Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em/Archive

06 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Extremely similar writing style and topic interests. Similar levels of English proficiency (non-native or at least prone to the same misspellings). Also compare and  (posts in English made by Hellartgirl on the French Wikipedia) with the talking points and even expressions used by Art4em on ANI, e.g. the 350,000 readers of the French Huffington post. An odd language commonality is that they both misspelled vandalism as vandelism repeatedly: Art4em, Hellartgirl. You can find more of that misspelling in their edit histories, although neither one consistently misspells the word, they both get it right at times. There are other stylistic similarities just in the small sample of the current ANI discussion they both participate in. For example, they both open with "Dear ", both often number their talking points using #, and both refer to editing they disapprove of as "illegitimate"; there are more similarities, but these should be sufficient to launch an investigation. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Another point of similarity is that they bring up The Cult of the Amateur as an argument why their (presumably expert) edits should prevail: Art4em , Hellartgirl. Yet another hint is the rather frequent use " / " (with or without spaces) such as in the previous diff by Art4em, in the post on this very page by Hellartgirl but also in this edit summary, whereas Art4em also used it here and here. Do I need to continue? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Another common talking point: they both refer to a blog post as being "peer-reviewed"    and more than once, but I'm tired of looking for more diffs. If they're not the same person, there's an amazing amount of mind sharing between, and they both have about the same WP:COMPETENCE in evaluating sources, as well as purpose. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I am not sure how this tactic / inquiry addresses (in the Wikipedia spirit) the contextual discussion thread with user/accuser? This bad-faith request should be firmly denied. --Hellartgirl (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is a tactic. Questioning the possibility of sockpuppetry is just questioning.
 * Here is another clue : a question is asked to Hellartgirl, and it is Art4em who answers ! . Jean-no (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To the clerk : please take note that a checkuser has been performed on me, to balance... (I'm perfectly ok with it) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jean-no Jean-no (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a msg there, since there is a good chance there is linkage. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I answered, but I'm not sure of what you are asking me, actualy. Jean-no (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Art4em does not exist on the French Wikipedia, but I've notified Starus about this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm holding off endorsing or declining the CU, and maybe another clerk can peek in, but I see significant differences in English language usage by these two editors. While it seems obvious that English isn't their first language, and there may be some common "mistakes", those could be common to many people, and a look at the ANI discussion leads me to think they are different people solely on the nuances of phrasing and grammar.  I would rather not expand, but again will defer to any clerk who thinks I'm mistaken, or wants to decline if they feel I am correct. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the French for vandalism is vandalisme. Both parties spelling it vandelism is sufficient of a tell for me.  I'm going to run a check. (Note, filing party has contacted me on my talkpage to ask me to look at this) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, sockadoodledoo. Hellartgirl is ✅ as a sock of Art4em, and 5 gets you 10 neither of them is French. Indeffblocking both, any appeal should come from Art4em as this is the older account.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.

10 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Seems a WP:DUCK case. Same interest and same poor English as the sockmaster; see the archive for details. He's also spamming that link to various user and other talk pages  apparently in an effort to recruit WP:MEATPUPPETs. I think an abuse filter for that link might be necessary as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hola Editors! It appears that said editor has a thing against new wiki members? And, is he/she some grammer expert? Where in wiki guidelines does it say "talk" pages need to grammatically correct? And, finally, exactly how many incidents does this rouge editor send your way per day to avoid discussion and prevent discussion? It is a horrible practice that should not be tolerated any longer. Worst of all, said editor then brags to other editors about his methods of establishing and building Wiki consensus (1 of the 5 pillars of Wiki):


 * Meh, this got resolved the way many wiki disputes do... behaviorally. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Small wonder real experts are writing letters about Wikipedia's bizarre community leaders to the New Yorker!


 * Shame on this --Xxx&#38;booze (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Save your breath until you see what a really rouge editor has done . Tijfo098 (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obvious sock is obvious. And Tijfo098 isn't a red editor or a community leader. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Did a sweep for sleepers, but didn't turn anything up.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

25 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar name narrowly focused on the same topic area, LG Williams, see Articles for deletion/LG Williams. The master is indef blocked, so ArtFartAttack is engaging in block evasion. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Jusanotherwikidope is a newly registered SPA showing up in the same AfD. It called me a "rogue editor", something that other Art4em socks did in the archived SPI. (Ok, he now learned how to spell that. He previously wrote "rouge editor". Previous SPI showed that spelling and grammar are not this editor's strong points.) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * As an editor who has been watching this behavior for a while, I concur that ArtFartAttack and Jusanotherwikidope appear to be new socks of the user who has been blocked three previous times and who edits almost exclusively on issues relating to LG Williams. Qworty (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to report AFA to UAA as an offensive username. Electric Catfish2 11:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In light of previous socking and on behavorial evidence, I've requested CheckUser.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All socks back in the drawer --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing, socks are blocked and tagged. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

12 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I suspect Xxxartxxx to be a sockpuppet of Art4em. Firstly, there are some superficial similarities. 3 of 5 confirmed socks have "art" in their name. (Art4em, ArtFartAttack, Hellartgirl) Another sock was dubbed Xxx&booze. Superficially, it looks to me that Xxxartxxx is a mashup of some of these usernames. Although Editor Interaction Analyzer isn't working properly for me right now, there are intersections between Art4em, Xxxartxxx and Hellartgirl at LG Williams, Wally Hedrick and Lance Fung Gallery.

After having poked through the first AfD for LG Williams, I noticed that several comments had been stricken out because they were made by socks of Art4em. Most of the suspected and confirmed socks had LG Williams in common either commenting on the AfD, editing the article or mentioning LG Williams in passing. Xxxartxxx is the chief contributor to the article on LG Williams and seems to have a vociferous interest in keeping the article around based on his/her comments in on the talk page.

In a 2012 sock investigation, editor Tijfo098 pointed out some behavioral cues. The user often starts comments "Dear Capitalized Common Noun". This can be seen in this edit by Art4em beginning Dear Esteemed and Concerned Wiki Colleagues as well as in edits by Xxxartxxx beginning Dear Editor Nowa and Dear Editor Nowa and Dear Editors, Dear Gene93k.

There are also some other behavioral cues, for instance overly-effusive, almost sarcastic prose.


 * Xxxartxxx: "...thank you so much for protecting LG Williams from continued Vandalism and acts of disruptive editing. Your work and oversight is great contribution to the Wiki community and fully appreciated.
 * Xxx&booze: Bless you for your time and attention in this interesting subject. "...once again I have come across your fine handiwork in Damien Hirst // Plagiarism section".
 * Xxxartxxx: "...Dear Cyphoidbomb, thank you so much for protecting LG Williams from continued WP:Vandalism and acts of disruptive editing. Your work and oversight is great contribution to the Wiki community and fully appreciated. Much respect and thanks for your diligent oversight and efforts against WP:Vandalism and disruptive editing."

User also tends to write excessively long, flowery, abstruse prose, for example here as Art4em and here as Hellartgirl (note numbering) and here as Xxxartxxx: (note numbering).

Xxxartxxx tends to get really defensive when editors make good-faith comments about the LG Williams article needing adequate establishment of notability and other constructive improvements, for example in these edits, which were in response to my suggestion that if he wanted to help avoid disruptive AfD nominations, he should work to properly establish the subject's notability. His response was disproportionate to my suggestion.

In these edits, Xxxartxxx responds poorly to a statement that a particular quotation seemed to be puffery, and he responds with several comments produced in a rather condescending and unique voice here. "Today, any learned Wiki user with knowledge on a subject...can reasonably assume that another wiki editor without any demonstrated knowledge on a subject...will be jelly and give the learned editor COI tag...But, look, learned editors, my rationale for the edit can be found here..." This seems reminiscent of content found here by Art4em "...the actions taken by the above debate were statedly unlearned...another impartial learned editor said that upon supplying an additional, credible source, my article could be reposted..." and the tone of other content produced by Art4em here. "I would appreciate it if you 'learned editors' would read the topic and history before you engage in platitudes...The page was fine for a year before the 'learned editor' with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever came it and just started deleting...you can keep your little unlearned page to your little amazing hiveminds."

It wouldn't surprise me if Art4em and Xxxartxxx were LG Williams himself, or a close confederate, and they were attempting to use the Wikipedia article as some sort of performance art piece, because why else would anybody deliberately write in such a grandiloquent and put-on voice? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Due to the master and old socks being I can only say that the edits came from the same relative (being half decently large) geographic area. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied per WP:DUCK. Xxxartxxx has been blocked indefinitely.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that Xxxartxxx is [ requesting a review] of the indef-block I gave to the account. I see no reason to change my opinion on the issue, but if some other admin wants to take another look (and possibly overrule me), please go ahead.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unclosing this SPI (and putting it on hold) pending whatever may come of Xxxartxxx's appeal of his indef-sock-block. If the appeal is rejected, I will come back and re-close.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-closing now that the appeal of the block has been declined. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

29 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

More bombastic diatribes written in defense of the LG Williams article. User is again focusing more on criticizing editors than discussing specific improvements that could be made to the article, which is what Xxxartxxx did. Though I'm noticing a slightly different writing style, (user has taken to using lower-case "I" to refer to themselves, which might be deliberate), Xxxartxxx's typical talk page posts seemed hyperfixated on dissecting minutia rather than discussing how exactly the subject is considered notable, or offering specific ideas for improving the article. For example, here where the user is complaining about the addition of the word "unofficial" in "unofficial Internet Pavilion", which is supported by a source. The user also seems very aware of various Wikipedia policies, which would be consistent with someone like Art4em, who was active here for quite some time. (However the user is policy/guidelines to critique what other users think, rather than what is being included in the article. It's weaksauce wikilawyering.) The user is also slinging "bad faith" around the way he did in his unblock request. Based on what I've observed happening at this article so far, there are three factions: Xxxartxxx and/or compatriots who seems to have an agenda to keep the article afloat, a pernicious editor Baronosuna (and possible socks), who seems to have an agenda to have the article deleted, and regular Wikipedia editors who are trying to figure out how to improve the article, or whether the article should exist in the first place.

I'll point out also that LG Williams is supposed to be a member of something called the "Rat Bastard Protective Association", and the user is similarly named. See also this version of the user's talk page, which seems to represent a preemptive attempt to blame other apartment residents should he be accused of socking. The username is probably a vio of WP:USERNAME anyway. We know from history that it is not beneath Art4em to create sock accounts with the purpose of maintaining articles s/he is interested in. For these reasons I am requesting a checkuser on this new account. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I did some additional digging, as I wasn't so sure with the evidence provided. Upon doing so, I noticed some consistent similarities between the two accounts including: their tone, edit structure, picking apart minor details with quotes, and using caps lock to express emotion and place emphasis on comments. These edits might help highlight the similarities: Xxxartxxx - #1 Xxxartxxx - #2 Ratbastardassn - #1 Ratbastardassn - #2  Mike V  •  Talk  00:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  07:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  07:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

11 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Highly disruptive in Articles for deletion/LG Williams (3rd nomination) and in danger of reducing the AfD to a farce with multiple 'voting' and very lengthy diatribes. Accounts seem to have been created for the sole purpose of intervening in the AfD. Language used suggests an obvious connection between these three accounts.

NB there may be a connection to three earlier accounts, Josefkosut (attempted speedy deletion of LG Williams, April 2014), 180.172.239.231 (attempted speedy deletion, August 2014), Baronosuna (attempted speedy deletion, November 2014, blocked for impersonation). Sionk (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment - This seems to be related to the previous Art4em / Xxxartxxx and Ratbastardassn investigation, too: lengthy diatribes; bringing up similarity to PT Barnum; discernment of Southern California artists; questioning exclusion of letters to the editor, blogs, etc. as reliable sources; Venice Biennale; stringing guidelines "WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOVN + undermining of verifiable / notable WP:PRIMARY" comments in Articles for deletion/LG Williams (3rd nomination) are similar to those discussed in the Art4em investigation, including comments by User:Xxxartxxx at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive211 and the archived talk page... and User:Ratbastardassn at Talk:LG Williams.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: In this diff on the talk page of now-blocked sockpuppet Ratbastardassn, he proposes adopting "Chan" as his next user ID. Both Ratbastardassn and Chan12345 display the same peculiar diction and predilections, as noted by CaroleHenson. Stylistic tics include fulsome praise of "excellent editors", redundant links to PT Barnum and LG Williams, and many references to WP:FRINGE and other policies, which are consistently capitalized but not linked. Compare diffs linked above by Sionk with Ratbastardassn here and here, and Art4em here. Ewulp (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Following are ✅ to socks of Art4em:
 * (for the record)
 * to merge it there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (for the record)
 * to merge it there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * to merge it there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Case merged and accounts blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This seems to be a sock of Art4em aggressively attempting to promote an artist. For background, an article Julia Friedman was started which was soon sent to this AfD. The suspected sockpuppet (Wwwwhatupprrr) engaged in uncivil behaviour. On being asked about COI and usage of previous accounts, they denied it. Later I started a COIN post. Here is the evidence The writing style is consistent to the previous socks (gathered from previous AfDs AfD3, AfD1 and current Afd,. Please also see the previous archive. Overall, the coincidences are too much to ignore. This seems to me a long term POV pushing editor whose intention is to use Wikipedia for promotion.
 * Topic Based Evidence
 * Wwwwhatupprrr seems to be editing about Julia Friedman who published a book through publisher PCPPress. Sockmaster and previous socks had edited about "LG Williams". A whois search of these websites: http://juliafriedman.net/, http://pcppress.com/, http://lgwilliams.com/ shows that all 3 of them are owned by "Lawrence Williams" from "The Estate of LG Williams".
 * A previous sockpuppet had claimed to be "a professional art historian, who makes a living as an art historian". Julia Friedman is an art historian as well. I suspect that she may be associated with this account. (The COIN post linked above gives more details).
 * Writing style
 * Use of the term "rogue editor" for the editor who nominated for deletion. (In these pages ,,)
 * Lengthy diatribes similar to previous socks (see AfDs)
 * Use of words like "wiki editor" (in AfD3 - text needs to be uncollapsed,current Afd)
 * Characteristic use of sarcasm (calling others"learned editors" similar to previous socks), bad faith accusations and general tendency for incivility and personal attacks. Also, the characteristic bolding of certain lines.
 * Getting overly defensive even with good faith comments - (See user talk page,, )
 * The quoting of Wally Hedrick, article created by Art4em. (See current Afd where Wwwwhatupprrr says "This person is closely associated with many important figures: Dave Hickey, Wally Hedrick")

I am requesting it for sleeper check, given the previous experience. Otherwise, behavioural analysis is more applicable here. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to checkuser

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Pinging, ,  and  for your analyses, as you seem to have encountered this sock previously. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A tic I recognize instantly is heavy use of "seriously"; here are diffs for Xxxartxxx:  ; here are diffs (note edit summaries) for Wwwwhatupprrr:  . Ewulp (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is quite reminiscent of the postings by Art4em, Xxxartxxx and other associated sock puppet names who worked on the LG Williams article. It's extremely similar to the writing style and proclivity to attack by the previous sock puppet.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If we haven't heard from Art4em in a while, we might run into stale CU information. Behavioral evidence is going to be the focus here.
 * The username has some similarity with other accounts utilized, with the repeating letters at the beginning and/or end. Wwwwhatupprrr > Xxx&booze > Xxxartxxx >.
 * I'd probably also check the sock archive for behavioral clues. For instance, I made a note that the user had a proclivity for overly-effusive, almost sarcastic prose and provided some examples. The impression I got the first time around, was that the user was really hamming up the interactions as if we were all part of some really stupid pretentious art project.
 * I note that between the suspected sock and some of the more prolific irritant accounts, Wwwwhat has edited four of the thirteen articles the sock operator has been most interested in. It seems like an unbelievable coincidence that this person is interested in the same artistic niche, given how huge the art world is.
 * Wwwwhat sure loves boldface and bullet points. As does Xxxartxxx (although Xxxartxxx had lots of trouble making the bullet points format properly...)
 * The combative pseudo-lawyer style, the verbosity, the rhetorical questions, parentheticals, etc. I think if you read Talk:Julia Friedman and User talk:Xxxartxxx, the style similarities jump out, down to superficial peculiarities, like that Xxxartxxx uses "Wiki" to describe Wikipedia, as does Wwwwhatupprrr. Seems pretty ducky. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
for sleepers based on the master's history. This account however is a clear WP:DUCK based on using the same formal grandiose language and boldfacing comments as the master and previous socks, as well as username pattern similarity (repeating characters) and topic overlap. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've declined the CU endorsement because all the previous socks are . If the account is so obvious, just request a block based on behavior. If another CheckUser with more familiarity regarding this master wants to run a check, that's up to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that but I thought that a sleeper check could be run anyway; thanks for correcting. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed: please block as a duck of Art4em, per behavioural evidence above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. It's not that a sleeper check can't be run,, it's just that it's usually a fishing trip. Even if the master is stale and all the puppets are stale, if you have two new accounts to check, that would be a more productive use of a CheckUser's time. It's always easier to have some other account to compare against. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Searching the master's archived investigations for the phrase "LG Williams" shows many similarities to the above. Requesting checkuser for sleepers. Possibly (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Possibly (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) User Guestmare only edits around the subject LG Williams.
 * 2) User Guestmare recently inserted promotional copy for an LG Williams event, into multiple wiki pages. (example, example, example, example)
 * 3) User:Guestmare/sandbox contains a draft of a wiki page for LG Williams, as the article space name is salted.
 * 4) The LG Williams official web site contains a large link called "wiki", which links to User:Guestmare/sandbox.
 * 5) Despite the above, User:Guestmare denies COI.
 * . I still say these accounts are related. Prior to the COIN thread, the lgwilliams.com site linked to Guestmare's sandbox. Now it does not. Leaving this account unblocked creates a little toehold for more junk and more future cleanup for us. Possibly (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE points out that blocks should not be used if there is no current conduct issue of concern. If they haven't edited in a couple of weeks, I'd say that applies.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Instant déjà vu recalling the 2014 LG Williams AFD case: identical rhetorical style, punctuation habits:, . Ewulp (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -  --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that their first edit was to Sandbox, I really doubt this was the same person. They've already been taken to task for COI editing on their talk page, and everything they've done (with the possible exception of Dave Hickey) has been reverted.  I'll close this SPI with no action.  If they continue to be disruptive, they can be blocked for spam/upe/whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)