Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

08 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

. created the article Syria civil war, which is at AfD; ChronicalUsual !votes "Totally Oppose and absolute Keep" ; then  comes along a bit later...and !votes "Totally Oppose and absolute Keep". is created and its first edit is to !vote in the AfD. is not as ducky but raises an eyebrow as immediately after creation he/she dove into the article in question and also !voted almost immediately. SpyroSpeedruns already blocked per WP:DUCK, requesting CU to confirm the others and to check for sleepers which seems quite likely to me (Spyro, for instance, was created a few weeks ago before popping up today). The Bushranger One ping only 20:26, 8 February 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

 * - SpyroSpeedruns is already blocked, but I have a feeling the others are meatpuppets based on overlap (or lack thereof) in articles. Still, it's worth a look, so endorsing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SpyroSpeedruns and HeyBilout are ❌. Aginsijib shares data with ChronicalUsual, but I'm not comfortable enough to call it likely.  The case is inconclusive, this is probably meat-puppetry off-wiki.  Keegan (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll go with my initial thoughts on this and call it meatpuppetry. Closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

25 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After repeated disruptive editing on content related to the Arab Spring, including   WikiHounding me after I opened up a deletion discussion for a fork he created that ended with the article's merge and deletion, User:ChronicalUsual was blocked from editing on 16 February 2012. After he verbally attacked the blocking administrator, the block was extended, per, at 14:18, 16 February 2012. At 16:20, 16 February 2012, User:Grimso5 became active. His first act as an editor was to create a fork for one of ChronicalUsual's favorite topics, alleged discrimination against Alawites by the Syrian opposition. This page was soon moved to a less POV title. At 16:46, 16 February 2012, User:FavorLaw became active. His first edit was to Syria, reverting an edit I made. Several edits later, he recreated the Alawite discrimination page fork that Grimso5 had originally made. At this time, Grimso5 had become inactive. FavorLaw has proceeded to make a number of content edits, many of which have been challenged, with a clear POV bias against the Syrian opposition (a favored bugbear of ChronicalUsual), including:     Other ducky evidence includes the misspelling of "Iraq" as "Irak", as well as its lack of capitalization; compare  and the edit summary in. Also notably, all three accounts obviously have Wikipedia expertise; all three have created pages; ChronicalUsual and FavorLaw have participated on Talk pages, participated in move and deletion discussions, etc.; but all three but have chosen not to create userpages. FavorLaw also attacked User:Sopher99 and User:Lord Roem, both established editors who are clearly not socks, in what appears to be a classic attempt to deflect Sopher99's reasonable suspicion that FavorLaw is an unreported sock:  Based on the evidence available, I think it's reasonable to suspect FavorLaw and probably Grimso5 are socks of ChronicalUsual created to allow him to dodge a weeklong block, continue trying to push an anti-Syrian opposition POV on Arab Spring content, and harass editors like me, User:Goltak, and User:Sopher99 who had previously sparred with him. Kudzu1 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Acatalwayslandsonitsfeet just registered and its only contributions so far have been to Syria and Libya content, pushing a POV similar to the blocked editors:   Based on the username and the edits, I'm reasonably suspicious it's the same editor, so I'm asking it be checked before this case is closed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

ChronicalUsual himself is an account solely created for the purpose of escaping a ban

ChronicalUsual's real account was User:FreemanSA, which is still a sockaccount of, Geromasis was banned for edit warring.

I am 100% certain that ChronicalUsual is FreemanSA, who created FreemanSA immediately after Geromasis was banned. FreemanSA then got banned, leading to the creation of ChronicalUsual. ChronicalUsual created another account to escape his 1 week ban ,User:FavorLaw. This person has been a constant engager in edit wars, particularly during the editing 2011 Libyan civil war and now the Syrian uprising. I believe he uses different ips to escape bans though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geromasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreemanSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChronicalUsual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FavorLaw

Zenithfel (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Two weeks ago we checked Chronical and it was found to be meatpuppetry. I'm adding a CU to find out if it's them again. Only FavorLaw and Grimso5 can be checked; the others are stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This SPI was rather unpopular with CUs it seems. I think that's because of the report made it comparatively hard to see the evidence that would warrant a check. It is usually more helpful to be a bit more concise (if possible), listing the strongest evidence first, maybe use bulletpoints, or at least a line break or two. Anyway, ✅ the same are: Amalthea 18:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All socks indeffed and tagged; master blocked for a week. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Acatalwayslandsonitsfeet is ✅, now using an open proxy. Blocked and tagged. Amalthea 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have increased 's block to three weeks. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

01 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I think ChronicalUsual is back again. Can we get the Sockpuppet investigation open again? user:SuperMaher SuperMaher was created just 2 hours after chronical was banned, and he is already an expert on how the Syrian uprising is a foreign conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to new section by The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:ChronicalUsual has stated his intention on his Talk page to continue evading blocks: I strongly suspect User:SuperMaher is his latest sock. His first edit was to create a page for a self-declared jihadist group claiming to violently oppose the Syrian government. One of ChronicalUsual's favorite tactics was to edit articles to suggest the Syrian government is only responding to "terrorists" while editing out information to the contrary; SuperMaher appears to be doing the same. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual is going to come back forever in this way unless there is a way to ban or inhibit his use of the proxy server. With the proxy server he can create many many accounts. Sopher99 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No, this has gone on long enough> Sock blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK; master blocked indefinitely. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring can a checkuser determine if User:Brucerman is a sock of Chronical Usual? EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please Check User:TristanBogard, User:Idigm and User:Sobarmako as well. They all seemed to have been created to individualy treat separate pages in they same format as Chronical, shortly after he was banned. Sopher99 (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check User:Brucerman, the ones Sopher 99 stated, User:Igolahi, and User:Misstock. Brucerman has been POV pushing on Siege of Homs and has been trying to control it. Both of these things ChronicalUsual did. Th others have POV pushed, were created in early March after SuperMaher was banned, and they all share funky names like ChronicalUsual has been using. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

17 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both editors clearly have knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia. Like ChronicalUsual, both use bare URLs in citations offset by an extra space after the period. User:RomanceBad's first edit was to create a page for a new opposition group in Syria talking about how it represents divisions in the opposition, one of ChronicalUsual's favorite subjects. AgAzaw has only edited the page 2012 insurgency in northern Mali, on which ChronicalUsual was very active prior to his block. I believe ChronicalUsual, whose politics seem to be decidedly left-wing, is a French-speaker; AgAzaw cited a far-left French newspaper in making a POV edit suggesting the Malian government employs mercenaries. Accusing factions he does not like of using mercenaries is a favorite ChronicalUsual strategy for discrediting them dating back at least to his time as User:FreemanSA and User:Geromasis on the page currently known as Libyan civil war. There's no smoking gun here that I see, but it's all very ducky. Kudzu1 (talk) 18:46, 17 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
✅ that match previously blocked sock. Amalthea 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked. I had blocked Mertesack earlier; I have blocked the rest of the accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

19 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New users apparently just going around reverting edits I've made to previous pages. ChronicalUsusl did the same thing to User:Sopher99 after he got some of this disruptive blocked editors' socks banned. Kudzu1 (talk) 12:40, 19 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
✅ the following are all the same:
 * TN X Man 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked and tagged. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked and tagged. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked and tagged. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

05 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * I don't think I need any explanation at this point. Sopher99 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need any explanation at this point. Sopher99 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need any explanation at this point. Sopher99 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need any explanation at this point. Sopher99 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need any explanation at this point. Sopher99 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The name itself is biased and it is a new account that has been POV pushing. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to be targeting User:Goltak now. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to be targeting User:Goltak now. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)



More of his socks. Sopher99 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Sopher99 abd his group are simply accusing every new user who are not strictly aligned with them on this sensible subject. I am reading the page since time ago and I noticed it again and again. Here are another exemple of a new user being immediately accused by Sopher99 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual, here another user on the same page say that Sopher99 is biased and should not edit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_uprising_%282011%E2%80%93present%29&diff=490478234&oldid=490467798

More: This is what administrator Meowy write about Sopher99 : "It is nothing personal. I'm just astonished at the content of some of your article talk page and user talk page statements, and that you have got away with making them without any sanctions. I've been around a lot of articles that have generated heat, but I have NEVER seen a case of an editor POV-pushing in such an open and unabashed and sustained way. I suppose it is good that you are not being deceptive by trying to hide your lack of neutrality and impartiality (deceivers are generally not nice people) but it is not the correct attitude to have when editing an encyclopaedia article" "I'm not going to cherry-pick your choicest comments (especially since I suspect you will like them) but they all show that there is a strong pov that you are pushing, over-the-top statements like "The Syrian government is a ludicrous bunch of Saddam Hussein figures, nothing more"." "You know nothing at all about Syria. Your edits on Wikipedia that are connected to Syria begin and end with the "2011-2012 Syrian Uprising" article and its related fork articles. If you had any deep interest in and understanding about Syria you would have been editing other Syria-related articles and would have been doing it further back than 2011 - but you have done nothing like that. Probably you had never even heard of Syria until last year, but now, all whipped up with fake indignation fueled by whatever propaganda news channel you watch, you think you are an instant expert on Syria! Go back to watching Fox News and leave Wikipedia alone" "I think it might be time to take the issue to administrators, the single-issue editing aims of Sopher99, and his simplistic attitude to editing, do not contribute to a good article and are skewing it into an embarassing propaganda piece full of ugly POVs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Meowy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...since when did Meowy become an "administrator"? Pretty sure you're wrong there, buddy. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually it just turns out that every new user happens to be a sock of chronicalusual. The Checkusers have confirmed this. Also what described is Meowy's opinion. For example, he think I listen to fox news, yet I have never cited fox news once on wikipedia my entire life. I am removing that large section of quotations from meowy from this page, because this page is about sock puppets of Chronicalusual, not about the edits of user Sopher99 Sopher99 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC
 * On another note Sopher99, how is Fox News not a reliable source? That's like saying Wikipedia isn't. Fox News is reliable for everything except American politics where it is biased right-wing. Most other American news sources are biased left-wing except maybe CNN. MSNBC is completely and totally left-wing. Jacob102699 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No Meowy said that I listened to fox news (which I don't), keeping in line with the "western Propaganda" theory. Sopher99 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's BS, Chronical. There are editors who have been active on Syria pages whose politics are clearly different from Sopher99's, like User:FunkMonk, User:TaalVerbeteraar, and others, who haven't been accused of wrongdoing by him or others because they're clearly not socks of an indef blocked disruptive POV warrior. This SPI isn't about Sopher99's edits or anyone else's, and you know it. You were blocked, and every account you create is a violation of community guidelines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Klavisioni is doing some major edit warring and POV pushing on the main Syrian uprising page. Please block him, at least for edit warring before the checkuser. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Klavisioni looks very ducky to me. Quack, quack. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also an Austrian IP user active at 149.154.159.142. Said editor made a couple of nonsense edits to an unrelated page and has since contributed exclusively to pages on which ChronicalUsual and socks are active, including removing a speedy delete template from an article created by the sock Klavisioni. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've notived CU has seemed to be active in Bahrain too and has a proxy server so we can't ban him. Jacob102699 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/149.154.159.142

And according to the diff at 17:06 May 2, he thinks he already knows me. Sopher99 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, the "Syrian opposition activist" epithet. An old CU standby. You should be so flattered. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Taken from the archive. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ as usual, no comments regarding the IP address :
 * The following accounts are :
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and also
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged socks. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are :
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and also
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged socks. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are :
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and also
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged socks. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are :
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and also
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged socks. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged socks. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged socks. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

21 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Looks awfully ducky. New editor active almost exclusively on Syria content. RorionGracie characteristically doesn't sign Talk contributions, characteristic lack of userpage, characteristic accusations toward other editors of "vandalizing". Kudzu1 (talk) 13:28, 21 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
To help facilitate the investigation, could you provide diffs that show the connection between this account and previous ones? TN X Man 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . One week has passed without the requested information being added. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No response, marking for close. TN X Man  14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

17 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

DanielUmel was blocked for 1 week yesterday by User:Black Kite for "edit-warring across multiple articles" and "misrepresentation of sources" to promote a pro-Assad point of view in articles relating to the Syrian civil war—virtually the only topic area he ever edited in. No resistance to or acknowledgement of this sanction has been made by Daniel on his talkpage. However, shortly after the block, a number of new accounts have cropped up to push a POV disparaging of the Syrian opposition (Merittitle00 ("carnage", note also the precocious use of a citation template) Merittitle00 (casting doubt on opposition claims via citation-needed template TartatindeTaras (casting doubt on opposition claims) TartarindeTaras (dead rebels) Firasker ("jihadists") Firasker ("armed group")) and revert (FabianMarker FabianMarker TartarindeTaras) users with whom Daniel frequently edit-warred.

FabianMarker was blocked shortly after showing up by User:Materialscientist for "block evasion" and editing through an open proxy. I suspect that the listed accounts are used similarly, so the CU may be in vain. However, I find this sudden proliferation of newly-created accounts all editing in a very similar manner to be very suspicious. They seem to be throwaway accounts, created in rapid succession with no time overlap to avoid scrutiny—though they all have edited Battle of Aleppo (2012). Given the small amount of edits for each new account, there isn't much to go off of in that regard, but I think that the editing patterns and the circumstances are telling. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * .....wow. That has to be one of the biggest sock-farms I have ever seen. Salvio, could those accounts not conclusively linked to the main puppeteer be on open proxies (like FabianMarker)? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this site, the IP address they used to edit appears to belong to a university (in a different country, as I mentioned earlier). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting. Meatpuppets, maybe? I think that, pending indef-blocks and closure, a ban discussion for ChronicalUsual may be in order. This sort of sock-farming is ludicrous. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, meatpuppetry is certainly a possibility! Regarding the ban proposal, I'd say this guy is already de facto banned and no admin is going to unblock him, so a de jure ban is something of a merely bureaucratic move, but if you propose a ban, I'll support it. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Should I go ahead and tag the socks as well? (I think indefs are still needed, though; see e.g. Loosmark's sock-farm). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * quack. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I believe DanielUmel is the newest account of User:ChronicalUsual who had made over 50 sock accounts to vandalize things in a pro assad manner, and promised to return in the future. I think this is him. Sopher99 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I am just ... shocked. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be. I think you're someone who edits and contributes in good faith -- even though I frequently disagree with you -- but a lot of people on your side really aren't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

- Why am I not surprised. I7laseral (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * - to sort this out. is also crossing into this and needs checked as well (diff). All of the contribs in ChronicalUsual's archive are now stale for CU purposes so any association there would have to be based on behavior alone.
 * This is going to be a very long list... The following accounts are all a ✅ match to each other and are also a ✅ match to ChronicalUsual.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * And now things get a little confused: the following accounts are a ✅ match to each other, but it's impossible for checkuser to link them to the previous ones, as they are editing from a different IP range (actually, a different country) and use a very different UA. So this will have to be decided based on behavioural evidence.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match to each other and a highly match to Merittitle00 and co.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.
 * Moved case to ChronicalUsual and indeffing the lot with tags and closing.

16 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

this account appeared after the useR was blocked Alhanuty (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

this account also trying to make syrian civil war artilcles pro-government,doing the same as he did in his blocked account

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

Quack, quack. User also displays the same linguistic tics as ChronicalUsual. English is obviously not his first language. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not so sure. Chronical-Daniel displayed a more Francophone manner of speech, whereas Dimitrish exhibits more eastern European idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, it isn't that hard to adopt a cartoonish "in Soviet Russia" linguistic disguise, and the POV being pushed is similar enough to warrant some concern. I'm not thoroughly convinced that he is the same, but I think that a checkuser should be done to allay the concerns here, given the scale of the sockpuppetry by C-D, his possible use of meatpuppets and proxy IPs, and his expressed intent to return to his old shenanigans. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to think these accounts are not the same person. There's very little similarity in style and language between the two accounts, in my opinion.  I'm unable to detect similar linguistic "tics" (good phrase) and in fact see completely different tics in their styles.  That said, it's also very obvious that Dimitrish81 wasn't a new editor - but perhaps they started editing on a different language wikipedia?  --HighKing (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As far as CU is concerned, appears to be technically ❌ to . As usual, this does not necessarily excludes socking or meatpuppetry, but that will have to be determined based on behavioural evidence.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 08:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Insufficient behavioral evidence to link. Might be a sock, but these two don't seem to match.  Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

29 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets



A new user who is suddenly an expert on how the Syrian civil war is a conspiracy and goes strait to the talkpage to discuss it? Please.

ChronicalUsual/DanielUmel promised to return. And now that the protection for these pages expired, hes back. Sopher99 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the user-compare toolserver as it was only comparing Chronical with Dimitrish81 for some reason. Sopher99 (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I added Dimitrish81 to see if the karim and him are related, which I don't think so. Sopher99 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I checked Karim226's contributions. Seems like he's a new user who's only interested in the Syrian civil war. I do think this is suspicious, although I'm not entirely sure.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike me, you haven't encountered all 65 of ChronicalUsuals sockpuppets who started out the same way. Your relatively new to the Syrian pages. Sopher99 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * *Shrug* True. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, does this match or come close to any of the ranges used by the suspected meatpuppets caught in the DanielUmel case (e.g. User:Merittitle00 or User:Tyei1111)? Is this account editing via proxy? I'm not surprised that this doesn't match Chronical's user data; he seems a pretty sharp and tech-savvy guy and would have to be very sloppy to get caught in the same location—or as the same individual—so soon after such a large bust as the one last month.

Based on reading the limited text that this user has posted for "linguistic tics", I'm leaning away from declaring Karim to be the master himself. Nevertheless, something isn't quite kosher here. A straight-to-talkpage disruptive SPA throws up a major red flag. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Dimitrish is related here. Karim is at least intelligible in his posts. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * and are in the same continent as CU and Dimitri, though they geolocate to very different parts thereof. I'm sorry, but, in this case, the CU tool is of little use...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 02:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. What would be necessary to demonstrate evidence of meatpuppetry in a case as this? Of course it'd be behavioural, but how can meatpuppetry be distinguished from run-of-the-mill disruptive editing? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a difficult question, because I don't want to be WP:BEANSy and, at the same time, I wouldn't want to block an innocent newbie as a meat and because meatpuppetry is something to be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, if an editor is making edits which are at their core similar to those made by CU, to the same set of articles CU edited, then I'd say a block is probably warranted. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't surprise me at all if CU isn't a "lone wolf" but is part of a small group dedicated to making mischief on sites like Wikipedia. The existence of the so-called "Syrian Electronic Army" is well known; I'm not suggesting CU is part of anything so official or government-sanctioned, but we know that pro-regime elements as well as Arab liberal and Islamist elements are at least aware of the importance of organized Web/social media activity in promoting "the cause". At any rate, unfortunately, we also know that CU has used an open proxy in the past to evade CheckUser and avoid IP blocks. That can't be ruled out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I wasn't aware of the Syrian Electronic Army; in light of this and of the disruption caused by CU and his merry band of socks and meats, probably the best way forward is to ask the community to impose the standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages pertaining to the Arab Spring... It will not solve all problems, but it would give a bit more leeway to the admins dealing with disruptive editors... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that WP:DISCSANC were imposed by ArbCom only, or? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is at least one precedent ... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Based on previous record, a check for sleepers is likely warranted. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as the CU tool is concerned, appears to be technically ❌...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 02:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And that didn't involve using this right? *User compare report Auto-generated every hour. Cause its broken for this page. Sopher99 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I didn't use it. I took a look at Karim's contributions, but did not analyse them in depth: I am not ruling out either sock or meatpuppetry. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 02:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dimitrish81 went the same way, ie, technically unrelated. Any chance Dimitrish81 and Karim226 are related?  That might help in building up some idea of whether they are all related via behaviour. Jeancey (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Karim and Dimitri and Karim and ChronicalUsual  are on different continents and neither one appears to be using proxies, as far as I can tell; Dimitri and ChronicalUsual appear to be in the same continent, but in different countries. As I said, this can be meatpuppetry, but this will have to be determined based on behavioural evidence. While running this check, however, I found a new sock of CU, whom I blocked, .  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 02:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But considering Chronical striked as late as 23 October, don't be surprised if we request help again soon =). Sopher99 (talk)

31 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Syria-obsessed SPA editors who have adopted one of the old CU tricks of bluelinking their user page (and, in User:Johnswk's case, Talk page) with a one- or two-word basic entry. CU socks would be easy to spot because they would have redlinked user pages (CU himself did for a while) and eventually he started changing it up that way to make the socks less obvious. Anyway, I'm just guessing these guys are CU ("Syrianview" sounds like a classic CU sock name, and I'm sure other editors familiar with them will agree), and they're definitely the same person (pushing identical editors, alternating to avoid WP:3RR, both have their username as the only text on their user page, etc.) which is a violation of Wikipedia rules in its own right. Here's an example of their tag-teaming handiwork:  -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

At this point, I don't think that Chronical will try to make another permanent "Daniel"-style account anytime in the near future. We're "wise to his shit" at this point, so the only hope he has of avoiding detection are throwaway accounts (like Agreviatorr above) that make one or a few edits before being abandoned. Nevertheless, this is demonstrative of the pervasive disruption on these pages, and I'm really wondering if DISCSANC are the way to go here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it not allowed to sock even if this guy isn't CU? Especially since they've been tag-teaming articles to get around 3RR? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and are a ✅ match to each other. As a result of technical evidence I obtained through the tool, however, personally I don't think they are CU...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocking socks regardless of possible relation to sockmaster for the apparent socking (no tags). Closing.

17 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Scant. See: ANI. Shirt58 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * No. Not even a tiny chance. This is silly. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I'm new to Wikipedia, having only been here six and a half years, and am ignorant of many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  How do I change my username to "Mister Stoopid Head 58"? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * You have made no effort to back up your case with evidence. . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This case is closed for manifestly failing to provide any supporting evidence, just like the ANI thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

23 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Oleg Taktarov was created [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Oleg_Taktarov] two minutes after EolexMax was created [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=EolexMax], and both users have removed CSDs/PRODs by MrX, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khelltec_saga&diff=prev&oldid=534522266][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dias_de_silencio&diff=prev&oldid=534522756][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergio_Goldvarg&diff=prev&oldid=534519710] especially Everything and Nothing: But Referring to Something. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everything_and_Nothing:_But_Referring_to_Something&diff=prev&oldid=534519646][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everything_and_Nothing:_But_Referring_to_Something&diff=prev&oldid=534522640] Not 100% sure though; so I am requesting a CheckUser. The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Mr X is obvsiouly lying.Bold text--EolexMax (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This tool has some useful info. The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked all 5 accounts based on behavior. CU might be useful to see if there are others (although they aren't hard to spot). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ In addition, is ✅. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are all ChronicalUsual; so could a clerk, please, move this investigation and tag all socks? Thanks. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again? Good grief, can't this be fixed with a range block? - MrX 00:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked another CU to impose a rangeblock a couple of days ago, but it did not really help that much; unfortunately, he's using various different ranges and, so, it's difficult to get him... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All socks are now blocked and tagged. This case was originally filed under EolexMax, but has been moved here per checkuser request. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

24 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I'm back again with two more. (see Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive for yesterday's related incident) The accounts were both created within several minutes of each other, and both accounts went straight over to undo MrX's edits again.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups&diff=prev&oldid=534617527][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerry_Sayers&diff=prev&oldid=534617065][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feriye_Saraylari&diff=prev&oldid=534617079] I'm requesting CheckUser to see if there are possibly any others. The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 07:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Yep. as well. FYI, Salvio's been the admin handling this character for a while. He'll "take out the trash" when you point it out to him on his talk, as those of us editing in topic areas plagued by him do. Saves the trouble of re-opening this SPI every 12 hours. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, exactly like that was caught yesterday. I'm adding it to the list of sock puppets. Thanks also for the note about Salvio. The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs)  07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - noting that the diffs on Gebbordi are a bit lacking, so this is not necessarily an endorsement there. Rschen7754 08:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All three accounts are ✅ with each other. An IP has been blocked. WilliamH (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, are they confirmed with ChronicalUsual as well? --Rschen7754 10:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On a purely technical level, yes. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, this was CU again. All socks blocked and tagged. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

07 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

self-admission; Already blocked, just noting for posterity. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:52, 7 February 2013 (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

 * Closing per above. Rschen7754 19:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

9 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This account also trying to make Syrian civil war artilcles pro-government,doing the same as he did in his blocked account and his attitude in editing is the very same as of that of deonis2012 ,and his edits are disruptive,and his source aren't reliable,and his sources claims impossible things,and the account was made today,and his last account Saddam 1991 was just blocked 2 weeks ago only Alhanuty (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Probably not Deonis, more likely User:ChronicalUsual. Recommend check on that account.

And Alhanuty, for the love of all that is holy, can you please try to learn how to format things correctly? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As surmised above, this is, not Deonis. ✅ to one another and to previous ChronicalUsual socks:
 * The case will need to be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved and closed, since all the sockpuppets are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor CU blocked by a fellow checkuser. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The case will need to be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved and closed, since all the sockpuppets are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor CU blocked by a fellow checkuser. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The case will need to be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved and closed, since all the sockpuppets are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor CU blocked by a fellow checkuser. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The case will need to be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved and closed, since all the sockpuppets are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor CU blocked by a fellow checkuser. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

12 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Sopher99 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is a ✅ match and has been indeffed. is ❌.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

10 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

he has been edit syrian civil war pages to promote his point of views and his tactics are the same as Chronical usual and other user have discovered that including user sopher99 and EkoGraf,and he is using pro- syrian government source and after all that he is edit warring,I request an investigation for this case. Alhanuty (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And Chronical has a history of using ip sock puppets ,and his latest sock puppet Malsius Germon has been blocked one month ago Alhanuty (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is clearly another IP-sock of User:Deonis 2012, not CU. Deonis socks using dynamic IPs, so blocking this old one would be worthless. Recommend speedy close. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely Deonis. Sopher99 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Definitely Deonis and already rangeblocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

23 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

this account just formed yesterday,and this editor is targeting me even that the issue is minor,and chronical was a Russian editor so is this editor,and the weird thing is this editor is editing jut I. The Syrian case,as chronical did Alhanuty (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Definitely a sock of someone (immediately edited to bluelink his/her user page with some nonsense symbols and posted on an administrators' noticeboard as one of his/her first edits), but not seeing a definitive connection to ChronicalUsual. Nonetheless, it seems obvious this is socking behavior of some sort -- this editor clearly is not new to Wikipedia -- so I would endorse Alhanuty's request for CheckUser. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This was Deonis and not ChronicalUsual (whose English, by the way, is much less broken). Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

16 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Seems obvious from the username Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Even if it's not a sock account, it's a pretty trollish username, and the user's editing behavior has been mendacious and non-constructive. And it's probably a sock account. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ +  Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)