Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucifernam/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The new account was created the day after Lucifernam was blocked indefinitely. The new account, SSPXManillensis, immediately started editing List of Pontifically crowned images, the same article where Lucifernam was editing when blocked. Additionally, this edit by SSPXManillensis reinstates most of this previous edit by Lucifernam, which had been reverted by another editor. The edit uses some unique verbiage like "The same Pontiff" that I've not seen really from any other editor.

There are also a few anon IP editors, usually starting with 2600 and 2603, which I think are the same editor, but they bounce around enough that blocking any one of them would not be too beneficial. FyzixFighter (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' When looking at the very recent changes to the article Sacred Heart (an article that Lucifernam edited shortly before the ban): they are in my eyes the same ones that Lucifernam had previously made, and again with no explanation as to why the article should be better with these changes. The choice of topics is exactly the same as before. Also the statement on his User page: ''Sic damno me. Sic dedo me''. Sic exeo me (rough translation: So damn me. So I surrender myself. So send me away) sounds like Lucifernam.--Medusahead (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar edit warring over at List of Pontifically crowned images. This edit by the new suspected sock makes use of the same unique phrase "... the same Pontiff" as previous instances of this user (see here and here). There is also a common behavior of wanting to capitalize "Pontiff" and all its variations. More troubling is the continuation of YELLing and insults in edit summaries - see here and. FyzixFighter (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2022 (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, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar behaviour as the identities before (Lucifernam, CATHOLICUM and many others. He completely reverted any (commented) change which has been made for example in Our Lady of the Sacred Heart to the version of his wishes and again without ever using the edit summary. Among other points – for example it is not necessary to say every single time that a thing is "pontifical" or has been done pontifically if it is already said that a *pope* did it –: With these edits he uses again his favourite phrases "the namesake…" and "the same Pontiff (capitalised). He has been kindly asked as CATHOLICUM to use sources and fill in the edit summary and/or to discuss, but he completely ignores others. --Medusahead (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (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 CATHOLICUM; blocking, tagging as proven, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  10:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar behaviour as the identities before (Lucifernam, CATHOLICUM, SSPXMANILENSIS) editing the same articles: Feast of the Immaculate Conception, List of canonically crowned images, Our Lady of Consolation. Although asked with a personal message to be civil with their new username, this person has reverted to yelling in edit summaries (Special:Diff/1126241545) and being abusive with an editor for nothing more than a different date format (Special:Diff/1126206912). Name calling and abusive messages were the reasons for previous bans. Cardofk (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I agree with user Cardofk. Although this content has been shifted some months ago (and version comments explained that), user RomanusPaganus restored a lenghty paragraph user Catholicum had restored last June .--Medusahead (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Timecard, overlap , and name calling make it fairly clear. Please, block RomanusPaganus as suspected. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MarioGom - ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)