Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 16 February 2010 (→Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments: endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lanternix

Lanternix (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lanternix/Archive.

Report date February 16 2010, 19:15 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• 166.137.137.23 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.137.139.105 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.137.137.111 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Nableezy

Lanternix has long attempted to remove any mention of Egyptian Christians from the article Arab Christians. Currently the user has been edit-warring to remove Egyptian Christians from the list of populations in the article. The IP has come to carry on an edit war that Lanternix began. Lanternix has been blocked for sockpuppetry in related disputes and the account itself bears a strong resemblance to the banned account User:Zerida. However, these IPs traces to mobile wireless providers, so this may not conclusively show a relation if Lanternix sticks to logging in on a land line. I think the behavior pretty clearly shows the IP is used by Lanternix, but a CU to see if there is anything more definitive may be warranted. nableezy - 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix, I have never accused Miss simmworld of anything, please do not lie. And you have been caught using socks to further edit-wars with other users, it would shock me if these IPs were not you just based on how quickly the reverted after your reversion. Though I do think there may be no technical confirmation of the IPs as I think you were using a mobile phone to make these edits. Wouldnt hurt to check though. nableezy - 19:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly, but if you wish to request a CU feel free to open a case page. nableezy - 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am accusing you of using the above IPs. Where have they been shown to be other people? nableezy - 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See your block log, particularly the last block by Yellow Monkey. nableezy - 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Funny how everytime someone disagrees with the user above, he accuses them of sockpuppetry! That same user accused another user, namely User:Miss-simworld, of sockpuppetry on the talk page Talk:Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. He also accused another user before called Zerida of being a sockpuppet of myself, also simply because that user disagreed with him. This user attitude clearly relies on intimidation of the opposing party rather than on any kind of civil behavior. I will not defend myself here, because I have no doubt that the investigations will prove I am innocent. On the other hand, I request that this user be strongly reprimended and warned for his intimidating behavior! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ 19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, using the same logic as the above user, please investigate the relationship of user:Qvxz9173 with the above user, since they seem to be always making the exact same edits! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppets you are accusing me of being were eventually proven tp be other people. Do your homework properly. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment was in regard to that statement of yours: "you have been caught using socks to further edit-wars with other users". Got it now? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )

Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Nableezy 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Clerk endorsed. NW (Talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser