Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SNAAAAKE!!/Archive

20 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Previous sockpupeteering at Sockpuppet investigations/HanzoHattori/Archive. New evidence of sockpupeteering at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Fil e  Éireann 12:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

What "evidence of sockpupeteering"? Posting without loggin-in, once in a while? I don't even know what "claims". --Niemti (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a socking issue. The large number of socks with this user, and blocks for the same, make it strain credulity to the utmost to think that the tag-teaming reflected at the AN/I were anything other than intentional.  Content dispute.  And he logs in and out to edit war and argue -- as though he is two editors.  The years-long socking as background only heightens the quacking to a deafening level.  The AN/I and its diffs are a good summary of the issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And to confuse matters further, I now see that in addition to your 14 puppets, and your dozen suspect puppets, one of your suspected sock IPs is also a suspected sockpuppet of Elspeth Monro, AtlanticDeep, and Magic elephant -- which in aggregate connect to 15 more puppets.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What? Because I logged in right away, to do what I said I'm going to do? It's just so stupid I don't really think I even need to comment on it anymore. --Niemti (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You toggled back and forth between Niemti account, IP user account, and then without missing a beat edited from the Niemti account while the IP account was blocked. See AN/I diffs.  Niemti and IP supported each other in reverts and in talk page discussions as though they were different editors, in a dispute.  Socking's "improper purposes" editing by an account and an IP include attempts to distort consensus.  If ever there was an editor who could only be doing that knowingly, rather than inadvertently, one would think it would be one with your history, which is referred to at AN/I.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a socking issue as well. It seems that this user does not log in, when he wants to let his emotion more free then he normally does. Which is indicated by the warnings on this ip his page. So it seems to indicate to me that he is socking so that he can do things against wikipedia code. Niemti something you keep forgetting it seems, WP:CIVIL please. NathanWubs (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and all these "content disputes". (, etc.) Just close this already, because it's silly. --Niemti (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree. SPIs are when there is uncertainty about the link between different accounts/IPs, which is not the case here since Niemti has not hidden that the IP mentionned above was his own. I have yet to see evidence that the IP or the account claimed the other was a different person, which would be in violation of our policy on socking. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  13:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is more likely that Niemti reverted Epee, ended up getting logged out (as it happens to me even) and stayed logged out and edited the page, reverting Epeefleche right up to 3 reverts for the list. Rather then break 3RR and continue the edit war, Niemti went to ANI. Logged in and has been editing while logged in again. Niemti does have a history of civility problems, but is not hiding the connection to HanzoHattori. Niemti even links to it. As best as I know, Niemti was a new clean start account and Niemti's being Hanzo ws exposed long ago. If anything, Niemti's logged out edits should be tied to his IP as they were before and Niemti is open about that as well. There was no tag teaming because the edits did not alternate between logged in and logged out, it was an unbroken string. Niemti's old account should not have any weight on THIS matter because Niemti has been using only one account for many months. He does slip into the IP edits sometimes. In fact that IP's last 500 edits only has one problem, and that's this one. Its already linked from that IP page and prior to breaking that redirect brought it to Niemti. 'If you clicked on that IP and clicked the link to the master HanzoHattori you would wind up on Niemti's page. Its why I do not see sockpuppet abuse here, Niemti seems to really have been logged out for it, but has been open and made not attempt to break 3RR with said account. If he HAD broken 3RR I'd say block for that, but I'd put this down as a good-faith error. Niemti doesn't have a history of editing while logged out for disruptive purposes since the previous ban was lifted. Niemti has reformed and we should at least acknowledge that there has been significant improvement as a result. This sock investigation is more about the content dispute from what I see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the revision which broke the redirect of HanzoHattori to Niemti. It was broken after the ANI began and not by Niemti, but by the admin Brendanconway. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course he couldn't have, that userpage is FPP'ed. I reinstated the softredirect for transparency's sake, but Niemti freely admits the links himself so the point is moot. This has been known for over a year. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  14:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Off-topic I would so say. Considering that this is not about his old account. But about the ip that he used that was blocked according to wikipedia's policy. While blocked he logged into Niemti however and kept on editing. Which if I remember is still against wikipedia's rules as evading block. Is it not? NathanWubs (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not twist the facts. While the IP was blocked, Niemti only edited his own talk page, specifically to avoid socking. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to edit from a blocked IP, no? I mean, geez. Come on. --Niemti (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP's last edit was 11:17 April 20 2013 The block was placed at 11:51, 20 April 2013. Niemti brought the matter to ANI under his account at 11:25 and made 8 edits before the block was placed on the IP. The IP and Niemti edits are in a string with no flip-flopping between them and Niemti had already brought the matter to ANI before the IP was blocked. So NathanWubs, you are wrong, because he had already logged in and HAD been using his account prior to the block, not after. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I was apologies for not checking that fact more properly. So my apologies for not having done a proper fact check on that. NathanWubs (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Diannaa -- there was yet another deletion that you missed in your summary, this one at 4:22:16 by Niemti here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken; the diff you present is at 8:22. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The user edited with their named account (Niemti) from 08:22 to 10:07, performing some 44 edits, including one removal of the disputed list. After an interval of 50 minutes, they returned and edited as the IP for 20 minutes, from 10:57 to 11:17, during which time they received a level 3 and level 4 warning from Epeefleche for removing the contested list. The editor logged back in at 11:25 to initiate the ANI thread. While many of us familiar with the history would know right away who was editing from that IP, most would not. So my suggestion is that Niemti avoid editing while logged out in the future and immediately take content disputes to the talk page rather than trying to communicate via edit summaries, a method that often leads to edit wars. -- Dianna (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to block Niemti, since he does claim the IP as his and this report is somewhat stale now. However, I'd strongly advise him to stop logging out to make controversial edits. If it happens again, both you and your IP will be blocked for a significant length of time. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

16 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All 4 editors have worked on Genocides in history, all promoting the same evidence and using the same verbiage. It's funny that none of them ever edit at the same time however. One editor will be editing, then another will edit. See &  where each editor picks up where the other one dropped off, with no change in the argument. See also &  where Niemti reverts an edit, an IP restores it, and then TTAAC shows up out of nowhere to revert the same edit 3 times. GregJackP  Boomer!   02:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Mark Arsten & Salvidrim!. If you will look at Talk:Genocides in history you will see the same arguments being made by each of the editors, using the same verbiage and style of writing.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And it is evidently impossible for like-minded editors to express similar opinions. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said it was impossible? Typically when multiple editors are contesting an issue, there will be overlap in the edit times.  You'll see editor A, B, & C all editing in the same time frames, with intermingled and interspersed edits.  Here, you have one editor, then a clear break, a second editor, then a clear break, etc.  That is a pattern which is repeated over and over by socks, and it is presented here, at least until it was pointed out.  Now I know from looking at the archives at SPI & AN/ANI that some editors are apparently untouchable, if that's the case here, just say so.   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about this CONSPIRACY. --Niemti (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSPIRACY can be interesting to read. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Student7 is an interesting read also. Isn't it curious how another user came to the same conclusions based on the editing pattern?   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Since User:Skizzik also reverted that blatant POV-push on Highway of Death, after I exhausted my three reverts, that makes him part of the conspiracy too--right? You're way off the mark on this one: The IP is obviously User:Stumink!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * GregJacksonP, all four of us have drastically different writing styles (except possibly Niemti, who I don't really know so can't comment on).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi me. I just heard you're my alter ego or something, nice to meet you. Did you ever realize that I've never seen both of us at the same time? [CUE DRAMATIC MUSIC] --Niemti (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * GregJackP, that you and your pal both filed utterly baseless SPI investigations back-to-back is exactly the type of behavior that led Student7 to accuse you of bullying and ownership at ANI. Come to think of it, User:Montanabw and you never seem to edit Genocides in history at the same time, so you must be sockpuppets!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no question that anon IP 88 is a sockpuppet of someone. I came on board due to the issue that arose at the Indigenous People or North America project between IP 88 and other users. IP 88 has already been blocked once for their behavior.  From there, it was simple to observe IP 88's actions.  Two hours prior to this SPI, I filed on Student7, here, though not naming Niemti as master.  There is smoke here and the fire is somewhere.   Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See Stumink's admission that the IP was his.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm inclined to say no check needs to be made here. Behaviorally these accounts seem very different. I'd be very surprised if they were being controlled by the same individual. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. I'm behaviourally closer to some of my close wiki-colleagues than these three accounts are. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Student7 and Niemti (via his past account) have both been editing since 2006, and I would be very surprised if he managed to maintain socks for that long without detection, only to tip his hand on this article. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * removed master from list of suspected socks Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This case now has nothing to do with Niemti and there is a nearly identical case being explored at Sockpuppet investigations/Student7. Can we trash this one out of respect for Niemti, since it's filed under HIS archive? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

07 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per the concerns raised by hahnchen: "I'm sure it's a coincidence that Niemti was blocked on March 5 for complaining that citations should not be necessary in plot sections and a completely new user with no Wikipedia experience registers on March 7, goes straight to WT:VG and asks about exactly the same thing." ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, the user was previously involved in problematic socking (Sockpuppet investigations/HanzoHattori) but had been doing okay for some time after his return. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to
 * Niemti was blocked for violating his community-imposed GA topic ban on March 5 for complaining extensively at Talk:Ling Xiaoyu/GA1 that citations should not be necessary in plot sections.
 * Shortly after, Darkness607, a brand new account, made his first edit asking on WT:VG about the exact same thing, in a manner that has been described by more than one editor (myself, hahnchen, Cuchullain) as similar to Niemti's.
 * As mentioned above, Niemti is also no stranger to using sockpuppets, and was even banned in the past, although that was controversially overturned around 2 years ago after his "new" account, User:Niemti, was unblocked and consensus to maintain the ban was not reached. Several more AN/ANI discussions and an RfC/U all failed to achieve consensus to reinstate the siteban, despite recurrent attitude problems.
 * To be honest, this could potentially be resolved by blocking on behavioural grounds alone, but having having technical confirmation might be the difference between reinstating the user's siteban and failing to reach consensus for that once again. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Contente copied from Niemti's talk page

Ofiicial statement: Don't bother me with your stupid bullshit. --Niemti (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Besides the obvious similarity in content, the writing style sure sounds like Niemti as well.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied above and resubmitted CUrequest (not sure if I'm supposed to, responding to onhold status isn't detailed in SPI procedure). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * - King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness607 appears to be ❌ to Niemti. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No action taken and apologies to Niemti. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the behavioral and technical evidence disagree. I myself thought Darkness was Niemti, but apparently that's not the case. Closing. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

06 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I usually would have blocked this editor myself, per WP:DUCK, in this type of case, but I've had many arguments with Niemti in the past, so I'm obviously WP:INVOLVED, and decided to take it here. Also, for when checking my difs below - Niemti changed his name to shortly before being indefinitely blocked after a number of instances of incivility/edit warring blocks).

AggressiveNavel's behavior and interests are very similar to Niemti:
 * Both edit a lot in the subject area of female fictional video game characters. Niemti's list of GAs, AggressiveNavel's last 500 edits, primarily fictional character, majority female.
 * Both write reception sections in the same manner, where they focus a lot of listicles that focus on said fictional females attractiveness/sexiness. Niemti/Snake, AggressiveNavel
 * Both talk about having a collection of old magazines from the 1990's, which they intend to use towards writing/sourcing video game character articles. Niemti/Snake, Aggressive Navel
 * Both have a rather aggressive and rambling approach to discussion, where instead of answering any concerns, they just kind of go on an angry tangent, offering various examples of things that no one asked for. Niemti/Snake, AngryNavel
 * Both have edited a number of the same articles. Frank Tenpenny, Ada Wong, Mileena, Ayane, Ibuki, etc.

If more difs are needed, I'm sure I can provide them, but its taking quite a while to dig them up since Niemti's account has been blocked for over a year, so I'll start with that. Sergecross73  msg me  17:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can look into it further, but for starters, check the last 4 links in my last bulletpoint above - has made edits at all of those articles that are common editing targets of both Niemti and AggressiveNavel, which all also just happen all be articles that Niemti prides his work for on his user page. In fact, the last 100 or so edits of LKAvn were mostly in relation to the Dead or Alive (video game series), a series that Niemti has written multiple articles about the series's female characters...  Sergecross73   msg me  00:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have much free time during the weekdays anymore, but if this isn't closed by the weekend, I can write up an analysis then about why I think all three are socks of Niemti. As a quick example check Kitana and Mileena contribution history.  185.34.28.184, LKAvn, AggressiveNavel, 302ET, and Niemti have all edited a substantial amount of content on these two articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blaze Fielding is yet another example article, written by LKAvn, that is written entirely in Niemti fashion, with a Reception section largely hinging on collecting every time someone referred to the fictional female character as sexy/attractive. AggressiveNavel has edited said page as well. I can keep digging up examples, but I really don't see much room for doubt, or anyone doubting anything, so far. Sergecross73   msg me  12:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note also that Niemti was socking as User:302ET From October-February, when I blocked him as a sock; he outright admitted it but said that his editing contributions outweighed the block evasion in his unblock requests. AggressiveNavel popped up a month later. I've blocked Niemti far too many times for incivility/block evasion to really want to get involved in this, but I'm 100% convinced that AggressiveNavel is Niemti, and quite certain that he'll start up a new sock a few weeks after he gets blocked again. -- Pres N  18:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty certain that and  are also Niemti. I made a note on my PC several months back that these two along with AggressiveNavel were socks of this editor. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A few more to consider:
 * (blocked as a proxy, but not all edits are Niemti-style edits)
 * Seems DUCKish to me, but should AggressiveNavel be notified anyway? -Thibbs (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes he should, . Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  09:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (blocked as a proxy, but not all edits are Niemti-style edits)
 * Seems DUCKish to me, but should AggressiveNavel be notified anyway? -Thibbs (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes he should, . Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  09:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What puppet you want a CheckUser to compare AggressiveNavel against? I don't see anything suitable in the archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry Bbb23, I hadn't noticed was over 90 days, and per your comment I assume the years of socking under HanzoHattori then Niemti did not lead to some data being stored on CUWiki.
 * I think there could be grounds for comparing AggressiveNavel and LKAvn with each other if and  can provide direct evidence (diffs, etc.) -- although it should be said that from my own review of the presented evidence and LKAvn's recent contribs, I am also leaning towards believing both are socks of Niemti. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Satellizer's comment pinpoints where my thoughts are -- I wish I could simply close my eyes and walk away and pretend I never noticed the similarities with Niemti. For this reason, I am recusing as a clerk from this case. I've reactivated the CU request but specifically will leave it to another clerk to endorse or not. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than editing from the same area of a particular country, User:AggressiveNavel and User:LKAvn are ❌. Based on the types of articles these two acounts edit, not what you know about the master, is there any national or ethnic commonality? I glanced at a few edits of both accounts and many of the contributions appear to be video game-oriented.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very easy to find a common nationality between AggressiveNavel and Niemti without the use of CU (Navel created articles related to a company that is within walking distance of where Niemti confirmed he lived), which only further confirms suspicions. I haven't found any evidence from LKAvn, but if CU results show they edit from the same area of the same country as Navel, that tells me a lot. It's clearly fine w/r/t WP:OUTING since Niemti himself confirmed his RL identity and location on-wiki, but would you prefer that I e-mail you the diffs? It's also the exact, precise city where the IPs mentioned geolocate to. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened to your recusal? :-) As I already stated, AggressiveNavel and LKAvn edit from the same area of the same country.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin needed: I'm not clerking but I can still present evidence as an involved party! When he was blocked, Niemti invited people on-wiki to his Facebook in Jaworzno in southern Poland; AggressiveNavel edited Reality Pump Studios (and created articles for its games), a very local video game studio also found in southern Poland. The IPs presented above, 94.246.150.68, 94.246.144.29 and 185.34.28.184 all geolocate to Jaworzno also. While confirming or denying it would violate the privacy policy that you are held to as a CU, it is plausible to assume that the "same area of the same country" that Navel and LKAvn geolocate to is also southern Poland. And that geographical evidence is on top of the plethora of behavioural similarities highlighted above by all the other commenters, this convinces me beyond any doubt that both accounts and the IPs are Niemti. I'm probably too involved to block or take any action but I'm flagging this case for admin assistance for another admin to decide if this proven (but not CU-confirmed) sockpuppetry merits indef-blocks. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I blocked two suspected socks, as you advised, but I still don't understand something. You say that "when he was blocked, Niemti invited people ..." But, Niemti has never been blocked.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:SNAAAAKE!! was originally User:Niemti. Had a name change twice in June 2014. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. But then, who is new Niemti? Should he be blocked?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The new Niemti account was created on the same day that his old account was renamed. Checking through the contribution history, it is the same person, so they should probably be blocked also. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the page to the "SNAAAAKE!!" title, since the original Niemti is now SNAAAAKE!!. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same IP range and geolocation as previous socks. Same editing behaviour as all previous socks. Large crossover on topics and articles of previous socks. This IP was already checkuser blocked previously as a result of Sockpuppet investigations/HanzoHattori/Archive. and are the same editor (see Sockpuppet investigations/SNAAAAKE!!/Archive). See interaction of most recent socks. -- The1337gamer (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Breakdown from a handful of recent edits and comparison to previous blocked socks. I could continue for dozens of other articles if necessary.
 * Blaze Fielding - Edits from 94.246.150.68, AggressiveNavel, LKAvn
 * Streets of Rage 2 - Edits from 94.246.150.68, AggressiveNavel, LKAvn, SNAAAAKE!!
 * Julian Gollop - Edits from 94.246.150.68, SNAAAAKE!!, Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji
 * The Dreamland Chronicles: Freedom Ridge - Edits from 94.246.150.68, SNAAAAKE!!, Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji
 * Laser Squad - Edits from 94.246.150.68, SNAAAAKE!!, Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji, HanzoHattori

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

Not "IP range" but the IP, where the block has been lifted and then the talk page was blanked. I assumed it's all OK after but didn't make an account since I don't care anymore.

But I must say that's some pretty petty response to trying improve your article that you claimed ownership of and won't allow anyone else to do make any improvements (even add some categories). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . GABgab 17:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)