Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InkHeart/Archive

Evidence submitted by PC78
is a newly created account (within the last 24 hours) whose first edit was an unexplained and rather bold revert of some cleanup I did at A.F.R.I.K.A., and later another revert at the same article to restore numerous issues including copyvios and poor spelling. User has also made several seemingly innocuous edits at Aoi Miyazaki and Hero (2009 TV series). All three articles have previous contributions by indef blocked user and/or multiple socks including, , ,  and. I suspect that the account is being used to evade that block.

also made an edit to A.F.R.I.K.A. restoring contributions (including copyvios) made by. The IP revealed itself to be in these recent edits. IP has previously been exposed as a meat/sockpuppet of at Sockpuppet investigations/69dressings/Archive.

This isn't the first time my contributions have been targeted by this person. There was meat/sockpuppetry involved at which led to the aforementioned investigation. A dispute I had with at Haeundae (film) (see page history) was later continued by  who apparently claimed to be someone else  but was later blocked for violating 3RR. Most recently was a dispute at Kim Ok-bin (see page history) with who I reported to ANI for misusing Twinkle (here) and who was later blocked for abusing multiple accounts. PC78 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign)


 * Further evidence for is the unexplained reverts at Kim Ok-bin  and Son Dam Bi  to restore revisions by . PC78 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by PC78 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not certain on the behavioral evidence here. MuZemike 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * ✅. Dominic·t 10:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ophois
I believe these are sockpuppets of the blocked user. She has been blocked indefinitely for creating sockpuppets. These recent ones have pretty much only edited stuff that Inkheart had, and is following the same MO of removing improvement templates. When I reverted the removal, the user told me to. Ω pho  is  12:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions
IPs already blocked. MuZemike 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Ophois
All of the above have been blocked for being a sockpuppet of InkHeart. InkHeart has been able to repeatedly avoid her ban by using anons, and on the suggestion of an admin, I would like to request a CheckUser to determine an IP range that can be blocked with little collateral damage. Ω pho  is  00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Ω  pho  is  00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

per Nathan. –MuZemike 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * You don't really need a checkuser to see if a rangeblock is possible; just looking at what you've listed there, all IPs but one locate to Ontario, Canada. Unfortunately, it looks like they are on multiple different ranges, including shared IPs for Bell Canada and a university in Ontario. That makes the utility of a CU pretty limited. Any reason to suspect that there might be other accounts, either with limited activity or sleepers? Nathan  T 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This gives a list of other accounts, although they've been blocked. I've come across some anon's I've suspsected were her, but I couldn't be sure. It would be too difficult to try to find them. Ω  pho  is  22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
192.197.54.0/24 blocked 3 months by myself, other separate IPs have already been blocked 3 months, and 72.11.138.64/26 blocked 2 years as a proxy. –MuZemike 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Phantomsteve

 * 1) Lee Jun Ki article changed to pre-consensus version as favoured by InkHeart
 * 2) 05:51, 31 January 2010 by
 * 3) 11:38, 31 January 2010 by
 * 4) Talk:Lee Jun Ki talk page blanked apart from WikiProject headers
 * 5) 11:41, 31 January 2010 by

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC) IPs geolocate to Hong Kong and Thailand, respectively. Either proxies, or meatpuppetry, or the user has been traveling, since most of his old IPs are from Canada. Checkuser is not going to tell you anything useful here. , I recommend a block on behavior. Tim Song (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by ThaddeusB
I am told these IPs are the work on blocked user InkHeart. I do not know if that is true or not, but excluding 220.181 they are clearly all the same person (switching IPs to continue edit wars). Most have already been blocked as proxies. However, I am requested CU for a few reasons: Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While there is no doubt Yimiju and 220.181 are the same, there is a slim chance Yimiju is unrelated to the other IPs
 * 189.90 seems to be a transparent proxy, so the user's real IP should appear in the log headers, if I'm not mistaken.  I don't know if that info will help prevent further abuse or not, but I thought it might help
 * If Yimiju is related, as I suspect, there may be other sleeper accounts out there.

Adding EunSoo as possibly related to Yimiju based on: --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very similar editing interests
 * EunSoo sought adoption, which is not all that well known, on his first edit . Yimiju had previous discovered adoption. ... InkHeart also sought a mentor
 * Both users uploaded fair use TV show posters early in their careers., showing sophistication beyond their age.

More suspects: --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 205.211 has a strange edit history - first recent edit has ES of "same as sock" -and geolocates to Ontario. Other 205.211.158.Xs are involved with unrelated history.  Likely a set of public computers; candidate for range block.
 * NavalC is already blocked on DUCK grounds, but may not yet be stale.
 * 173.33 is almost certainly related and geolocates to Toronto.
 * 99.243 geolocates to Whitby, Ontario is a candidate for range blocking
 * 192.197 geolocates to Whitby, but also has some apparently unrelated history - likely a public computer

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
These can't all be InkHeart, unless she moves around a lot:

I think the CU should be restricted to areas that InkHeart is known to have edited from. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All of those are proxies, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for that --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The trout is just thawing out at the moment. SpitfireTally-ho! 14:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I don't very often get involved with commenting on SPIs - apart from the couple I've reported myself, of course! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Pretty convincing behavior here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

that the following users are the same (maybe this IP is a proxy): ✅ that the following users are the same: ✅ that the following users are the same: Beyond this, I know nothing. --Deskana (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the confirmed accounts are blocked, and since Izsu hasn't done anything I see no issue with EunSoo. Closing. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
A new user that has only started editing since the potential sockmaster was blocked. Similar edit pattern: Dpmuk (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Both users moving already existing refimprove tags to the reference section EunSoo and Urgenine
 * 2) Both users !voting here and here for moves using a similar unusual style.
 * 3) Same slightly odd language about names already being taken, along with a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works, e.g. EunSoo and Urgenine

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
If checkusers need more examples of this user, you can look on my User talk:Syrthiss and the EunSoo sock section following it. I'm only familiar with this user's removal of Japanese characters from infoboxes and disruptive edit warring behavior, but agree that the above looks suspicious. Syrthiss (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ EunSoo to also be Amalthea  20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - The evidence on Syrthiss's page raises a concern because of proxies. A checkuser should help sort out this matters. Icestorm815  •  Talk  17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All accounts blocked and tagged. Icestorm815 •  Talk  20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

archived from Sockpuppet investigations/EunSoo. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by User:NickCT
These users have a very suspisously timed run of edits discussed here. Additionally, the area of interest is the same, and the language is similar. NickCT (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that User:Urgenine became a confirmed sock of User:EunSoo. This is my first SPI filing.  Please let me know if I have done anything incorrectly.  Thanks, NickCT (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * No proof. No sock. Bad Faith and WP:Wikihounding by NickCT. Could someone kill this WP:ATTACK right away? -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't take it personally, Nick was, I believe, only focusing on Talk:Rain (entertainer), where the comment of a brand new user looked fishy (see here). It was fishy, but the conclusion was wrong. Amalthea  22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually focusing on this. Does this not look suspisous? NickCT (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * RE Amalthea: please stop the "I think" and "fishy". Clearly NickCT keeps finding mud in that. Just be explicit in your conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I only just saw the other, clear post by Amalthea below. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the whole contributions history of Urgenine and his other incarnations, if you look what he did before and what he did afterwards, if you look at how Urgenine got to those pages, it actually isn't at all suspicious. It's two people editing at the same time, and meeting on the same page once. Amalthea  00:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I bow to your greater wisdom and experience. NickCT (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by NickCT (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for it besides taking DePiep's side in that move discussion? As you can see Urgenine commented in six move discussions right away, and DePiep only participated in that one. Urgenine had been pointed towards WP:Requested Moves in the EunSoo incarnation shortly before his block, I assume he just went there with the new account. Amalthea 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing this. Besides my above comment I'm confident that I didn't miss anything when I previously checked EunSoo a few hours ago. Amalthea  22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

archived from Sockpuppet investigations/EunSoo. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
Another newly created editor. Making edits to BI and Bi (disambiguation) to try to achieve the same results as EunSoo has done previously with a (reverted) move (due to the number of edits by both accouts providing diffs is difficult - sorry). When these changes were reverted has resorted to asking for an "unconterversial" move, a tactic EunSoo has used, and Dreaded22's comment when asking for it is telling. Asking for check user as a) I don't think it's quite enough for WP:DUCK, b) given the number of sockpuppets discovered yesterday there may well be other newly created accounts out there and c) to investiagte the possibilty of a range block as they don't seem to be going away. Dpmuk (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Dpmuk (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

✅ Dreaded22 as the same as EunSoo, open proxy blocked. Amalthea 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

archived from Sockpuppet investigations/EunSoo. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
Newly created account (after block of last known sock). Commenting on the move of Bi a move started by another of their socks. Nearly identical misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by Pollosh and by Eunsoo. Think I've seen more similar statements by EunSoo or one of his socks but currently can't find where. Dpmuk (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Dpmuk (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

✅. For what it's worth, this might actually all be Sockpuppet investigations/InkHeart. Amalthea 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

archived from Sockpuppet investigations/EunSoo. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Sleep1panic
I saw this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chzz#Suspicion and decided to go through what the user said and it turns out that 2 of the 3 users happen to edit the same pages, mostly between User:Mageclansoftheeast and User:Carl Francis. Sleep1panic (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikee_Lee&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olango_Island_Group&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Me_%28album%29&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Garcia&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maricar_Reyes&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahal_Kita_%28TV_series%29&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Henney&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gimik_2010&action=history

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Ha Seok-jin from 2008. wiooiw (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Janelle Quintana

Talk:Unstoppable_Marriage

Malaya Lewandowski

+ a few others. wiooiw (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Sleep1panic (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * - To check on the filer. T. Canens (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

✅ that are all the same (Sockpuppet investigations/EunSoo). Person behind them has edited through numerous proxies, is unsurprisingly also the one who made on Chzz's page that allegedly caused this SPI case. Amalthea 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sleep1panic blocked. I would suggest this be filed either under EunSoo or Inkheart, based on Amalthea's last note here. TN X Man  13:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
The IPs listed get a lot of hits that they are open proxys when searched on Google. Pretty consistent with previous reports of using open proxies. I've blocked some IPs but require assistance to block the IPs for an appropriate period.

Basically targeting Mageclansoftheeast again and editing the same pages as the other socks.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 02:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  E lockid  ( Talk ) 02:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

to block whatever proxies they're editing from and a sleeper check or check for any missed accounts.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 02:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked a load of proxies, ✅ as EunSoo. I blocked them, but did not check if further action should be taken. I think it's safe to say that the person behind these accounts is effectively banned, I for one would begin to treat their edits and page creations accordingly. Amalthea 11:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These accounts have already been blocked and tagged. TN X Man  13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Jeff G.
Per these edits:

User:93.62.4.207 reported by User:Ophois (Result: 31 hours)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: Myself and User:Oncamera believe this anon to be a sockpuppet of User:InkHeart, who has been banned but keeps returning as socks and anons. We also believe that Special:Contributions/Yoyuta, an account that was created today and follows the same editing style, is another sock of hers, as well as Special:Contributions/Jenaveev18. Ω pho  is  01:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked by Elockid.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)   —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
. There's something suspicious going on here. If those accounts are InkHeart/EunSoo editing through open proxies, a block on those proxies would be nice. Previous checks have also found other accounts present.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 03:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * nothing additional to be found on proxy . John Vandenberg (chat) 13:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * was on (BR),  (Africa),   (ID),  (CO) and . and  (ES).  IP 41.217.220.7 has a slow stream of other contributors, and it provides XFF.  All others have only Jenaveev18 & anon edits which are also Jenaveev18. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅: =  = InkHeart.  is  (also in Canada). John Vandenberg (chat) 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the relevant socks for the relevant period. All the IPs were open proxies, though 195.55.130.246 has possibly since been reformed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Socks tagged, marking for close. TN X Man  15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
Think they're back again. See these "uncontroversial" move requests - and. Same moves, similar reasoning, same bad English, same attempt to run around system by listing as uncontroversial. Requesting checkuser given the number of sockpuppets checkuser has uncovered in the past - when they've come back they've normally done it en-masse. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Added 66.199.245.40 - has reverted my removal of the move requests twice. Once I could have put down to a concerned editor but given the similar language in the second revert and the simple reverting, rather than moving to contested or starting a full requested move as I suggested in the edit log - which by their comment they're aware of, they've done enough to make me suspicious. Dpmuk (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I blocked for 6 months, just now. It was reverting this SPI request off the page. Syrthiss (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just went ahead and blocked the other IP for 6 months and the named account indef. Syrthiss (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And . Syrthiss (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And . Syrthiss (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
– I just blocked another one earlier this morning:



–MuZemike 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

66.199.245.40/29 blocked 2 days for clear block evasion. –MuZemike 13:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There's really nothing to do here. --Deskana (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by SKS2K6
WP:DUCK. See previous examples &mdash; specifically, requested "non-controversial" page moves for Kahi (entertainer) and Jessica (entertainer). IPs very close to previous socks. SKS (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
John Vandenberg (chat) 07:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 96.45.189.199 is in Canada - WP:DUCK
 * , and  are all proxies in Brazil.
 * is probably a proxy.
 * All Brazil proxies blocked for 3 months, the other one for 1 year (may up the expiry time). It's a web proxy (easy-hide-ip). Bsadowski1 07:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by SKS2K6
Again with Jessica (entertainer). This one is a bit less clear, only because the IP has made previous edits (way before) outside of the Korean pop world, but Google confirms that it's a proxy. The IP is also quite insistent on re-adding the page move request made by previous socks. SKS (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * . Obvious, and the latest have been IPs rather than accounts. CheckUser won't be useful here. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Proxyblocked the IP for a year. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by SKS2K6
Again with Kahi (entertainer). For a "new" user, s/he seems to know how to do page moves and contact the admin previously involved with the move. SKS (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: added an IP that did only edit: to request Jessica Jung to be moved.... SKS (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even more, related to Kahi and Jessica....... SKS (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I blocked it. Whether or not it is InkHeart (pretty sure), its was clear that it was doing null edits to get autoconfirmed just so it could move the page.  Syrthiss (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnthony_Appleyard&action=historysubmit&diff=384839294&oldid=384835941 this edit to my user talk page, User:99.243.104.16 altered the text of messages left there by other people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The account is already blocked. I'll leave this open for a while in case something new comes along. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I need to be blocked an appropriate length. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>   ( Talk ) 22:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * and <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>   ( Talk ) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Talk:Kahi (entertainer) semi-protected. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything seems done here. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  02:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by SKS2K6
So...back to Kahi. The reason I'm asking for a CheckUser request is that the two IPs are making concurrent edits on the same page, seemingly going against each other...but 219.87.154.164 appears to be a proxy, whereas 99.243.108.148 has historical edits that are similar to InkHeart's edit history. SKS (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Check not necessary. -- wiooiw (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Followed CU's previous action for the latter IP. The former IP is blocked as a proxy. Nothing more to do here, so declining the check and closing. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * -  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Syrthiss
Editor reinstated an edit from a blocked proxy (likely Inkheart) on Talk:Sunny (Korean entertainer). When I removed the edit, user came to my talk page and asked why a proxy block would == a banned user. This is kind of the same disingenuous stuff Inkheart does, so its probably worthwhile to do a check. I didn't see an obvious editing indication that this was InkHeart, but they did have some dustups immediately upon editing and that was around when the last IPs from Inkheart were blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Syrthiss (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At the moment, the user is indefblocked by me for restoring the removed comments as 'vandalism' on my part. Syrthiss (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ plus. –MuZemike 17:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)