:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DUCK-blocked by another admin. T. Canens (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

21 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * User:Jr. Wikipedian, Jamal is a new user who suggests a total redo of the Occupy Wall Street article, and has begun edit warring over that article and its talk page, just as CentristFiasco's socks have, with his 3 hour-old account.
 * Jr's suggested revision of the Occupy Wall Street article is very similar to Mr. J. Lane's revision, including links to socialism, saying it's an "awareness movement", countless other unique similarities.
 * User talk:Jr. Wikipedian, Jamal shows the same odd language and capitalization demonstrated by CentristFiasco's other socks (eg. "Submit All Content Disputes Here").
 * Attempted large removal of talk page templates (repeated) just as Mr. J. Lane attempted (repeatedly). Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:16, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC) 21:16, 21 March 2012 (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
✅ and. Occupy Wall Street has now been semi-protected due to socking, but I forsee likely full-protection happening. --MuZemike 21:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

27 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This sockmaster's infamous "awareness movement" and "socialist" claims among other equally infamous major revamps of Occupy Wall Street.  Equazcion  ( talk )  03:26, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Since when is associating something with "Socialism" a bad thing? For crying at loud, for a person who can edit his own Wikipedia page as if its own site and apparently contributed a lot, you sure don't read much on this site you're contributing too. How does my contribution to the page even remotely link to this guy you're talking about, exactly? It's pretty obvious that the Occupy Wall Street movement is an for awareness and promoting often socialist policies. All of the sources in the article that you guys and other contributors referenced totally give everyone that impression; thus, shall be introduced in the infobox. What's the deal? Maria Barzini (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Previous socks have used proxies, making this . I will say though that this account does not appear to be using an open proxy. Tiptoety  talk 04:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I dug a little deeper and found a blocked sock account with a workable IP. They both geolocate to the same area, making the connection . Tiptoety  talk 04:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Both accounts are blocked. Proceeding to close. AGK  [•] 00:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

01 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same "awareness movement", "consensus democracy" claims at Occupy Wall Street, same anarchy claims too. Similar poor rationalization (and poor English) used in defending changes. Same odd Capitalization Choices. Same warring against talk page consensus to implement those changes (along with more random capitalization in edit summary).  Equazcion  ( talk )  01:20, 1 May 2012 (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

 * ✅ that they are the same as . Tiptoety  talk 05:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock is blocked and tagged . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

07 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

At ANI, this conversation was linked in, which all but admits a sock of someone, this being the likely candidate because of the mentions in the talk and style of summaries, as well as warring behavior. ie: wp:duck. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also noted a distinct difference in tone from edit summaries and when asked if they were a sock, which I find unusual to become suddenly nice when accused of being a sock, after being rude in summaries previously. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Yes, this is most definitely CentristFiasco. His comments and the name make it pretty much obvious. I noticed the comments on Amadscientist's page, and would've reopened this myself if not for the lack of article edits at the time.  Equazcion  ( talk )  00:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

16 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Occupy edits, same tone, as ducky as they come. Would almost block on site without CU, but I'm still new enough to the mop that I will defer. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MuZemike got him. I feel a bit more confident to shoot on site now when it is this obvious.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Confused, were there any relevant checkuser results? Ducky doesn't really speak to that.  Equazcion  ( talk )  23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think this is a WP:DUCK? Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did, but when I saw "checkuser completed" I kinda got excited to see checkuser results :) It's nice to have confirmation. I do think there's enough here for duck though, for the record.  Equazcion  ( talk )  23:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just hit CU as a default. There was really enough evidence to block on site, but I'm still extra cautious with the new mop.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Very ducky, and one of the edits is very similar to this one in terms of tone and contention. It's a match. WilliamH (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the WP:DUCK block (as I, of course, made the block); his behavior and editing are dead-on. But, if you so insist on feeling warm and fuzzy, I have checked, and he's ✅. We're done here. --MuZemike 23:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

25 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

, User_talk:The_Modest_Associate - Same odd capitalization choices, same talk page headers on empty talk page in anticipation of complaints (see sock User talk:Jr. Wikipedian, Jamal), radical Occupy Wall Street article edits claiming socialism.  Equazcion  ( talk )  12:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, user confessed to being a sock of CentristFiasco and announced intentions of continuing to sock: .  Equazcion  ( talk )  15:24, 25 May 2012 (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
It's, bordering on that this account is a match to. TN X Man 13:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account is blocked, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

28 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The block evading socks of CentristFiasco all have the same edits to the Occupy articles and their own Talk pages. This is an obvious Duck. CentristFiasco -- Associate J. User pages, Occupy edits, sock. Dave Dial (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2012 (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
They're blocked, so I'll mark for close. TN X Man 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

01 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Radical edits to Occupy Wall Street just after account creation, insertion of socialism claims, original "awareness initiative" terminology, odd capitalization choices and poor English, all same as previous socks.  Equazcion  ( talk )  05:14, 1 Jun 2012 (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
✅ match to. TN X Man 14:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

25 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

has raised the possibility that this user is a sock of this particular puppeteer, but hasn't opened the case, despite the active editing. Having read through this SPI archive, it does seem to be similar to the past socks, though the past sock edits have been deleted. Certainly, American Patriot J is too savvy and experienced to be a new user. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

If I'm harming the community in any way I apologize for my wrongdoings. I don't see how I'm this "particular puppeteer" and I have tried to gain consensus on the Occupy Wall Street Article Talk Page, as well as providing a good and solid summary on what I changed in my contributions. As I looked back, the contributions aren't major by any means and those who think it is are seriously naive and sensitive. American Patriot J (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a duck. Same types of sweeping edits to Occupy Wall Street, edit warring to keep them in, and odd language use.  Equazcion  ( talk )  22:19, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:DUCK is not an official Wikipedian Guideline; therefore, your argument or testimony has no merit. Essays /=/ Guidelines. American Patriot J (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The duck test is not the point. Sockpuppetry, which is against Wikipedia policy, is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... Well, I guess "Equazcion" argument is indeed moot but your argument continues to be debated. I testify and continue to testify that I am not this "particular sockpuppet". Moreover, this user "Equazcion" could be possibly abusing the HTML code by excessively altering his own user name; the HTML code in his name is unbelievably unnecessary. Also, I have tried to reach consensus about two to three hours ago I believe, I cannot switch the timezone off from Military Time. I may be off but I'm sure it has been two to three hours. I decided to do another edit on the Occupy Wall Street Article but this time, I decided to combine my contributions into one, and I hope I get a discussion going about my contributions on the Talk Page... I'm still waiting for something. In attention to the Illegal Immigration Article I am still waiting for some discussion; I decided to compromise without the consensus, well the lack thereof from other contributors. I simply combined the rest of the contributors' work with mine to establish a solid encyclopedic article. Unfortunately, it has gotten reverted for no justified purpose. American Patriot J (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It got reverted because you're a block-evading sockpuppet whose edits have been rejected many times before, plus you're at or past WP:3RR now.  Equazcion  ( talk )  23:17, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, editing is similar - I'd say it is a duck as well. Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, "Equazcion"? I have calculated my reverts and I have only reverted twice; you're alleged suspicion has yet to be final and we're still debating on the matter. Let's take this further, shall we? Ask me a couple of questions and I'll be willing to answer. This will help the Administrators to gather more information before proceeding. American Patriot J (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I sense something... A presence I've not felt since...
 * As someone who has reported CentristFiasco a number of times, I have to say American Patriot J reads and acts like CenristFiasco. Plus, there's American Patriot J, Mr. J Lane, Encyclopedist J.  It's quite clearly J amal oshua Lane, again.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ian Thomson, I have been on the Internet for quite a while and names aren't meant to be taken this seriously. If you people want to know why I'm so savvy, as what one of you wrote earlier, it's because I've been on Wikipedia since 2006. I never created an account until now when I had the money to subscribe to an Internet Service Provider. I tend to visit Wikipedia at the public library from time to time. Moreover, I would have gone by my real name on here but I decided not to because I'm skeptical of the nature of the community. I do know those names you mention, Ian, I often observe the view history on the Occupy Wall Street Article too.American Patriot J (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard that before from one of your other socks. I'm an English major, do you think I can't learn to recognize your voice?  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you understand the concept of an open case? Do you understand the term, "alleged? I'm starting to think you don't, pal. Your allegations are not fact until the final opinion or verdict is established by an Administrator. I have given my case but you still haven't given yours. American Patriot J (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been explained other accounts, Wikipedia is not part of the United States government. Do you understand that when other people point out errors with your work, it's in the hopes that you'll correct your mistakes?  People have advised you on how to be a better editor, even a better sockpuppet, and you don't even listen to the stuff that would benefit you to our detriment.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Another allegation, yes? You're wasting valuable time by consistently putting all these allegations towards my case in which you have no empirical evidence. I'd recommend that you step outside for a second and stop posting in this case until you have conclusive evidence. American Patriot J (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's often no conclusive evidence in sock cases, often going on nothing more than WP:DUCK. You perform similar edits, speak the same way, and edit war just like CentristFiasco and his socks. WP:DUCK doesn't need to be a "rule" in order to represent common sense. You've been under a long-standing mistaken impression that this place works like the US legal system, but such arguments have no bearing here. What's the IP address you used for those library edits?  Equazcion  ( talk )  23:52, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion, WP:DUCK is an essay, not an Wikipedian Guideline. It explicitly states on the page itself that essays are not official guidelines by any means.

Evidence I'm Not "Centrist Fiasco"

1. My Contribution w/Other Contributions (A Compromise without a Consensus): Lack of Discussion Talks. The Link on Wikipedia

Total Reverts: On Illegal Immigration, 2 Reverts.

2. Talk Page Discussion on Illegal Immigration: The Link on Wikipedia

3. My Contribution w/Other Contributions on Occupy Wall Street (Changes: Mere Structure in the "Origins" and "Infobox") The Link of Wikipedia

Original Summary I: "Final Compromise: Restored my Contribution to the "Infobox" and Restored the Contribution to the Origins. Tried to Gain Consensus, Nobody is Responding."

Original Summary II: "Improved the "Information Box" by Adding in Causes, Goals, Methods, Side 1, Side 2, Lead Figures 1, Lead Figures 2, and Clarifying the "Other Activity."

Official Summary III: " →‎Origins: Perfected Sourcing, Improved Readability, Balance the "Weight".)

Total Reverts: On Occupy Wall Street, 1 Revert.

4. The Talk Page on Occupy Wall Street (Created: About 5 to 6 Hours Ago, No Responses) The Link of Wikipedia

American Patriot J (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, pages don't have to be "official guidelines". WP:DUCK describes common sense we use to determine if someone is a sock. None of what you've listed constitutes "evidence" of anything. Again, what's the IP address you used for your library edits? What are some articles you edited, and when did you edit them? You should be able to point to some of those edits if you've been editing that way since 2006. Let's see them. Thanks.  Equazcion  ( talk )  00:06, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * You're looking more and more like naive, uninformed, pathetic little man, Equazcion. I am not trying to be offensive but your love for non-guidelines is making you seriously look like an dumbass. I am terribly sorry for the language but it really is... Is this the only argument you have? American Patriot J (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've given you a bunch of arguments, but this particular one is just me trying to give you an easy way to put this to rest. If you're truly not a sock and have edited the way you claim for 5 years, as you say, show us some of those edits. That would definitely help to validate your story. Thanks.  Equazcion  ( talk )  00:13, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You want evidence? Ok, how about this: Associate J.'s edit to Occupy Oakland: Patriot Joshua's edit to Occupy Wallstreet: American Patriot J's edit to Occupy Wallstreet: If these accounts were three different students in my classroom, I'd call all of them in for cheating. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * portraying those involved as being "Advocates of Social Democracy" and "Advocates of Anarchism,"
 * filling in the leadership boxes with "General Assembly" (linked to the Consensus Democracy article) and "No Consensus or Central Leadership,"
 * emphasizing "Direct action,"
 * replacing "ongoing" with "Present Day,"
 * using an edit summary that incorrectly capitalizes most of the initial letters, as if it was a book title.
 * emphasizing "progressive corporatism" and "consensus democracy."
 * portraying those involved as being "Social Democrats" and "Social Anarchists,"
 * filling the leadership boxes with "Democratic Consensus" and "No Consensus or Leadership,"
 * emphasizing "Direct action,"
 * replacing "ongoing" with "Present Day,"
 * using an edit summary that incorrectly capitalizes most of the initial letters, as if it was a book title.
 * emphasizing "progressive corporatism" and "consensus democracy"

Sorry for the long response time. After I read your arguments, Ian, I have to say I'm impressed but as I read through the other Cases involving "CentristFiasco", I found that there are numerous accounts that don't artificially link to "CentristFiasco". AssociateJ doesn't link to "CentristFiasco" and apparently, he too has been a victim of being a sockpuppet because of similar ideas that Occupy Wall Street participants are Social Democratic Advocates, and a minority are Social Anarchists or favor Anarcho-Communism. These ideas are not foreign nor an isolated case by stretch of the imagination. As I recall, I remember reading the Talk Page on the Occupy Wall Street Article and found numerous contributors stating how the Article doesn't put emphasis on the anti-Capitalist overtones within this movement. Also, the messages and lack of demands are pretty clear within this movement with the sources provided in the Article itself. They are indeed against corporatism but in this case, in the United States, progressive corporatism if you actually know what this is. You cannot simply accuse individuals, including myself, of seeing the same thing within this movement and has sources to back it up. It seems like to me, and apparently others who either stopped contributing to this Article or got banned are seeing what I'm seeing too. The only individuals who are not are unfortunately certain "elite" contributors who obviously have an agenda. I close with this, your arguments show your willingness to violate WP:NPOV, WP:BOLD, and WP:NOTABILITY to secure your own agenda in controlling the knowledge about Occupy Wall Street on Wikipedia. This applies to Equazcion and others who have responded in this case, and cases involving Centrist Fiasco as well as false allegations towards AssociateJ and others. American Patriot J (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Quacking loudly on many levels. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  00:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ match to . Secondly, . Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) ✅ from several other previously ✅ socks. WilliamH (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

18 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Compare this edit to the info box with this one (also compare the odd capitalization) and this one, and focus on social democracy in each. Also, IP is in the same range as a prior IP blocked used by CentristFiasco. CU for socks (and total confirmation). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Endorse I had CentristFiasco in mind when I confronted them.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ as a sock of CentristFiasco. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. ( X! ·  talk )  · @203  · 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)