Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fragments of Jade/Archive

Report date January 31 2009, 20:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Same concerns, same interests, same points, same editing style, same accusations of harassment, same "I'm new here, but I've seen how corrupt Wikipedia is!" arguments... This user (mostly known as "SyberiaWinx") has already been dealt with many times in the past (Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SirShiek and Requests for checkuser/Case/Fragments of Jade, for example) and now appears to be back as "Akari Kanzaki". Erigu (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Erigu (talk)
 * Although I'd rather believe (and currently assume) that this is a good-faith user, AK is involved in the same dispute over "Wild Arms/Wild ARMs" as Fragments of Jade/Weisheit. I'd prefer for this to be a coicidence. - A Man In Blâck (conspire - past ops) 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So are many others. I can guarantee you it's a lie, but I'll still be banned. Look at all the other innocent victims. I've chatted with most of those people for years, and I know they're not all the same person. I told you this would happen, and thanks to her admin buddies, I will get banned. It's as I said-anyone who is brave enough to bring up and support "ARMs" will get accused and then banned. Had it been you, it would be you in this position right now. And because of her connections, this child will make sure I don't get a "fair trial". They'll just find some way you can't argue to claim I'm a sockpuppet. Tactiturn Tempest AKA DarkSilhouette, you will truly sink to any low. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks to her admin buddies
 * 'Still a man. Funny how you keep making that baseless assumption. Erigu (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you name any of these others who doesn't have a feminine or effeminate name taken from Japanese pop culture? - A Man In Blâck (conspire - past ops) 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty lame argument, no offense. As I pointed out, your own name could be taken from pop culture, even if that's not where you got it from. Video games and anime are especially popular in the Western world these days. Are you going to say that everyone named after a game character or anime character or anything related to Japan is a sockpuppet? That's a lot of people. Even Jinnai from that argument has a Japanese-sounding name? Is he a sockpuppet? How about this, then? Erigu's name is connected to a Japanese RPG series called the Marl Kingdom series. Is she a sock puppet as well? Those names could come from anything. They could even be the names of the users real-life selves. Lamiroir, for example, sounds French. Weisheit is the German word for wisdom. RedRosePrincess, IceQueenAvril, WhenTheyCry, MagicalHopStep, and Fragments of Jade all also sound fairly non-Japanese. It's easy to find random connections and make accusations. But those can be easily picked apart by those willing to look and not just assume. You claim these people are all the same, and I'm one of them as well, because we all allegedly have effeminate, Japanese pop-culture names, but I have already proven that to be false, as well as proven that the person getting everyone banned falls into the same boat. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Erigu's name is connected to a Japanese RPG series called the Marl Kingdom series.
 * Er... Nope?
 * Lamiroir, for example, sounds French.
 * It's also the name of a character in Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, a Japanese video game.
 * Weisheit is the German word for wisdom.
 * It's also the name of a character in Wild Arms XF, a Japanese video game.
 * RedRosePrincess, IceQueenAvril, WhenTheyCry, MagicalHopStep, and Fragments of Jade all also sound fairly non-Japanese.
 * I would bet "RedRosePrincess" comes from Rule of Rose (a Japanese video game), "IceQueenAvril" from Wild Arms 5 (a Japanese video game), "WhenTheyCry" from Higurashi no Naku Koro ni (a Japanese video game series) and "MagicalHopStep" from Magic User's Club (a Japanese animated series).
 * So "Fragments of Jade" is the only odd one out (was it inspired by The Prophecy of the Stones, by any chance?). 'Good thing we have tons of evidence (including several CheckUser reports) to connect it to the rest of the lot! Erigu (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Added one IP address (76.120.154.28). Erigu (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Added one user (TheBrokenSky). The user name, the timing of the account creation (a few hours after Akari Kanzaki got blocked), the timing of the contributions (the first wave of contributions ended just three minutes before the last two edits by Akari Kanzaki on her talk page), the apparent interest in the Wild Arms dispute, the lack of indentation and the overall behavior make me think it is yet another sockpuppet. Erigu (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: "TheBrokenSky" (now blocked for sockpuppetry) asked why I was using the name "SyberiaWinx" when referring to this case, and I think it may clarify matters to explain that detail, as well as why I'm connecting all these "different" cases together... This might also serve as a handy reference for admins so I won't have to "chase" her around should she come back in the future (and I see no reason to expect she won't, at this point), so I hope you'll forgive any excessive exhaustiveness...

67.163.193.239 first got into trouble when she tried to link to her forum and then to her site in the Rule of Rose article. See part of the discussion here.

She made the fact she was the webmistress of the site (i.e. "SyberiaWinx", an alias she keeps using to this day, hence my preference for it over "67.163.193.239" or her other "single-use" Wikipedia usernames) clear on several occasions. Eventually, she may have realized that her webmistress status wasn't playing in her favor, and she backpedaled. She began posing as a mere member of the associated forum, apparently assuming no one would notice the contradiction, and, after an unfortunate slip of the keyboard, finally created the "RedRosePrincess" account, supposed to be the actual webmistress of the site who "finally" gets involved in the discussion. CheckUser naturally confirmed that 67.163.193.239 and RedRosePrincess were one and the same (along with SirShiek, another sock).

She then came back (and was blocked) as TomitakePrincess and WrathofSheik. Details can be found on the respective talk pages as well as here and here.

So we have a "Group A": 67.163.193.239, SirShiek, RedRosePrincess, TomitakePrincess and WrathofSheik, all confirmed to be one and the same, i.e. SyberiaWinx, the webmistress of the "Rule of the Rose" site.

Then, we have what I'll call "Group B", consisting of 24.3.186.152 and MagicalHopStep, assumed to be one and the same here.

While I don't believe any connection had been made between Group A and Group B before, I would think the similarities are obvious: same editing style, same interests, same overall behavior. But if some doubt remains, it only takes Google to confirm the connection...

Here's a page SyberiaWinx commented on while 67.163.193.239 was active on Wikipedia. As you can see, her "SyberiaWinx" signature is associated with the 67.163.193.239 IP address, once again confirming (if it wasn't clear enough already) that 67.163.193.239 was indeed SyberiaWinx, i.e. the webmistress of "Rule of the Rose". Now, here's another page from the same site. You'll note that there's a comment left by a certain "RhapsodyAvalont", using the 24.3.186.152 IP address. The date shows that was during the period of activity of 24.3.186.152 on Wikipedia. A simple Google search confirms that SyberiaWinx and RhapsodyAvalont are one and the same: / and.

So we already have "Group A = Group B = SyberiaWinx".

Next, we have "Group C", i.e. the "Fragments of Jade group". As seen here, it consists of 76.120.173.40, Fragments of Jade, Weisheit-A Sane Kind of Madness, MidnightRukia, TwilightRukia, WhenTheyCry, IceQueenAvril, 76.120.153.223, MiyakoKajiro, Lamiroir, TheScrappedPrincess and AllPurposeCultural. 24.3.180.166 was considered "likely", and while 76.120.153.223 was included in the list for the usual reasons, looks quite similar to "76.120.173.40" and was blocked for 48 hours, I'm not sure it was actually confirmed by CheckUser.

I first became involved (as 88.161.129.43) with the accused party while she was using 76.120.173.40 and Fragments of Jade. During a long dispute that eventually went into mediation and when asked for extra evidence, Fragments of Jade alluded to testimonies she had found on an UK-based forum. As she was unwilling to share the address of the forum, I looked around and quickly found this (cached by Google, as the forum is now offline). A topic about the very question that was debated on Wikipedia had been recently revived on that forum by a "SyberiaWinx". The timing of that revival, as well as those of the later messages of both Fragments of Jade on Wikipedia and SyberiaWinx on the UK forum made it clear that they were the same person. On top of that, Fragments of Jade had already been suspected of also being 24.3.180.166 and 76.120.173.40 at that point, and the fact WHOIS pointed to the same location for both IPs had strengthened those suspicions. I Googled "SyberiaWinx" and the location and quickly confirmed that SyberiaWinx was from there as well. That would be a lot of coincidences.

But the "coincidences" linking the "Fragments of Jade group" and SyberiaWinx kept coming...

As Weisheit-A Sane Kind of Madness, she claimed that I had been a member of her Wild Arms forum, called "Wild Dreamers" (for the record, I never was a member of any Wild Arms forum... in fact, one could wonder why I'd join such a forum considering I barely played one of the games of the series, a fact Fragments of Jade and her socks are well aware of, as they constantly argue that should forbid me from editing the related articles). A Google search on "Wild Arms" and "Wild Dreamers" to find said forum resulted in two finds: the forum itself (private and oddly similar to the "Rule of the Rose" one)... and a Youtube video by SyberiaWinx. A while later, a member of the forum (I assume, since he/she appears to be able to consult it at all) apparently noticed the dispute on Wikipedia and wrote a summary of the whole affair that confirms that "Wild Dreamers" is SyberiaWinx's forum.

When she was IceQueenAvril and still arguing about the capitalization of the title "Wild Arms", I pointed out that her claim that anybody who played the games would know she was right didn't quite fit with the reality that two different Wild Arms Wiki (arguably edited by fans of the series) disagreed with her. She claimed that she knew of another Wiki that was proving her right (but refused to provide a link), and that one of the Wikis I mentioned would soon be "fixed" by Elmina, one of its administrators. I went to see if there was a forum associated with that Wiki, and found this. A topic started by SyberiaWinx mere hours after the last activity of TwilightRukia, blocked for sockpuppetry while she was arguing this very issue.

As AllPurposeCultural, she claimed that Mr T (Based) had gotten numerous users banned, and that the whole affair was "going around GameFAQs". When I asked her some links, she refused on the grounds that I had been really rude to her (despite the fact it was actually the first time I was speaking to "AllPurposeCultural"). AllPurposeCultural was quickly confirmed to be yet another sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade, but I went ahead and checked the GameFAQs boards, just in case. True enough, somebody was talking about all that. A somebody called "SyberiaWinx".

The timing of the messages was quite telling as well... On October 5, TwilightRukia got blocked while arguing about the capitalization of Wild Arms, and 19 minutes later, SyberiaWinx created this topic on GameFAQs. On October 12, WhenTheyCry got blocked while arguing about the capitalization of Wild Arms, and 1 hour 19 minutes later, SyberiaWinx created this topic on GameFAQs. On October 21, TheScrappedPrincess got blocked while she was trying to push her edits on the Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure article, and 35 minutes later, SyberiaWinx posted this on GameFAQs.

So I believe it's pretty clear we have "Group A = Group B = Group C = SyberiaWinx".

While there's still a "Group D" (Akari Kanzaki and TheBrokenSky, confirmed below by Luna Santin), there's a possible match between those "two" and AllPurposeCultural, i.e. "Group C". I also think it's pretty clear that 76.120.154.28 was used by Akari Kanzaki to circumvent the 3RR, and we had an eerily similar 76.120.153.223 before. And of course, there's still the same unmistakable editing style and behavior. Erigu (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Erigu (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC) -- lucasbfr  talk 10:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Quoting myself from User talk:TheBrokenSky:
 * From a checkuser POV, the following are a ✅ match for each other:
 * And both of the above are a match for at least one account blocked as an FOJ sock:
 * All other accounts listed here appear to be for checkuser purposes. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And both of the above are a match for at least one account blocked as an FOJ sock:
 * All other accounts listed here appear to be for checkuser purposes. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All other accounts listed here appear to be for checkuser purposes. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Completed. --Deskana (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 9 2009, 04:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

WhiteKnightLeo has already been confirmed to be Akari Kanzaki / TheBrokenSky by CheckUser here and was blocked for sock puppetry. +20 EXP was created ten minutes after that block and immediately resumed the same argument with the same editing style.
 * Evidence submitted by Erigu (talk)

The only reason I'm asking for a CheckUser is that the account is fairly recent and there's not much material. But the sock puppetry is obvious to me. Erigu (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not a sockpuppet. I do not even know why I'm being accused. From the looks of it, this person just accuses whoever they please, then those people get banned. I took a look at the talk pages of the people I'm accused of being, and there's clearly more than meets the eye going on here. Take a good look at WhiteKnightLeo's talk page. He pointed it out, but they banned him to shut him up. Luna is lying and faking checkusers to back up Erigu's claims of sockpuppetry, and who knows how long she's been doing it. Luna claimed that the IP Leo was using matched the one being used by Akari and BrokenSky. Both Akari and BrokenSky's IPs had been indefinitely blocked, but Luna argued that the blocks could have run out, allowing Leo to use it. She blocked the IP Leo was using, which she insists was that same IP. However, he caught Luna in her lie by publically posting the block log of his IP. Luna confirmed that IP as Leo's-the one she blocked. However, as Leo pointed out, that block log proved she was lying. If that IP had matched the lone one used by Akari and BrokenSky, there would have been records of the blockings done to those two accounts, whether they were indefinite or not. For her statement to be true, there should have been at least two other entries in that block log...but there wasn't. Luna lied. Leo caught her and spoke out, but he was banned completely. I'd bet he can't even edit his talk page anymore, thus why he's stopped responding and trying to prove his innocence. There's a chance Luna or some other admin friendly with Erigu will get this checkuser and do the same, but it will obviously be a lie. That block log confirms the IP has been blocked for a week. If anyone tries to claim the IPs are the, there is no way they are not lying. I can only hope this checkuser is handled by someone not friendly with Erigu, who will be truthful. +20 EXP (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

This is the same type of skull-quackery that I have found at Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239/Archive. The usernames, as well as the style of quacking, all seem to be identical to the previous sock cases against, whom I believe at this time should be de facto banned for such conduct (as no administrator in his/her right mind would unblock said user). MuZemike 07:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I should also notice that these new accounts are in retaliation to the checkuser run by current checkuser, who is current requesting for oversight as shown and. MuZemike 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack. MuZemike 08:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Requested by Erigu (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * The user is blocked already, but might need some drawer cleaning. -- lucasbfr  talk 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

. No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

. No further action necessary. --Deskana (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 11 2009, 04:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The usual deal with this user... An account created shortly after +20 EXP was blocked, same interests, same editing style...
 * Evidence submitted by Erigu (talk)

Again, the account is fairly recent at the time of this writing, so I included a CheckUser request just in case, but... Erigu (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Someone please believe me; I have no idea what's going on here! And I'm not being disruptive! I've put a lot of hard work into the edits I made, and Collectonian went around undoing them all, with no explanation! I even asked him/her to please stop it and post on my talk page or the article's if he/she had a problem with the edits, but he just posted something mean on my talk and user pages as a response. I worked so hard on those pages and profiles, and he/she destroyed it all in seconds... UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * I was about to AN/I, as I agree, this is a pretty obvious sock of the original puppeteer User:Fragments of Jade. I believe from the last check user, they were coming from the same or similar IP, so perhaps an IP or an IP range block would help. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually gone ahead and reported due to the sock being actively disruptive and needing block. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Erigu (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * to determine if this is another facet of the FoJ farm Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * already blocked as a FoJ sock Mayalld (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * comment from accused party restored. Users commenting at this case must NOT remove the commentrs of other users. Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

blocked as a sock of FoJ Mayalld (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 12 2009, 23:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:

The usual deal, yet again. Account created soon after the latest sock of 67.163.193.239 / SyberiaWinx was blocked, same editing style, same interests, same concerns...
 * Evidence submitted by Erigu (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Erigu (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * To determine if this is another FoJ sock.  Syn  ergy 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. Too much collateral damage for a rangeblock, unfortunately. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be on the safe side - Nishkid64: did you mean that is a confirmed sock? -- Kanonkas :  Talk  14:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, confirmed as Fragments of Jade. Editing from the same ISP and same location as all his socks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 21 2009, 08:16 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Same interests, and very similar edits to List of Higurashi no Naku Koro ni characters.
 * Evidence submitted by Erigu (talk)

It's still fairly early (hence the ChekUser request), but I think there's a good chance we're dealing with the same editor once again. Erigu (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: ... and she immediately blanks her talk page. I think we have a winner. Erigu (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I just checked out the history and fixed some errors. As for same interests, I haven't a clue what that's supposed to be about. La Harle (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I blanked my talk page so no one else would see and believe what you wrote there, which is a complete lie. You shouldn't make accusations without some actual proof. Also, I ask that you stop messing with my edits. You're just being spiteful, arguing for the sake of arguing. La Harle (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I blanked my talk page so no one else would see and believe what you wrote there, which is a complete lie.
 * It's not a lie at all: I do suspect you of being the latest sockpuppet of 67.163.193.239 / SyberiaWinx. Erigu (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not, so it's a lie. Keep your accusations to yourself. You can't just go around slandering people! And what kind of an argument is that? Removing an offensive remark from my talk page? Allegedly similiar interests? I edited three articles! You yourself have edited the same articles, so you apparently also have similiar interests. La Harle (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's "similar", not "similiar". You keep making that mistake. Amusing lapsus though. Erigu (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stop responding to you now. It's very obvious you're just looking to pick a fight, and you'll use whatever you can to try and prove your case, no matter how stupid. Typos? Oh, please. La Harle (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Erigu (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

This is a duck case. -- Kanonkas : Talk  21:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Report date March 3 2009, 18:48 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Erigu (talk)

Same interests, same editing style, and the timing of the account creation is... Well, the usual stuff.

I don't believe CheckUser is necessary at this point, personally, but... Erigu (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Added the previous confirmed sockpuppet "Do You Know Oyashiro-sama?", for the sake of completeness. The currently suspected sockpuppet is PrincessMint. Erigu (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Does this site have ANY rules? How can it be okay for this person to claim I'm a sockpuppet, then start undoing edits based on that claim? On top of that, this Erigu person is going around telling other people that I am a sockpuppet, damaging my credibiliy as an editor. Also, Erigu is undoing good edits, pushing their own, which have no basis whatsoever. Both the official Higurashi Rei site and a person living in Japan have confirmed it's currently airing. Though they have no actual knowledge of the series, as clear from their edits, this person has been going around stating false facts. They seem to just be trying to stir up trouble. None of this person's edits are sourced, yet they feel they have some kind of authority to undo edits that are, then accuse the editor of being a sockpuppet. Same interests? So, we both like "When They Cry". What does that prove? You're not the only one allowed to edit around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessMint (talk • contribs) 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both the official Higurashi Rei site and a person living in Japan have confirmed it's currently airing.
 * As I explained already, that's simply not true. Erigu (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So, because you claim it is not true, we're supposed to believe you? You're the one who's been going around telling people I'm a banned editor. But isn't that really just what YOU believe to be true? Stop making edits without doing the research, and then pushing the blame off on other people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessMint (talk • contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, because you claim it is not true, we're supposed to believe you?
 * ... but since you claim it is... you know the rest.
 * Shameless.
 * Anyway, here's the link to the official site, here's the link to the update about the limited broadcast I mentioned, and here's the page about those limited broadcasts (they've planned the same kind of deal for the second episode).
 * (it would seem the broadcasts are actually limited to 800 people per episode, not 400 as I previously thought... it's 400 on computers, and 400 more on mobile phones, hence my mistake)
 * Now, where's the bit about the OVA airing on TV though? Only in your imagination, it would seem.
 * You're the one who's been going around telling people I'm a banned editor.
 * Well, it's painfully obvious who you are. If I were an admin, you'd be blocked already, as per WP:DUCK... Erigu (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You basically just admitted that the show is airing...there's only five episodes, and you've already admitted two are or will air. Painfully obvious who I am? So, because I disagreed with an edit you should never had made, because sources saying otherwise were posted by previous editors, I'm a sockpuppet? Because I like a visual novel series many others do, I'm a sockpuppet? You go around accusing everyone, just because they make an edit on a page you think only you have the right to edit. There's no reason to believe I'm a sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessMint (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You basically just admitted that the show is airing...
 * Not at all, but I wouldn't expect you to let facts get in your way.
 * You're claiming the OVAs are airing on television, and they're not. You're claiming the official site talks about that, and it doesn't. You're claiming you have a friend in Japan who also confirmed that, and that friend is either wrong or a figment of your imagination (based on your previous deeds, I would actually bet on the latter, sadly enough). Erigu (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just give it up and admit you were wrong. You yourself just admitted the series is airing. And you need to stop claiming I'm a sockpuppet, when you have no proof. You know you are just making stuff up because someone edited one of "your" articles. I'm not a sockpuppet. Stop messing with every editor who disagrees with you. It's immature.PrincessMint (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point this out that Erigu's attitude towards me has been hostile and downright nasty. I've asked him to stop, but he won't. I tried to talk to him on his talk page, and he was very offensive. Seriously, get him out of my face. How can such behavior be allowed on Wikipedia? This guy is a troll. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth. He's editing articles for games he has never played and shows he has never even watched. He is editing articles he cares nothing about, for no other reason than to harass someone. Just look at his history. He gets someone banned as a sock, then he starts watching every page they edit. When a new user edits one of those pages, they get labelled as socks, and the process repeats itself. Someone needs to do something about this, because it's irritating.PrincessMint (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspected socks' contribs indicate the same editing patterns as banned user and other related confirmed socks: Not indenting talk page comments, lengthy edit summary comments, revert-warring on the same pages as before, and excessive quacking upon discovery that users are socks. MuZemike 22:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Oh yeah, forget the "friend" thing that has popped up in the last few SPIs, as indicated here as well as becoming, all of a sudden, very aware of previous related discussions such as the Wild ARMs dispute a while back. MuZemike 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also adding User:216.134.254.46 as a possible sock per the contribs, which show similar revert-warring (up to 3RR), similar edit summaries, and usage of "my friend..." MuZemike 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP appears to be unrelated, according to Luna Santin. And it certainly doesn't look like the previous IP addresses. Then again, maybe she used a mobile phone?
 * But even if 216.134.254.46 isn't a sockpuppet, she's definitely a meatpuppet... Erigu (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

PrincessMint has been blocked as yet another sockpuppet of FoJ. This case looks done for now? – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 21 2009, 11:04 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Erigu

FancyUlala has been considered a likely match by Luna Santin. On top of this, the user name follows the usual pattern, as it seems extremely likely to be a reference to Fancy Lala and Ulala, the protagonist of the Space Channel 5 series (a series Fragments of Jade showed interest for). The account appears to be inactive right now, but I'm thinking this might be due to Luna Santin's aforementioned comment.

76.120.177.142 appeared a while later, and showed familiar interests (such as sound novels or Rule of Rose... and there would be the very first edit regarding Syberia, the game that most probably inspired the name "SyberiaWinx" to begin with). With the IP address being so similar to 76.120.173.40, 76.120.153.223 and 76.120.154.28, I suspect this is, once again, no coincidence. Erigu (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Thanks for documenting this. FancyUlala blocked and tagged. I've also blocked 76.120.128.0/18 for a month (AO, ACB). Hopefully that should assist. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Erigu
The usual: same interests (the most obvious being the "Arms"/"ARMs" conflict), same editing style (no indentation)...

I think the whole thing is (yet again) obvious, but just in case (the account if still fairly recent), I asked for CheckUser... Erigu (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I expected this to happen after reading through the past title arguments on the Wild ARMs series discussion page. Erigu doesn't even play the series, yet it seems that EVERY single time an editor here questions the title, they get accused of being a sockpuppet. I'm not a new user here, but I don't edit much, so I don't know a lot of the technical stuff around here. No clue what all this "indentation" talk is about. And "same interests"? I like video games; especially horror ones and RPGs. And I have been spending my time here making the articles for various games better. Erigu seems pretty desperate to get rid of any user that challenges him/her. Hasn't anyone caught on to that yet? It's kind of sketchy to me that Erigu doesn't seem to be a person of power on this site, yet someohow manages to get all these people banned. Or is it just that Wiki isn't looking into things as well as they should and just buying Erigu's lies? I'm not a sockpuppet, and I'll be pretty ticked if I get banned and Erigu is allowed to continue his/her reign of terror over the articles here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaithfulCompanionCube (talk • contribs) 01:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Erigu (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

– Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this accounts is Fragments of Jade; no CU necessary. MuZemike 02:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 02:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Erigu
Back already with two edits identical to previous edits as FaithfulCompanionCube:/ and / Erigu (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions

 * Blocked for a week. NW ( Talk ) 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

01 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

User has been making the same unconstructive edits to Earl Cain that are identical to the user Yomiel before being blocked as a sockpuppet. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:25, 1 May 2011 (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 one IP hardblocked as a clear block-evading IP. I'm not sure about the other one, but it looks like WP:DUCK to me. I have semi-protected Earl Cain for a couple of weeks as a result. –MuZemike 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

16 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same disruptive edits, same interests, same incivility, same habit of blanking the talk page, same IP location (New Jersey). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:38, 16 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

 * IP blocked. NativeForeigner Talk 20:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

28 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User has committed personal attacks and blanked their own talk pages similar to the previous sock puppets. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:40, 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
There's really nothing much CU can do here. But I did block the remaining unblocked IPs as open proxies. Elockid  ( Talk ) 01:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything's blocked, marking for close. TN X Man  14:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

28 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User has been blanking talk pages and making personal attacks  that are identical to FoJ and the previous sock puppets. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:38, 28 June 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

 * IPs blocked for 5 days apiece, for abusive behaviour. AGK  [•] 23:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

16 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is primarily a bookkeeping report. Zhoban had previously been blocked two weeks for socking, with Kirbytoo and Sknmak1 being indefed as his socks. This was documented here. Further analysis has led me to conclude that Zhoban was, himself, a sock of Fragments of Jade. &mdash;Kww(talk) 03:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, given the fun I've had today with Denichmsk (see Special:Contributions/Denichmsk), whose response was triggered by my reversions of Zhoban and Memorex1987, it's apparent that Fragments of Jade has a pretty deep and full sock drawer. I need a checkuser to find the remaining socks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

For anyone that needs more evidence, just take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&limit=500&target=User%3AKww%2FFragments_of_Jade You can easily see the storm of reinsertions that Memorex1987 and various IPs in the 77.75.120.0/22 range undertook after I reverted all of Zhoban's edits.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:04, 16 October 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
Blocked, tagged, adjusted tags for Kirbytoo and Sknmak1.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I blocked another sockpuppet that just registered, Kww. --Bsadowski1 17:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Three more added for abuse of Sjones23's talk page.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - If they are ducks, they don't need CU Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing for the record. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for a checkuser for verification, I asked for a checkuser to perform a sweep. Bsadowski1 and I have blocked 9 editors and 1024 IP addresses on a sockmaster that has been active for nearly 4 years. It's unlikely that we managed to find all of them on such an extensive and pervasive problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've explicitly added the IP range that was blocked during this investigation as an apparent proxy farm: 77.75.120.0/22.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All the accounts in that ranged have been previously blocked. For the record, I think six month is on the low side – everything in that ASN is dedicated hosting and I can't think of a legitimate reason someone would edit from there.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Increased the rangeblock duration to 18 months, and marking for close.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

25 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Pretty obvious as admitted in the edit summaries (some of which I revdel'd for personal attacks). Please check for sleepers, though, especially given that the last two were created close in time to each other. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 19:30, 25 October 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

 * - Endorsing to check for sleepers. We may also need an IP block if that is possible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would appear that my previous block of the IPv4 range was successful: our ✅ friend switched to IPv6. No further sleepers, but I've stoppered that endpoint too.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, everybody is blocked and tagged, so there doesn't seem to be anything more to do. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

06 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same IP range, same geographical location, (Canonsburg, Pennsylvania), same internet provider (Comcast), same interests (i.e. Earl Cain, Silent Hill and the Professor Layton series), same speculation and breaching of the WP:NOR policy, same attitude. User has been making unconstructive edits that are likely in nature to Yomiel before being blocked. Also, can we get a range block on the IP range, please? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:19, 6 April 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
Looks like the IP is very dynamic, and the range is pretty wide (it's a /18, or 16,384 IPs). If you have a list of target articles, I'd be more inclined to semi-protect them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only is her usual location in Pennsylvania, but her main interests, in addition to articles related to Professor Layton, which is one of her favourite topics, her interests also encompass Earl Cain and Danganronpa. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Closed. The IP is already blocked for block evasion Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a Comcast address so I've extended the block to 6 months. I've also upgraded the block to a hard block. Elockid  ( Talk ) 15:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)