SkepticAnonymous

SkepticAnonymous (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
29 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar vandalism to User talk:Little green rosetta from banned sockpuppet: see [1], [2]. And of course similar username. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note this [3] where it is speculated that this is the banned user User:SkepticAnonymous. Adding that user and his IPs. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I'm no fucking sockpuppet, I was invited to come here to help clean this place up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesTheHallster (talk • contribs)

Been watching creation log and I noticed this user User:James Hamner which has a similar style (James and first letter of "last name"). Is it appropriate to check if that user is indeed the same person? ViriiK (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As that account has made no edits at this time, we can't just jump to conclusions over the username. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
09 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious sock is obvious. Visiting sockmaster's haunts and attacking "enemies" and talking to "allies"  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)   little green rosetta(talk)[reply]
central scrutinizer  02:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious troll is trolling and doesn't like it when diffs are presented of his tag-teaming behavior... 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add USER:JimEdgers to the mix?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  11:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


BEFORE YOU SHUT THIS DOWN, maybe also take a look at 129.7.255.110 (talk · contribs), whose edits emanate from Houston just as 98's do. Not edited recently, but maybe part of a range. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP ranges are unrelated technically. Furthermore, this IP is over a month old. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This looks like block evasion from User:SCIENCE MEANS REALITY via named account "Let's Have Some Science". IP 73.166.188.62 is making similar edits, and has editing behavior identical to blocked IP 76.31.236.94.

Behavioural evidence shows that this editor is concerned with 1. Vani Hari's talk page. 2. Filing page protection lifting requests for Vani Hari[4] and using multiple accounts to discuss them.[5]. These requests are similar to a request to remove page protection made by blocked user 76.31.236.94 here,[6] with both requests using similar language in claiming page protection is "abuse". 3. Making identical accusations of administrators of participating in a cabal against them.[7][8][9][10]

The most recent account, despite having a days-old editing history, complains of having to deal with months of "abusive admins".[11]

Compare editing history of IP 73.166.188.62 with editing history from blocked IPs 76.31.236.94, 98.196.234.202. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for linking this to the earlier blocked user SCIENCE MEANS REALITY concerns their claims to have added significant material to the Vani Hari talk page in this diff [12], despite no contributions to that page listed in their edit history. This indicates they were making edits there with a different account and under a different name.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous blocking admin User:Guerillero may have more information about previous checkuser evidence and block circumstances.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:19, 8 December 2014 (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 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

The anon IP has just been first-blocked for a month. This was either a very heavy block for a minor issue of adding unsourced content, or else (as the block log states) because of socking.

This IP has been accused of socking before, on no evidence other than the widely-held view that Vani Hari is a charlatan. The SPI was inconclusive, except for user:Elaqueate's unevidenced claim and the (significantly content-WP:INVOLVED) admin Guerillero. In the absence of technical CU to back this up, there is just no justification for handing out month-long blocks on no other basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2015 (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

05 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Filing for the record. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD and Bbb23, I have added one named account as well as 9 IPs that all geolocate to the Houston, TX area. After looking into the history of the previous SPIs filed for this sockmaster, I noticed one IP was previously blocked (see here [13] on very strong, convincing duck evidence. That IP geolocates to the Houston, TX area, as do the IPs I listed above. I believe that seeing they all showed up at the same article and talk page the newest sock was involved in, this gives further credence to the above IPs belonging to the sockmaster. The PatriotWolf showed up out of the blue to continue the doxxing done by the IP (see here [14]) that was encouraged by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. Further, that account was created about a half hour after the edit warring block notice was placed on PVJ's talk page [15], [16]. Duck by behavior, certainly. Coincidence, highly doubtful. I think the evidence from the previous SPIs as well as the timing of account creation, similarities in style and purpose, and geolocation of the IPs is quite compelling. Request CU of the named account and check for sleepers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 5 June 2016 (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


05 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


I am entering this because Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is now a confirmed sock of SkepticAnonymous, and his interactions on Texas Revolution have always made me question about the above two redlink editors. It came out of nowhere, and just seemed too coincidental for three redlink editors to be backing each other in this after an article had only months before passed Featured Article review. In the case of that article, what preceded numerous edits by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz was a type of round-robin Talk:Texas Revolution threads, sections "Noobie Editor Question about deleting a Reference book" and "Evaluating removal of Scott's "After the Alamo" references". Bobwolfe23 began the dialogue, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz made most of the actual article edits, with supporting talk by MiztuhX. In the case of MiztuhX, this editor has a previous history of disruptive editing on Battle of the Alamo, and was the cause of a long-term protection on that page last year. He also made disruptive edits on Mexican Texas; and at the time, seemed to be targeting those two articles because Karanacs was the common admin/editor and also the main editor who brought the Texas Revolution up to Featured status. Bobwolfe3 edit, 9 edits by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz edit directly crediting MiztuhX as the reasonProstetnic Vogon Jeltz 2, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz May 1, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz May 2 — Maile (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I deny — Maile 's charge of sockpuppetry. I do not have multiple IDs or IPs (although I have just recently begun using an IP spoofer over privacy protection). I have no affiliation with any of the users Maile has reported, and my comments have always been my own.

The claims (attacks?) that Maile makes are not relevant to the issue of sock puppetry; although I could provide insight and evidence to support my editing, if needed. MiztuhX (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Bobwolfe23 is a very old account, and MiztuhX is five years older than SkepticAnonymous.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


It is only one edit to the American Sniper article, but in that edit, the suspected sockpuppet has done the exact same thing SkepticAnonymous did while operating under the sock account Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ([17] [18] [19] [20]). Now, this could simply be a new user who saw Skeptic's edits and agreed with the removal of that material, but I got suspicious after seeing that the suspected sock joined Wikipedia exactly one week after Skeptic's sockpuppetry was exposed yet again and he/she was banned. In addition, the suspected sock has also made edits to the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and Chris Kyle articles, both of which Skeptic previously edited under the Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz banner. Parsley Man (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2016 (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

13 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Oneshotofwhiskey has barely tried to conceal their true identity, as they participated in a discussion with another SkepticAnonymous sockpuppet—User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz—at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza, in which both socks (and an IP, quite probably a sock as well) joined together to reiterate the same arguments and manufacture an illusory consensus in favor of describing D'Souza as a "convicted felon" in the first sentence. Despite being a brand-new account barely over one month old, Oneshotofwhiskey's edit history displays impressive knowledge of Wikipedia polices including WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; moreover, they share Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's interest in Ghostbusters (2016 film) as well as D'Souza. Combined with SkepticAnonymous's previously documented affinity for whiskey (see User:AlphaWhiskeyTango911), I think this is a clear-cut case of WP:DUCK, but I am requesting checkuser just in case an admin decides they would like more incontrovertible proof.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you might be right about the name AlphaWhiskeyTango (compare to whiskey tango foxtrot), but I did consider it an interesting coincidence that both suspected socks had "whiskey" in the name—of course I was not literally suggesting that the editor in question must be a whiskey drinker.
Even if Oneshotofwhiskey cannot be technically linked to SkepticAnonymous, I still think it's overwhelmingly probable that the account is a sock. (How many brand-new users know about and cite WP:GAMING?) User:SCIENCE MEANS REALITY shared the same interest in D'Souza, accusing him of "money laundering," so this wouldn't be the first time that article has suffered a sock attack. Compare these edit summaries by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz at Chris Kyle and Oneshotofwhiskey at Dinesh D'Souza, both criticizing the use of the respective subject's memoirs:
In sum, political enemies cannot be cited even with attribution, because the sources "have truthfulness issues" or are "tainted," and the claims are "fantastical" or impossible to "independently verify." There are probably more similarities that I'm missing, and this is on a very small sample of edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sock of anyone. It's a coincidence. I would imagine people who truly "know how the system works"(as alluded to by this editor) would also be smart enough at least hide their socking and not give it away in the username. Nice try with your little witch hunt.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just because the accuser claims anecdotal evidence of a page that is often hit by sock attacks, and lists OTHER socks or users unrelated to his SPI not here, is not proof that I am socking. The idiot Donald Trump logic used here, the fallacies employed, and the emotional reasoning by the accuser are for him to save face. I'm not a sock because (A) it's not true and (B) he presented NO real evidence. Admitting that he's probably missing little details here that could help is case, does NOT build his case NOR bolster his credibility...if anything, he's confessing to his lousy investigative skills and poor faculty for reasoning. Later.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@In actu (Guerillero): I was not throwing muck, or listing "OTHER socks or users unrelated" to this SPI, as Oneshotofwhiskey claimed. I was assuming this would be closed by an admin familiar with the archive; i.e., someone who would know that both Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and SCIENCE MEANS REALITY are also suspected SkepticAnonymous sockpuppets.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2016 (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

08 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Feb 24, March 3 redacted, March 8 (posted on my talk page), Request to remove semi-protection of Texas Revolution article March 8 This is ongoing. The first two IPs were blocked for a month for personal attacks. The 3rd IP just posted a semi-threat on my talk page (diff above). This does not look like it will cease on its own. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an added FYI, refer to SPI SkepticAnonymous, the log for June 05, 2016. I'm not sure if these IPs are related, but one of SA's socks Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has similar IPs, and the disruptive edits on the Texas Revolution talk page are about the same issue. And I believe the somewhat convoluted request to remove semi-protection of the Texas Revolution article is referring to content I restored after sock Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz removed it. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (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

17 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Signing posts as "MC", referring to past sock User:Morty C-137. Compare IP edit to Morty's edits here. Same page, same issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the IP geolocates to Texas, like past IPs in this SPI's archive. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2017 (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

10 December 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck, identical account of already blocked sock Morty C-137 ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2018 (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

Very  Likely, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06 March 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2019 (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 account has been IP socking and their edits as anon, coupled with their reactions to others as well as the cu log suggests this to be SkepticAnonymous.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

This is a evidence in two parts. The first is to link 6Years to 73.76.220.8. The second is to show that sock1 and the second IP address can be matched to the first IP address and thus 6Years was using the second IP address and the sock account to EVADE.

73.76.220.8 to 6Years.

There is no overlap between the IP edits and 6years so it wouldn't be a violation for 6Years to have initially used the IP address then moved to a use name, initially "Imadethisstupidaccount".

The 6Years account was established minutes after the last post from the IP. IP last post 1:11, 22 July [[22]], 6Years's account established 1:45 22 July [[23]]. The IP address was encouraged to sign in [[24]] and seems to have taken the hint. 6Years's first comment as a named user made it clear they were picking up where they left off [[25]] noting that another editor had inserted comments in the middle of a post by 73.76.220.8.

Both the IP and 6Years accuse other editors of "DARVO". I did a talk page search for the term. Not at all common yet both the IP and 6Years use it.

IP:[[26]]
6Years [[27]], [[28]]

Both the IP address and 6years are interested in inserting claims of racism in articles.

IP edits: [[29]], [[30]], [[31]]
6Years [[32]]

I think the above is sufficient to show that the first IP editor created the 6Years account. Now to show 6Years used an IP account and second login to EVADE.

The two IP addresses are based in Huston, TX

73.76.220.8[[33]]
129.7.105.123[[34]] - This is a Univeristy of Huston IP.

CoogLyfe makes only two types of edits; trolling edits of the Andy Ngo article accusing of racism (see the racist theme above) and edits to the University of Huston, Cullen College of Engineering page.

The UofHuston IP address hounded me at the same time 6Years was arguing with me following me to several pages where 6years was also active [[35]], [[36]], [[37]], [[38]], [[39]]

The IP also made a series of edits adding "white supremacist" material to several articles.

Talk:Patriot_Prayer [[40]]
Talk:Briscoe Cain: [[41]], [[42]], [[43]]
Harry_J._Anslinger :[[44]], [[45]]

Note that 6years also added related white supremacist content to the Anslinger article [[46]]

Update: 6Years is adding content regarding Bell Park, a stub article about a park in Huston, TX [[47]].

With the above we have links between IP address locations, a user name that edited UofHuston web pages as well as the Andy Ngo webpage that was also edited by 6Years and the UofHuston IP. We also have 6Years and the Uof Huston IP adding similar content to several pages including a page in common.

I think this is strong DUCK soup. Springee (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


This is nothing but a vexatious request by Springee. Springee is aware of [48], and Drmies' specific statement regarding me:"plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated." My understanding of Springee's motivation is that Bishonen topic-banned[49] Jweiss11 from Andy Ngo. Springee blames me for Bishonen's action, and started making accusations about me very shortly after posting there, repetitively and apparently hoping to either provoke me into a reaction they can declare uncivil or simply to make me frustrated enough to end participation. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ascribing motives to the actions of others was a common behavior of the 73.76.220.8 edits. Your "proof" is dated to the day after your account was opened. Since it would have been OK to transition from an IP editor to an editor with a user name that wasn't a problem. However, using a second account and hounding editors with a logged out IP address after establishing your logged in account is a problem. Both happened long after your "not a sock" defense. Springee (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your motivation extremely clear. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that Springee is going to start pasting in an update every single time I edit anything now. I've got a stalker, just wonderful. Time to take my blood pressure medication. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To @Ivanvector: I'm not "evading" anything. Shame on you. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also find some of the similarities between 129.7.105.123 and 6YearsTillRetirement very suspicious. For example, when faced with counter-arguments they tend to act dismissively and imply the other party doesn't embrace the opinions they put forward simply because the other parties "does not like them". Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Additionally, they both seem to reply with contempt and insinuations: you question the credentials and reliability of a journalist/blogger and they both seem to use the same bullying technique: accusing you of racism, bigotry and so on because the respective journalist/blogger belongs to an ethnic/minority group, examples: 1, 2. Mcrt007 (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur in general with Springee and WP:DUCK on this one. Buffs (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Springee has been asking multiple of their friends to come here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Springee is not a friend of mine. I've only met him at WP:AN. I found his argument compelling and made a similar assessment independent of Springee. Since I mentioned this at WP:AN, Springee invited my comment. While I concur with this general assessment, regardless of how I feel on the subject, we simply await the results. Multiple additional editors won't change that result. So, even if you think it to be meatpuppetry or canvassing, it shouldn't have an effect on the outcome. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor was clearly experienced before they opened the account as evidenced by their first edit, which was to open an AfD.[50] The fact they named their account Imadethisstupidaccount and the conflict they have come into with other editors during less than 2 months of editing history leads me to conclude they may have been previously blocked or banned. But I cannot think of any accounts that have been blocked recently that they may be. TFD (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: That's what made my spidey sense tingle too. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

As for CoogLyfe and the University of Houston IP: maybe they're the same editor or maybe not, but they're just run-of-the-mill trolls. IP colocation evidence is iffy at best (Houston is not exactly a small village in a remote area) and I'm not convinced there's enough good reason to suspect a connection. Request for checkuser is  Clerk declined. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Here IHateAccounts indicated that they were the same person as 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), an editor using an IPv6 /64 range geolocating to Houston, Texas. (See Special:Contributions/2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361::/64) SkepticAnonymous is known to use Houston-based IPs. IHA and SkepticAnonymous apparently share the view that Wikipedia should be used to expose the sins of American right-wing or libertarian figures: see for example IHA's contributions here, here, here, and here. IHA and SA have the same sort of angry approach; in particular, both revert ordinary, civil posts to their user talk pages with edit summaries along the lines of "remove abusive harassment by a terrible person".

Example diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

SkepticAnonymous and socks:

  • [51] remove vandalism by liars, frauds, and especially [username] the master liar of a FRAME JOB who IMPERSONATED ME.
  • [52] Remove uncivil insults mischaracterizing my edits by [username]
  • [53] Clean up and remove harassment tactic posts by [username].
  • [54] Remove harassment message. [username], you were pinged to the article talk page, how about PARTICIPATING instead of harassing, hmmm?
  • [55] remove harassing note from user who is engaged in dishonest tag-bombing

IHateAccounts:

  • [56] Remove trolling from bad faith troll.
  • [57] remove what appears to be fairly obvious trolling, I'm not going to respond to that.
  • [58] remove obviously harassing behavior
  • [59] Remove person enabling obvious harassment behavior
  • [60] remove disgusting, insulting personal attack
  • [61] revert; user obviously has WP:CIR issues with source evaluation
  • [62] remove obvious trolling from someone who thinks misgendering is ok.

gnu57 09:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • "undo xyz" (present tense), as opposed to the more common "rv/revert" or "undid": [76] [77][78]
  • Using a single spaced hyphen as a separator in edit summaries: [79] [80] [81] [82] vs. [83] [84] [85]
  • Typing in caps when angry, (note the "PLEASE"): [86] vs. [87] [88]
  • More generally speaking, the edit summaries are broadly similar in that both capitalisation of the first letter and punctuation are inconsistent and that they are used similarly frequently; edits in project- and talkspace often come without them.
  • Not entirely edit-summary based, but both IHA and the suspected master make references to bullying; see Special:Permalink/998720639 and [89] [90]

None of this is conclusive on its own and I haven't examined the IP edits, but I did want to point it out – make of it what you will. Best, Blablubbs|talk 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a chance to finish writing this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: So here's where I am at; if this block is based at all on similar POV pushing, then that falls out the window when you take a look a look the underlying tactics, motivations, and editing interests between the two users.
You have IHA who is a social justice type who generally hangs around in projectspace rather than dealing with content. Edits are almost exclusively based around BLPs and current events topics. The users that IHA gets into the most fights with are similarly relatively new (Swag Lord, 3Kingdoms, etc).
Then you have SkepticAnonymous who primarily edited on topics like the Oath Keepers, Chris Kyle, United Daughters of the Confederacy, and Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. While there is some overlap- Sean Hannity, Kris Kobach, Mansplaining, Unite The Right Rally, etc. are all articles I could see IHA editing today- we would expect at least some moderate recidivism in a potential SA sock's activity. What do I mean?
Well, when I became IHA's mentor, I opened up my articles to them as potential safe areas for them to contribute. I said here's what I've written in American politics; no one will bother you if you try to improve these articles. The suggested articles included List of militia organizations in the United States and List of presidents of the National Rifle Association which the former being an article which I highly doubt an SA sock could not resist contributing to. What was IHA's level of interest? None.
As for List of the NRA presidents, IHA seemed similarly disinterested. They only contributed a bit after excessive prodding on my part because I have it up for FLC. IHateAccounts ignored my ping there and didn't display any amount of POV pushing. Again, this is not what one would expect out of a potential SA sock. If this was SkepticAnonymous, these would have been the absolute free pass to edit the article however they want without raising any suspicion. Did. Not. Happen.
People change interests over years, but they don't completely drop previous interests. Not like this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My tentative conclusion is that while the two accounts certainly have some surface-level similarities ("strong willed leftists who get kind of angry"), I don't think that the behavioral evidence presented above is enough to link these accounts and warrant a ban. There are some linguistic/behavioral similarities between IHA and previous SA socks, but there are just as many linguistic/behavioral differences (for more general behavioral differences see MJL's reports about mentoring IHA and their editing choices). The diffs I've presented certainly don't rule out a connection; one explanation consistent with accusations of socking could be that SA, in the window of time between C-137 and IHA, picked up the lingo of other editors and became calmer, more sensitive, and more genderqueer. However, this doesn't seem likely to me. I've never (to my knowledge) interacted with SA, but I've bumped into IHA a few times on various articles and looking at SA's diffs, IHA doesn't seem like the same person.
I apologize for the large amount of diffs and the wall of text. I've tried to be as concise as I can. I'd also love to hear others' interpretations of the diffs I've presented, as my analysis may be completely off-the-mark. I'll update this if I find anything else, whether it helps or hurts IHA's case. Srey Srostalk 01:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC) updated 07:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC) and 17:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point #3 alone shows that the socks are capable of changing certain elements of their behaviour in just one year. Comparing with a 2015-2016 sock account thus seems to be a fallacy, rather than comparing with the newer socks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: You make a very good point. What caused that was that I initially was doing the analysis without the C-137 account (I accidentally merged it with C-139 in my list) and so didn't see the newer posts. Even compared with the newer socks, the switch from ((replyto)) and ((ping)) to ((reply)) seems like it could be significant. Srey Srostalk 07:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How so? From 2015 to 2016 the sock stopped using yo and started using replyto and ping. So isn't it feasible that from 2016 to 2020 they stopped using replyto and ping and started using reply? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what stands out to me is that the change from yo to replyto and ping happened gradually over the span of two accounts and many edits, while as far as I can tell, even though there was a decent-sized gap in time between the replyto/ping edits and the first IHA IP edits I can find, IHA has basically used reply 100% of the time. The assumption that I'm making here is that editing habits change while editing, rather than just over time. Unless there are other socks that we haven't caught that made this change gradually, IHA seems like an outlier here. Srey Srostalk 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But for IHA, 100% of the time is only a three-month period. Too short to measure a gradual change. While I'm here and since you asked, I also find #1 unpersuasive, because you're comparing one person's behavior with what you think another person would or would not do, and that other person, you've only known (correct me if I'm wrong) from interacting on the internet for three months. That's not enough time to know someone well enough to accurately predict their behavior, especially if all interactions have been only via text. I agree with PR about #3 also. The other points I think are interesting, but overall, it's damn near impossible to prove that one person is not another person. Similarities can be hard to explain away, but differences can easily be explained, and in fact we know that SA socks sometimes show differences in behavior. I imagine all long term socks do, as it's easy to act like someone else online (no one knows you're a dog...). So I'm cognizant that what you're trying to do, "prove" innocence, is an almost impossible task.
While I'm here, two things...
  1. I understand IHA edited as an IP prior to registering an account, and that they edited as an IP for a long time (and this is public). Why isn't anyone looking at IHA's IP edits for comparison? How long did IHA edit as an IP? Did they overlap with any SA socks? I imagine there is more relevant behavioral evidence in the IP's contribs that may be helpful to look at.
  2. I'm not a CU or admin or anything, but for my part I'm not much persuaded one way or the other by comparisons of minutiae like word choice in edit summaries. For example, both editors talk about bullying and gaslighting, but so have I, so have thousands of others. I sometimes use "rv" or "revert" or "undo", there is no rhyme or reason to it, and I know thousands of others do, too. I'm much more persuaded by big-picture behavior analysis such as what MJL presented. My question is: what did SA do with their socks? Did they edit the same articles? Bother the same editors? Pursue the same disputes? Push the same POV? What was the purpose of the socks? And then, did IHA do those same things or pursue the same purpose? If IHA fought the same fights that SA did, then that's persuasive evidence that they're connected. Conversely, if IHA did not fight any of the same fights as SA, then what would the point be of SA creating the IHA account? Particularly where IHA had previously edited as an IP, apparently for a while, and without getting busted as an SA sock (assuming that's the case in the first place)... it makes no sense that someone successfully socking as an IP would go and create an account and continue to sock but not pursue any of their old disputes. That's illogical. I would think any behavioral evidence would link the purpose of the two accounts, not just their language.
Another long post from Levivich harass/hound 17:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: (1) The thing that I always found weird about IHA is that they were the most aggressive towards fellow newbies, even in private with me. That's why I think the interaction ban with Swag Lord is pretty telling here. If you are an SA sock, you know which editors have been around long term and hold an opposing POV to you; you don't waste your time on the newbies. That isn't to say SA would ignore newbies per se, but I would've expected the focus to be on the more tenured editors.
(2) The sad and funny and tragic part of this to me is that if you accept that SA is IHA, then you're still admitting that this user (A) did not re-engage in old conduct disputes with users, (B) tempered their language quite significantly (see what they said in 2019), (C) stayed away from most of their original secondary topic areas (Texas history, Rick and Morty, etc.), (D) hasn't socked since creating this latest account on the advice of multiple admins and arbs, and (E) made a completely new identity for themself as a young person who occasionally takes bath bombs. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: what did SA do with their socks Generally speaking attacked perceived conservative editors (such as a Pearland, TX IP calling someone a "conservatroll"), adding negative information about right-wing politicians (such as a Pearland IP adding alleged white supremacy links to Steve Scalise). Compare this with IHA adding links about white nationalism to Madison Cawthorn and a Pearland IP – the one we know preceded IHA's account – attacking Masem for "disgusting troll level dishonesty". Many of the archived IPs have been blocked, identified with socking and had their attacks rev-deleted. These can be found in the SPI archives. I noticed that the wireless Sprint PCS broadband IPs geolocate to Houston, TX, but the fixed line Comcast IPs geolocate to Pearland, TX with the same postal code. Mobile internet geolocations can be wildly inaccurate, but some fixed line broadband geolocations can be very accurate because they trace to a postal code. What are the odds that there are several Wikipedia users who pop-up to attack perceived right-wing editors as trolls or bullies, specialize in white nationalism allegations and end up being blocked for personal attacks based in Pearland? --Pudeo (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...but the fact that the IPs geolocate to Pearland doesn't mean that the users are in Pearland, right? Could be anywhere in the vicinity, and the vicinity is Greater Houston, population 7 million, which is larger than most countries. I think the chances that there are more than one "strong willed leftists who get kind of angry" in Houston is extremely high, and since Wikipedia editors are a self-selecting group, I bet that out of the thousands of people from Houston who have edited Wikipedia, more than half would self-identify as anti-right-wing or anti-white-nationalism or something like that. Like what are the chances there are two leftists in Hong Kong (7.5 mil)? Or Denmark (6 mil)? Having the same POV and geolocating to the same place doesn't strike me as particularly persuasive evidence. Levivich harass/hound 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Greater Houston, being an American metro area, is sprawling and geographically large. If all the various fixed-line IPs specifically geolocate to the much smaller Pearland suburb, as Pudeo seems to be saying (and can correct me if I am wrong), it seems unlikely that we can shrug this off as two people merely happening to be from the much larger Houston area. Crossroads -talk- 18:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pudeo, you're leaving out some key facts here. One of thesAe users has focused on a single topic area to a super precise degree while the other always had secondary topic areas to fall back on. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 5, I suspect you are correct around this being common. I offer my own editing history as an example, and although I mainly use "rv", a glance at my recent edits shows I also use "undo [x]" sometimes as well: [186], [187] [188]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a point I would like to make more clear, as I'm not sure I expressed it clearly enough originally. In adding my points above, my intention was not to prove that these are two different people. That's impossible, and counter to the burden of proof involved in this investigation. My intent was and is to add context to some of the linguistic similarities presented as evidence against IHA (both use all-caps, both use "undo", both talk about bullying, both vary capitalization in edit summaries, etc.). Writing habits aren't like fingerprints; there's only so many ways to write quotes, links, etc. Given any two accounts, there will be linguistic quirks that match up and linguistic quirks that don't. I'm sure that every user involved in this discussion has five or ten or twenty linguistic habits that match up with SA socks, and just as many that don't. Finding similarities as conclusive while explaining away differences is the wrong way to go about this. Linguistic quirks should only be construed to tie accounts together when the balance of evidence is overwhelming. If 90% of my editing habits match up with SA's, for example, but I've changed the way I reply to users, then sure, block me. That is not the case with IHA. Some things match up, some things don't. The linguistic evidence here is at best inconclusive, and possibly even helps to distinguish these two accounts as different people. What the discussion needs to focus on here, and what any review of IHA's unblock request needs to be based on, is the behavioral evidence. As far as I can tell, that consists of the following factors linking the accounts:
1. IHA and SA both have IPs which geolocate to somewhere in the greater Houston area.
2. IHA and SA are both heavy-handed in reverting on their user Talk pages.
3. IHA and SA both get angry and aggressive sometimes, and are very liberal in accusing people of trolling
4. IHA and SA are both leftists whose POV sometimes slips into their editing
5. IHA and SA have both, at times, accused other editors of bullying
As well as the following factors which distinguish the two accounts:
1. IHA has not engaged with the same editors or specific content areas that SA was involved in, even when given the opportunity to (see MJL's evidence above). The exception to this seems to be the broad category of American politics.
2. IHA's tone is notably calmer than SA's
3. SA uses epithets that seem inconsistent with IHA's demeanor and character. MJL knows IHA better than anyone here, so I lend a fair bit of weight to their assessment of IHA as a person.
4. IHA was most aggressive towards newbie editors, not towards the established ideological opponents SA would likely target.
5. IHA's development (meeting people, learning about Wikipedia concepts, etc.) seems rather organic.
Now, does this evidence prove that IHA and SA are two different people? No, that's practically impossible. But that's not the point. As Blablubbs said above, there are lots of people who exhibit these similarities, lots of rather aggressive editors in AMPOL, lots of people on those ranges, lots of people in that corner of Texas, lots of people using that UA, lots of people exhibiting certain linguistical quirks. The question we need to ask ourselves is: "How likely is it it that two people on that range and device, in that area, share political views, posting style and linguistic markers?" As I and others have argued here, I don't think the linguistic/stylistic markers are anywhere near conclusive, one way or the other. And honestly the behavioral similarities are a bit weak too. They all seem to fit neatly into an editor being angry and opinionated. So the question we are left asking is: "How likely is it that two of the seven million people in the greater Houston area are irritable leftist Wikipedians who use the same OS and browser?" Given that there's basically only two operating systems and three or four browsers, I don't think the odds here warrant a block. As I'm writing this, I see IHA has been blocked, apparently because they don't plan to return to Wikipedia so unblocking would serve little purpose. Perhaps this comment will be useful if IHA ever returns. Srey Srostalk 23:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I agree with Sro23's comment, below. We seem now to be undergoing a lot of self-contortions to try to overturn a block based on a reasonably solid triangulation of technical and behavioral indicators, neither of which may be sufficient proof on their own but which - when taken in concert - makes the case of socking likely. If IHA registers a new unblock request it will depend on it being registered at the precise moment that an unrecused admin who believes this is a bad block is online and able to remedy it. With the majority of SPI regulars completely uninvolved in this conversation, an unblock request registered at any other moment would probably just result in a second decline. I presume, therefore, that the reason we have not seen a second unblock request, despite the user's editing pattern up to this point indicating usually daily log-ins, is that it is either (a) being tactically withheld, (b) the account is now abandoned and a new sockpuppet has already been generated and is currently editing elsewhere. In either of those cases, reopening this investigation is only likely to reward disruptive behavior, whatever its genesis. Chetsford (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow that's a crazy lien of argument. Here are the premises you lay out:
    A. If IHA registers a new unblock request it will depend on it being registered at the precise moment that an unrecused admin who believes this is a bad block is online and able to remedy it.
    B. Because ... an unblock request registered at any other moment would probably just result in a second decline
    And your conclusion from those premises is that IHA hasn't posted a second unblock request because either:
    1. tactically withheld, or
    2. account is now abandoned and a new sockpuppet has already been generated and is currently editing elsewhere
    What's amazing to me is that you did not seem to even consider these other, extremely obvious, possibilities:
    3. IHA isn't posting a second unblock request because, as you said, doing so will depend on it being registered at the precise moment that an unrecused admin who believes this is a bad block is online and able to remedy it and an unblock request registered at any other moment would probably just result in a second decline ... so who would make a second unblock request under those conditions?
    4. They abandoned the project... meaning, they abandoned the account and did not start a new one. Because of being fed up.
    Reopening the investigation will only reward disruptive behavior if you believe there has been disruptive behavior, but that's what this investigation is supposed to find out. So one can't really argue that investigating the crime rewards the criminal, as it were, unless one presupposes the outcome of said investigation.
    Here's the thing about reopening investigations: do we have something to hide? Some reason we need to stop people from discussing this matter? As you said, the majority of SPI regulars completely uninvolved in this conversation, so it's not taking up any of their time. If people want to volunteer to dig deeper, why fault them for that? Aren't you, like me, and the rest of us, interested in finding the truth? Levivich harass/hound 18:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aren't you, like me, and the rest of us, interested in finding the truth?" Who is this "the rest of us" to which you refer? As far as I can tell, most of us here believe "the truth" has already been found and we don't need another recount. Chetsford (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might want to take a second look... I count four editors on this page saying they think IHA is SA's sock. That's not most, that's less than half. Levivich harass/hound 19:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting different numbers. We'll have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to agree to disagree about easily-ascertained facts, such as the number of people commenting here. The four editors who have said IHA = SA are Guerillero, Pudeo, Sro, and you. The other editors who have commented here are me, GW, MJL, PR, GN, Srey Sros, and Blablubbs. I'm not counting Mkdw as a participant, and even if you count the filer, gnu, in the first group, the first group is still a numerical minority. Your statement, most of us here believe "the truth" has already been found, is demonstrably incorrect. Levivich harass/hound 19:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not counting Mkdw as a participant, and even if you count the filer, gnu, in the first group, the first group ..." I feel a sudden empathy with American judges over the last couple months. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: That's some major WP:ABF right there. The behavoiral evidence has not been solid, and according to CaptainEek the technical evidence is not particularly strong either.
If you absolutely MUST know where IHA has been, they've been incredibly sick and distressed because of these events. Throwing up and the like. Nothing good. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"That's some major WP:ABF right there." That's incorrect. ABF requires an assumption be made. It doesn't apply here as we are discussing an editor who is, in fact, actually blocked as a sockpuppet at this very moment. AGF does not proscribe us from acknowledging reality.
"The behavoiral evidence has not been solid" I disagree. The behavioral evidence is solid.
"... they've been incredibly sick and distressed because of these events. Throwing up and the like." I'm sorry to hear that. Chetsford (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Chetsford, Levivich: please keep comments here directly related to answering the question "are IHA and SA the same person" rather than meta-commentary on IHA's unblock requests and the trend of the current discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Four days after that, we get our first user talk message" Their first Talk comment [195] is to accuse another editor of being "utterly dishonest" - that seems behavioraly consistent with the first Talk messages left by the socks which consistently start by accusing other editors of various prejudices, such as having secret "ulterior motive[s]" [196] or being "pro-woo ... rogue admins" [197], etc. My first Talk comment was not to come out swinging, making wild accusations against other editors and, perhaps I'm overly idealistic or naive, but I don't think this is the behavioral pattern we'd typically associate with a wide-eyed, innocent puppy new to the world. Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: I didn't say WP:WikiPuppy, but I did say wolfcub. They're known to bite a lot since they're still teething.
Either way, IHA was directly admonishing a user for inappropriately hatting their comments. Was it civil? No, definitely not. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was using puppy as a general colloquialism. (I don't really keep up with the WikiFauna thing.) Chetsford (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@In actu: Unlike you, I don't have access to the other technical data, so I picked the place that I knew IHA has edited before (because they've returned to it). The late September edit showed a continuous and unbroken chain of edits. Besides that, I have some private reasonings behind not including the June edit (besides it being on mobile) and the three May edits at the very least. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Look, like I said I got some private external reasons for doubting the ownership of those edits. It's not that these details specifically exclude the possibility that those were IHA, but it gives me some pause to say one way or the other.
Therefore, for the purposes of what I am trying to say I started with Talk:Proud Boys. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest edits on the range actually seem to be these, which are a bunch of egregious POV-pushing BLP violations which were all reverted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: lots of people using that UA Um.. Literally no one has said anything about them sharing a similar UA (if anything, they're probably different given that this is is a ((likely)) and not a ((confirmed)).
lots of people exhibiting certain linguistical quirks As has been shown by multiple people, these two users don't share similar linguistics quirks. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, CaptainEek wrote on the talk page that The UA and ISP are very common, which I take to mean that they are indeed using the same browser and operating system. If they weren't, I'd expect a ((possible)), ((possilikely)), or similar. "Confirmed" is probably unlikely in this case because there is no recent data for the master, at least not as far as I can tell (+ big ranges and common UA). As for the linguistic quirks and behavioural similarities, I can only leave it up to you whether you find them convincing or not. Blablubbs|talk 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


IHateAccounts was blocked on Jan 27. Nmi628 started editing on Feb 27. Ironically, one of their first edits was complaining about "new accounts". In their first day of editing, they already used wikijargon like "LGV" and now linked to more obscure pages like "WP:SQS".

In Oct 2020, IHateAccounts inquired why did Beaneater00 choose an ethnic slur as an username. Nmi628 has now edit-warred with Beaneater00 and alleged that he has a history of pro-Nazi edits. Regardless of the merit of these claims, it is suspicious to butt heads with the same user who isn't even that prolific of an editor.

In the last SPI, the white nationalism topic area was covered. Nmi628 exclusively edits that topic area. Nmi28 requested an edit to use 'transphobia' in J.K. Rowling: [210]. There's the active use of requests for page protection by both users[211][212] (IHA 10 edits on WP:RFPP, Nmi628 12 edits). Both users capitalize words in edit summaries but write 'twitter' with lower-case: Nmi628 & IHA.

I can't say with certainty that SA is the sockmaster here, but it's obvious Nmi628 is not a new user. Running a check here would be reasonable to protect Wikipedia from socking.

For good measure, Rockypedia sock Ewen Douglas (talk · contribs) also has history in Nick Fuentes, Steve King and James Allsup, but I don't know if there's coherent CU log data for him. Pudeo (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (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

26 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

SkepticAnonymous is a sockpuppeteer who adds unsourced inflammatory labels like "white supremacist" to AmPol BLPs. This IP geolocates to Pearland, Texas, as have past SkepticAnonymous IP socks. Recent edits include characterising Wikipedia editors as "klan defenders" of a conservative judge [213] and calling a sci-fi author "white-supremacist, homophobic and transphobic".[214] gnu57 15:00, 26 April 2023 (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 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Logging for the future that this account is  Possible based on the CU evidence but the behavioral, particularly the post-block behavior pushes this over the edge for me. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:16, 24 July 2023 (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

04 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

registered 2 days after the old sock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Saikyoryu was blocked. obviously not a new user as they already know all the rules and guidelines. similar tendency to use talk pages a lot. also voted "yes" in this rfc https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1168755020 like previous sock Saikyoryu FMSky (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2023 (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

06 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

obvious from user's tendency to make new accounts and then immediately join discussions in contentious topics and lecture users about guidelines (which obviously a new user wouldnt know about). immediately creating a user page to avoid the page showing as red is also typical sock behaviour ---FMSky (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

According to the readings for our class we were asked to do before creating an account, this is a personal attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOperation_Underground_Railroad&diff=1174140372&oldid=1174139927 Please withdraw it. HTownLegends (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol --FMSky (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Duck blocked. Would still like a CU check. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Well that would make SparklyNights a sock though right? Or are we allowed to make multiple accounts --FMSky (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have no page overlap and no time overlap. CLEANSTART might apply, but the account has under 1k edits. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More