Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Acoma Magic

Acoma Magic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
09 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


User has been making the same edit-warring behaviors ([1], [2]), and also complained about and edit-warred over scare quotes. On Talk:Homosexual agenda, 187.121.196.86 pointed out that 2.102.186.235's editing and writing style is the same as Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This came to my attention through my talk page. The IP did not start editing until after AM was blocked. It was a couple of weeks after, but AM spent a great deal of time after he was initially blocked complaining about the block. The IP geolocates to Britain. AM used British spelling. The IP is somewhat suspicious just in their extensive use of edit summaries. That doesn't necessarily mean they are a sock, but it does mean they have experience on Wikipedia. Obviously, the articles the IP is focusing on (LGBT) are the same or similar articles that AM focused on. The scare marks have already been mentioned. The IP is very polite and articulate; so was AM. This post was made by AM quoting the Scare quotes article. This post was made by the IP introducing the same quote.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked one week. I can't tell how quickly these rotate, but Drmies find below bolsters the idea that they rotate fairly quickly, so the one week might be moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked 72 hours per DUCK. This is for the record. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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
14 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Already blocked for the quacking. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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


14 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

New SPA User:Short life repeatedly re-opening closed article talk page discussions of a previously blocked IP sock (User:2.102.186.235). Notice similarities in the edit summaries of the block evading IP and and user Short life, specifically the unusual use of periods at the ends. Examples depicting similar edit summaries:

Note similarities between talk page discussions (note the liberal use of italicized text):

– MrX 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Oops! I guess I'm a little slow. Could someone please close this or delete it? Thanks – MrX 20:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, Drmies files SPIs faster than his shadow... Drmies (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

There are sleepers.  Confirmed as Acoma Magic:

 IP blocked. AGK [•] 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Almost identical editing behaviors as recently blocked sock User:Short life Reopening closed discussions here and here.

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This is either Acoma Magic or someone doing a very good impersonation of them. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note IP blocked. As an alternative to SPI, obvious cases like this can simply be taken to WP:AIV. – Steel 00:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Zaalbar account was created on 18 October, one day after the previous SPI on Acoma Magic was closed
  • Obviously not a new account; immediately began edit-warring on similar topics for which AM was blocked
  • The account has a history, like Acoma Magic, of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. This is especially noticeable at Same-sex marriage and Homophobia (see editor interaction link)
  • Both accounts edit from the same obvious POV on homosexuality-related subjects
  • Both accounts persistently remove scare quotes from words they feel don't deserve them. [5] [6]
  • Both accounts object to the phrase "marriage equality". In Same-sex marriage Acoma Magic used to unbold it [7] whilst Zaalbar has argued for that and has alternatively edit-warred over the wording in the sentence [8], and removed the phrase in a different article in his 6th ever edit [9]
  • Both accounts edit-war persistently whilst carefully avoiding running over 3RR. However, both were blocked (Zaalbar has only just returned from one) for persistent edit-warring. Whilst blocked, both argued persistently that they should not be blocked because they had technically not violated 3RR. Acoma Magic even had their talkpage access removed.
  • Both use talk pages extensively to argue their cases articulately, yet not admitting they are ever wrong.
  • Both accounts edit in the same time frame.
  • This clearly passes the duck test (I would simply have blocked myself had I not been involved on those articles), but I am requesting CU to pick up sleeper or active socks - Acoma Magic has previous activity of this type as the previous SPI shows.

Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • This is eerie. I was just about to open this same SPI.
In addition to the above, please review the edits by Zaalbar and confirmed Acoma Magic sock puppets user:2.103.15.77 and user:2.102.186.235 at Pray the Gay Away?. The same content has been edited by all three users: the "scare quotes" around the phrase "ex gay".
 Looks like a duck to me - MrX 02:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into one of this users edits a week ago and back then I was fairly sure it was AM, though I didn't care to spend the time to dig through diffs knowing that sooner or later enough WP:ROPE would be unspindled. Time to block the duck.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I used tools earlier today with these two accounts. I wrote down conclusions but don't have links/diffs (I closed the many, many windows I had open):

  • Their expression and their edit summary styles are very similar. Their edit summaries on the talk page are brief, but many editors don't even bother using edit summaries on talk pages. Plus, both of them use summaries like "reply", which although not uncommon, adds to the evidence; and both of them have used an edit summary like "to x" where x is the user name, rather than for example "re x". As to expression, they both appear to be well-educated and articulate, almost formal, yet demanding.
  • They intersected on 11 pages with AM making 157 of his 849 edits to those pages, and Zaalbar making 77 of his 289 edits. Putting aside non-article and non-article-talk pages, 6 of the 11 pages are LGBT-related.
  • They both use British spelling.
  • They both made 6 edits to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, a page that many have never even heard of.

--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

27 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Of course, this could just be an incredible coincidence. I am requesting a CU to identify any sleeper or active socks. I suspect one has recently edited Lawrence v. Texas, but the evidence is not quite as compelling. This puppet master has demonstrated time and again that he intends to disrupt the encyclopedia by using sock puppets to evade blocks. - MrX 19:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that made an edit per policy; you reverted it because you liked that POV. Seems like you're the disruptive one. Windowwipe (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be a record (7 minutes) for a new user posting in response to a SPI, of which they were not even notified. Well done! - MrX 20:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Don't forget my barnstar. Windowwipe (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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
  • Quack quack. Blocked and tagged, closing. (X! · talk)  · @974  ·  22:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

I just received a Wikipedia email from "Butterbumps", a new registered account. The email pointed me to a meme link with a picture of "Super Jesus" dressed like superman with the words "AIDS is a gift from God". Considering my recent interaction with the Acoma Magic socks and their associated allies, I would like a CU to look into this abuse of the Wikipedia mail system. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added Belchfire (talk · contribs) up above for two reasons. One, the user name (and meaning of) "Butterbumps" shares a lot in common with "Belchfire". "Butterbumps" refers to a character from Game of Thrones who can "fart at will", while "Belchfire" refers to a type of automobile which could metaphorically (if in name only) "belch fire", much like "Butterbumps" can belch farts. While this might be a stretch in interpretation, the second reason I've added Belchfire is because the timestamp of the email (18:03 UTC; 08:03 HST) matches the general time frame of Belchfire's average posting time for his first edits to Wikipedia in the morning (based on a random sample of his contribs), which by my guess based on his known geographical location is approximately 10:03 AM PST in this example. For those not familiar with how Belchfire is related to this request for CU, he has been tag team reverting for Acoma Magic socks (specifically Zaalbar (talk · contribs)) within the last week,[10][11][12][13][14][15] and probably longer. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Considering Belchfire's account is singularly dedicated to pushing a one-man POV campaign against what he perceives as the "vigorous, aggressive [and] violent" (his own words) efforts of radical gay activists[16] who he belives are promoting a homosexual agenda in order to steal his precious bodily fluids, it should not be surprising, therefore, to find that a user who believes that "pro-gay POV warriors"[17] have subverted Wikipedia might also believe that "AIDS is a gift from God" and would use new accounts and email to harass other users who believe his campaign is disrupting Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I just popped in to endorse the CheckUser request. Carry on. Belchfire-TALK 00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as long as Belchfire is fine with it. This was quite a project and offers some insight. Insomesia (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is massively circumstantial and not even close to enough to be considered a well reasoned argument. You could apply all of that to many radically conservative editors; it's not enough that you present evidence that it's possible Belchfire is socking, you need to present evidence of probability (accepting arguments of possibility is the hallmark of conspiracy theories). There are likely many reasons why Belchfire shouldn't be part of this community but socking is probably not one of them. If this comes back negative, as I assume it will (and I will eat crow otherwise), it just makes him look like a victim of a witch hunt and that diminishes the communitie's ability to deal with him in the long run. Sædontalk 04:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if your CU tool casts a system-wide dragnet, but in case it doesn't, it might be worthwhile to compare Butterbumps to Viriditas. Just sayin'. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Looking into the evidence here, not CU'ing just yet. Butterbumps's email usage is suspicious enough to merit a check, I believe. Belchfire I'm less certain about; for one thing, I'm always a bit leery when the accused user asks to be checkusered. Secondly, the stuff with the usernames is hardly useful evidence. I'm looking into the provided diffs now, though, and will post back soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to check with respect to Butterbumps per my above comment; however, checkuser is no Declined with respect to Belchfire. Belchfire's account predates Acoma Magic by several years, and edits such as this are a strong indication that the users are unrelated. This appears to simply be two people who share the same point of view, as Saedon suggests. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Butterbumps is technically  Inconclusive, editing from an Amazon cloud proxy and a different useragent than past socks. However, given the email and suspicious technical data, I'd say that this is a duck block. Checkusers should note that Acoma Magic has apparently figured out how to use proxies and may be a bit more difficult in future. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked and tagged, with no email. Closing. (X! · talk)  · @174  ·  03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


While both of these users are SPA in areas related to sexuality, an analysis shows that both of these editors [18] have edited the Oprah Winfrey article and have each advocated for naming a section in the article a certain way. [19] & [20] is probably a bit more than circumstance. I think there is enough to block per WP:DUCK without pestering a CU to do the dirty.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)   little green rosetta(talk)[reply]
central scrutinizer  21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Acoma appears to edit rarely between 7 and 14 hours [21]/] wuth a significant number of edits from 4 to 6. Ggg rarely between 4 and 13 - which is not proof of a lot, but GGG appears to be a UK-interested editor, while Acoma seems America-centric in his topics. There is, IMO, a good likelihood that the two are quite distinct people, and fail a true "duck test." Alas. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acoma and his/her confirmed socks are not "America-centric". See, for example, contributions of Zaalbar, Nightsky1100, and Acoma. They are very interested in Australia and UK topics.--В и к и T 23:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the time zone differential means? Cheers - my concern is that a "duck test" which is apparently contradicted by time zones has problems for anyone to solely rely on it. Perhaps a CU would be conclusive - but so far I am not convinced personally. Collect (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, there is no time zone differential, or so little that it makes no difference - look at the graphs [22] [23] (the bar charts are clearer than the circular radius ones). Look at it this way - what are the chances of a "new" user (they obviously weren't - removing POV tags on their first say of editing [24]?) being created the very same day as Acoma Magic's previous sock was blocked, and editing in the area of LGBT (woth the same POV), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games? Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is not even worth a CU. Blocking. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now, let's see

--В и к и T 00:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Completed. Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Serial sockpuppeteer, socking rapidly right now. Can't keep up with the blocks, likely a pretty huge sock farm. Need a checkuser to look for sleepers and/or block the underlying IP or IP range to nip this in the bud. I've listed the two most recent, self-admitted socks. There's many more out there. --Jayron32 21:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Jayron32 21:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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
24 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Between 17 March and 19 March User:Govgovgov was engaged in a discussion on Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous regarding this and this edit. Ultimately their problem was that they felt the quote marks were being attributed to the wrong source. While on the page they engaged in some wikihounding of another editor and later confessed to being a sock after being banned.] Now User:Goo86 was created on 22 March, their forth edit hyperlinked a wikipedia difference, even though it was their first time on a talk page and had not received a welcome template, cut a large chunk of text and hid the edit with a minor edit afterward, and has continued the conversation on Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous with the exact same agenda and arguments as Govgovgov [38] [39] [40]. They not only understand what a MOS is, but are able to hyperlink and subsection the section they are talking about in their fifth talk page edit. I think we can call this one a WP:DUCK. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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
  • Evidence is very compelling and demonstrates a clear continuity. Indef blocked as a sock. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
08 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


User has been making unconstructive edits (i.e. removing scare quotes and adding inaccurate COI descriptors) to religious and video game related articles that are likely in nature to Acoma Magic ([41], [42], [43], [44]). See also User_talk:NeilN#User:Prinsgezinde. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I mentioned at NeilN's talk page that the WP:CheckUser data is likely to read as stale in the case of comparing Prinsgezinde to Acoma Magic, and I was waiting to gather more evidence as time went on so that a solid WP:Duck block could possibly be made. A WP:CheckUser can, however, state whether or not Prinsgezinde is editing from the same area Acoma Magic edited from (Britain or Australia). That is, if using the WP:CheckUser tool is deemed warranted in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for what we mean about the scare quote aversion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic/Archive#26 December 2012 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic/Archive#24 March 2013, and compare that to this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is greatly elaborate, but notice what I am told while making my case here: "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed. Do not link to or include material that may reveal personal information about an editor. Doing so is outing and will be dealt with accordingly." One user (who refused to respond to me and deleted my post on his talk page) has already taken the liberty to revert a dozen of my edits indiscriminately stating "my contributions are not welcome here." Is there some agenda here or is it just a random accusation? Please CheckUser me, you'll find the cleanest log you'll ever see. PS: if my name didn't tip you off yet, I'm Dutch. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I responded to Prinsgezinde, stating, "whether or not you are Acoma Magic, you are not at all a WP:Newbie, and I am 100% certain that you are a past WP:Disruptive editor who has returned. Your contributions, the way you have been editing disruptively and deceptively (including this recent mess), show that this is not a case where I should apply WP:Assume good faith. That you supposedly currently live in the Netherlands does not mean that you are not Acoma Magic, who, before this latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation, last had a WP:Sockpuppet investigation filed on him in 2013. And my response to you pointing to the WP:NOASSUMESOCK and WP:SOCKOPHOBIA essays, which is further indication of your non-newness, is what I state on my user page." Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And for anyone wondering if Prinsgezinde, like Acoma Magic, has an interest in sexual topics other than heteronormativity, see here and here for the answer. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Permalink: More was stated in that section. While Prinsgezinde is unlikely to be blocked because of this Acoma Magic WP:Sockpuppet report, I have no doubt that he will eventually be blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I'm declining this report. The evidence is presented badly and is insufficient to justify any action. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


I believe Lincean is a sock of banned editor Acoma Magic. All accounts have an editing history narrowly focused on POV-pushing in LGBT-related topic areas.

  • The style of editing of each is that of relentless insistence that his views are the only policy-compliant ones. The master and socks frequently refer to WP:POV in their arguments, but almost never cite any other policies like WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CONSENSUS.: Lincean: [45] [46]; Zaalbar: [47] [48]; Acoma Magic: [49] [50] [51] [52]
  • Fixation on the word "bigotry" in the context of LGBT issues: Lincean: [53] [54] [55]; Acoma Magic: [56]; Windowwipe [57]
  • All frequently characterize content as "opinion": Lincean: [58] [59] [60]; Zaalbar: [61] [62]; Acoma Magic: [63] [64]; Goo86 [65]
  • All frequently use quote marks in their edit summaries (see contribution history)
  • All use polite, but unrelenting, discussion style in their talk page posts. The tone and wording style are remarkably similar between each of these accounts. Acoma Magic was banned and blocked in 2013, so a CU may not be possible. - MrX 03:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both refuse to accept consensus from closed RfCs: Acoma Magic: [66][67] (RfC); Lincean:[68][69] (RfC)

- MrX 21:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRECOCIOUS editing
  1. First edit: Creates trivial user page: [70] checkY
  2. Next few edits: Trivial edits in areas outside of topic interest: [71][72][73] checkY
  3. Sixth edit: Demonstrates arcane knowledge by using an inline template less than 24 hours after account creation: [74] [75] checkY

- MrX 11:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar editing times
Similar account creation times

- MrX 21:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is the only account that I have ever used to edit Wikipedia. Besides this account, I have only ever used an IP a couple of times over a decade ago. I welcome any investigation into my IP records, and will answer any questions that you all may have. I think MrX's supposed connections are tenuous at best. Furthermore, I deny "POV-pushing," as what I tried to accomplish was to remove a POV-loaded word, whereas MrX is insisting on it. Lincean (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's some convincing evidence MrX has presented. And one thing is for sure: Lincean is no WP:Newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Did you read all what I write or just the selections MrX has shown? Also, by my own admission, I said that I have used Wikipedia over a decade ago, and have been a longtime reader of this site, including the talk and technical pages. My account was created in 2013, just about every Internet user has heard of Wikipedia by this time. The use of inline templates is hardly arcane when you have been reading Wikipedia before an have seen them used in articles and look in the documentation for how they are used. I don't think I am relentless, as I admit that I have had misunderstandings before, and have thanked [76] people who have corrected my misunderstanding. Using quotes should not be unusual to people that keep the use–mention distinction in mind when they write. That distinction is useful when trying to achieve neutrality because sources and knowledge claims are kept clear. Additionally I think it helps keep things clear when one is writing about writing. Lincean (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was only concerned about the use of "bigotry" in one instance. It should not be controversial that this word is inappropriate, as per WP:NPOV and that a form of this word is listed as an example in WP:LABEL. The removal of that word should have been straight forward, but MrX was relentless in using that value-laden word. I cited WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL because this is a case in which they are involved. I brought the issue up again as my objects to the word were not answered. If you look carefully at the arguments I made on Talk:LGBT_rights_opposition, as you will see that this is the case. If there is anyway for me to privately verify my identity with the admins in order to resolve this, I will do so. MrX is mistaken, if there is anyway you want me to show this, I will answer. Lincean (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Only limited technical data is available, based on which Lincean is  Inconclusive. Lincean and the master have generally used IPs that mask their true locations. This will have to be decided on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck the part about Lincean using an IP that masks their true location. After privately consulting with another CheckUser, it is possible that Licean is using their IP legitimately.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin action needed - I've now looked at every diff presented, looked in archives, and had a quick skim through overall contribs. I think there's clear and convincing evidence showing a link. Indefinite block requested. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked and tagged per L235. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acoma_Magic/Archive&oldid=1145839591"