Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

82.132.221.250 and 82.132.216.199 were recently blocked by as socks of WP:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. All of these reported here are also obviously the same person, engaging in the same tendentious and uncivil "I don't know what MoS really says about boldface" revertwarring against multiple editors, , , trying to 3RR someone else for reverting him ,  (note concession that different IPs are the same user), then venting at people for "attacking" him because they disagreed with his 3RR case. Interestingly, the IPs tend to cycle back around, so this one might actually be effectively restrainable for once, seeming to have a limited number of IPs to use. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: I also see that admin warned this user about their incivility, but it has continued (in the same pattern).  PPS: The user is aware of this SPI report; see thread at my talk page  where I've tried to reason with this person (before seeing Favonian's pegging of this editor as Best Known for IP evading a site ban; I'm not privy to whatever info Favonian has, so I have no opinion on the matter either way, only that the IPs are all the same person and are being disruptive, whether they really are a ban-evader or not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 1 December 2018 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's definitely BKFIP. All IPs blocked, and the Apollo article semi-protected. Favonian (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The oldest known account is.

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar edit pattern and summaries on Zaryadye Park as User:Numerical advantage who was blocked as a BKFIP sock. Example is removing the photo gallery: Numerical, IP along with claiming vandalism as reason for reverts. S0091 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2020 (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

 * . Favonian (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same fixation with MOS:BOLDAVOID (even wrote a script this time), same style of hostile edit summaries, same utter inability to listen to others, and same habit of claiming personal attacks when there are none. Pinging and  who recently blocked BKFIP socks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (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

 * Yup. Blocked, closing case. Sro23 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Lots of pugnacious edits and vandalism, including the famous item of contention, just simply to edit about whether people are "best known for". jp×g 04:03, 15 March 2021 (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

 * Already blocked as vandalism-only. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

IP blocked as WP:LTA/BKFIP in January by. Toleco recently (March 2021) opened a Teahouse thread (permalink) that is very similar to the one the IP opened in January (permalink to archive). The edit summaries also contain similar abuse: see contribs for a general feel, but for instance compare
 * "improved extremely poor quality text, including hopeless grammar obviously added by Spanish-speakers" (Toleco)
 * "fixed gross failures to write properly. Quite obvious that Portuguese-speakers have attempted to write this" (IP). Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:09, 15 March 2021 (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

 * Yup. Blocked, closing. Sro23 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This user has vandalis(z)ed Kristen Wiig, a biography of a living person which is what Best known for IP often does (according to Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Geolocate also claims that they are from London, where BKFIP has stabilised. After the first revert by ClueBot NG, they still vandalised the page and again reverted by me. SHB2000 (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Forget about this investigation as the IP has been blocked for a week. SHB2000 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2021 (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

 * This indicates Derbyshire as the IP's place of abode but more importantly, it's just an ordinary, garden-variety vandal. BKFIP is a highly disruptive and downright unpleasant editor, but not a vandal in the Wikipedia sense. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Usual behavior, e.g.,. Typical insulting edit summaries on almost every edit. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2021 (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

 * Yup. Blocked. Sro23 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Seems obvious to me:   JBL (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (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

 * The foul-billed quacking became unbearable, so I pulled the plug. Favonian (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems likely. for sleeper check and possibly IP block if it hasn't been done already. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus the following accounts:
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Usual snarky edit summaries Number   5  7  22:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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

I must say that I am completely astonished to discover that I have been accused, without being told, of being a sockpuppet, because my edit summaries are, apparently, "snarky". I do not think they are any such thing. I found some articles that needed improving, I made edits which I believed significantly improved them, and I described what I did, and why. How on earth is that grounds for some kind of trial in absentia? Fluent555 (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - very likely him, endorsing for another sleeper check. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 23:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked (I think it's better if we not tag on this case per DENY). I'm not sure how useful a sleeper check would be given one was just run last week. Sro23 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One sleeper was from 2020 and there had been non-SPI checks in the meantime, so I think a check to make sure can't hurt. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 21:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus . per Sro23, closing. Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The usual. Sleeper account, unmistakable snark in edit summaries. Also Special:Diff/1029427477. Requesting CU because the last check turned up another sleeper. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2021 (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

 * Nothing obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The usual. Sleeper account, edit warring, unmistakable edit summary style, and. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2021 (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

 * Blocked, no tag. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The usual aggressive copyediting, with some perennial BKFIP phrases in edit summaries:. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2021 (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

 * - please confirm and look for others. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * is, have . ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Old sleeper account with the usual snarky edit summaries. Chastising other users at WP:VPM. Edit warring at Python (programming language), where was also edit warring. Also, this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (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

 * Blocked, closing. Sro23 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I stumbled upon this user account while doing routine anti-vandalism work in the form of patrolling the edit filter log. I noticed that they had tripped the filter designed to track this sockpuppeteer several times. Upon examination of their edits, and upon reviewing the long-term abuse report, I noticed a few behavioral similarities, most notably calling users who they disagreed with "incompetent" in edit summaries when reverting (a personal attack when made without evidence). I left a warning about this on their talk page and moved on. However, when I logged in today, I noticed that they had reverted my warning, and left me a talk page message that essentially was accusing me of being incompetent for telling them not to call others incompetent. That sealed the deal for me after looking at the report a second time. I've never encountered this editor before under this account, and I don't believe I've ever encountered them under my previous now-abandoned account either, so I have nothing to lose or gain here, but I feel that this merits a closer investigation by someone more experienced than me. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (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

 * - Please move to Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP. Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - there are indeed similarities, may be possible to link to recent socks and/or identify sleepers (I've moved the case per 's request.  Girth Summit  (blether)  15:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to . and .  ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Account created shortly after last account blocked, obviously not new, very similar style of addressing people. Girth Summit  (blether) 09:22, 26 August 2021 (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

 * -, you confirmed the last one, does this look familiar?  Girth Summit  (blether)  09:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have ✅ to  and blocked them indef. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Proforma, already blocked. Started editing shortly after last account was blocked, duck. Girth Summit  (blether) 13:18, 28 August 2021 (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

 * No further action required.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Returned to Howard Zimmerman, a favorite of many previous socks. Already blocked, but the account snoozed for the better part of a month after conception, hence a request for sleeper sweep by CU. Favonian (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2021 (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

 * - per Favonian's reasoning.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are from each other  and :
 * Blocked without tags. Closing. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags. Closing. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags. Closing. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags. Closing. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Not even trying to hide his sunny personality. CU requested because a) the account slept for 4 months prior to activation, b) a very recently closed case revealed several sleepers. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2021 (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

 * - per Favonian, last sleeper check caught a bunch of errant hosiery.  Girth Summit  (blether)  22:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything around is already blocked even if maybe not documented. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Ancient sleeper account. Should be obvious enough from the snarky edit summaries, but Special:Diff/1048766708 is a dead giveaway. Even returned to old haunt Python (programming language).

I actually noticed this one a while a ago and decided to let them have their fun, but now they've taken to mass-reverting which I imagine must be dispiriting. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2021 (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

 * Blocked sock. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Would've thought that one of the patrolling ANI admins would've blocked but...

makes clear that the IPs involved are BKFIP socks, with their obsession with Wilkja19, tone of editing, and the IP ranges which match recent BKFIP ranges like 82.132.220.0/22 and 82.132.213.165. Suggest rangeblocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2022 (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

 * They have not been active on this range for a few days and unfortunately there is far too much collateral for a rangeblock. The ANI thread was archived without action, so I'm just going to close this for now. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Seems like another WP:BKFIP sock. He is busy with hunting down my edits and hounding me with a "poor english" nonsense. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑

I made several reports of WP:BKFIP over the last few months. The most recent one is:
 * ANI reports
 * 82.132.213.165 by Alexander Davronov
 * 82.132.213.165 reported by User:Pyrite Pro (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
 * ↑ The same IP reported by


 * Diffs
 * these are from different articles where I've been editing recently.
 * - «‎License management software: rm nonsense»
 * - «undid garbage edits by editor who does not speak English. "Total, Faina had six children"... bad machine translations are not what English Wikipedia needs»
 * - «undid garbage edits. "an method", "since 80s", and a vast number of other basic failures to write in proper : English»

-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑

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've blocked 94.119.64.0/18 as a webhost for a year.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Has a lot of the hallmarks of BKFIP, including attacking a user by asking "do you read what you revert"? This IP geolocates to IPConnect in Bonn, Germany. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  01:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

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

He's used IPs in Germany before, see this one in Munich blocked as him:  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  01:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This /64 range in Whitchurch, Shropshire should also be looked at:  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! IP here. Is there even a way to defend against an allegation like this? It's a serious question, the umbrella spread out by BKFIP allegation, and the vagueness of the "evidence" is such that literally every IP edit is "suspicious". --84.189.84.17 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I asked Bilcat whether he "even read what he reverted" because in this case he obviously did not, so it's the natural thing to ask. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are still acting rude and disrespectful. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  00:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The 84. IP geolocates to Deutsche Telekom AG, not IPConnect. I've never seen BKFIP use a German IP. 88.217.152.166 is owned by M-net, which is designated as corporate and caters mostly to businesses, which may be, assuming it was allocated to M-net back in 2019, why BKFIP was able to use it. I also think there is insufficient behavioral evidence to support that 84. is BKFIP, although the IP does have the earmarks of an experienced user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of the IPs reported here are BKFIP. Beyond the superficial similarity of being a snarky IP editor, the style is quite different (compare to known socks such as, ,  etc.) and I don't think BKFIP ever uses mobile editing. Closing.  Spicy (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)

- «‎Culture: removed a lot of repetitive spam» - «‎Management: not encyclopaedic» - «Undid incoherent recent additions» AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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

I filed a recent case around a week ago on this same range. BKFIP has been active on it for a month. IMO blocking the /24, Special:Contributions/82.132.215.0/24, which has been most active recently, seems warranted and has minimal collateral. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * A case should be filed under the master's username, not the sockpuppet. Normally we'd merge histories, but since there's only one revision here, I'm not gonna bother an admin over it, and will just copy-paste move this. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP made seven edits three days ago. There's no point in blocking it now, so closing. if you notice BKFIP edit-stalking you, you will probably get a much faster admin response at WP:ANI (or WP:AIV for red hot and now type vandalism). Sro23 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


The usual snark. ,, and are the most obvious. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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


 * I'd prefer, at least, that we keep adding these to the list at WP:LTA/BKFIP. They often return to old disputes, and their edit summary catchphrases evolve slowly over time, so it's helpful to skim through the contribs of recent socks. (Tagging is useless though, because the category isn't chronological.) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * almost definitely them, but we haven't had a sleeper check in a while. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of adding Knklstk to the mix. Its voice blends well into the quacking chorus. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My endorse goes for Knklstk as well. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My check has ✅ Foghy and Knklstk to each other through private data; it also connects both of them to IP ranges that have previously been openly blocked by other admins as BKFIP. So if those admins were right, then Foghy and Knklstk are confirmed as BKFIP. Also blocked the following User:Paleuk as a sleeper of Knklstk:
 * I blocked all three, but hope that someone else will decide whether to tag these three accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a note at the top of this page saying that we should WP:DENY them that accolade. Favonian (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a note at the top of this page saying that we should WP:DENY them that accolade. Favonian (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Closing without tagging per the archivenotice. Someone can add these to the LTA page if they wish - I don't personally find those pages very useful. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Edit warring. Same range as some used previously. Usual edit summaries. Also compare and. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that and  have blocked already, though not sure if they were aware of this report. Probably nothing else to be done, anyway, except keep a close eye on the range. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was not aware of this report. --Yamla (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Oh. Thanks for the notification,, I had no sock in mind when blocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Similar pattern of edits to the recently blocked and, edit warring, indirect personal attacks in the edit summaries. Accusations of bad writing, poor English and such. This one started editing on 3 March, shortly after the other two got blocked on 1 March. The edit summaries of this user show a clear pattern and a clear connection to the other two. The similarity of the nonsense word username isn't exactly hard to see either.

The behavioural evidence seems to confirm the connection well enough for a block, but running Checkuser seems likely to turn up sleepers. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * A brief scan through their contributions page says far more than I could ever type here. Also, wikilinked edit summaries to fairly advanced targets at just a couple of days in clearly suggest that they aren't new here. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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


 * This report is absurd.
 * My username is not a nonsense word.
 * I haven't "accused" anyone of anything. I have pointed out poor English when that was the reason for my edit.
 * I have not made any indirect personal attacks
 * This user who is reporting me seemed to want to start an edit war; I did not.
 * If you think that any of my edits did not improve the article, please point them out. Lognomm (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "This report is absurd" - No response to this, no valid point raised.
 * being accused of sockpuppetry, as a result of making only improvements to articles, is absurd.
 * "My username is not a nonsense word" - In that case, define or explain 'Lognomm'. If you can't, then it is a nonsense word, like "Knklstk".
 * I'd be glad to explain it to anyone who asks politely. That means, anyone except you. Even if you somehow find my username more nonsensical than your own, what does that have to do with anything at all?
 * "I haven't "accused" anyone of anything. I have pointed out poor English when that was the reason for my edit." -
 * I did not point out poor English in that edit. What are you highlighting it for?
 * "I have not made any indirect personal attacks" -
 * I addressed my comments specifically to the person whose changes I was undoing. Many other users have addressed very similar comments specifically to that person. nothing was "indirect"; nothing was a personal attack.
 * "This user who is reporting me seemed to want to start an edit war; I did not" - Says the editor who has reverted three times by this point. Once reverting another user, and twice reverting me.
 * You were clearly spoiling for a fight, as further shown by your efforts here to get me blocked.
 * "If you think that any of my edits did not improve the article, please point them out." - This is irrelevant. The edits may have been improvements mostly, (except the one I had taken issue with) but this is almost certainly the community banned LTA WP:BKFIP, whose edits are, characteristically, mostly improvements. However, their manner of doing so is the real issue. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you do not want me to improve articles; something about the manner in which I made improvements offended you so greatly that you want to get me blocked. What exactly are you offended by? Lognomm (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Usual /24 range, usual attitude. Hounding User:Alexander Davronov for some reason. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yup, I can confirm that he is often hounding me. Thanks for heads up. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 07:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked. On to the next one...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same range, hounding Alexander Davronov again. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2022 (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

 * 72 hours. I'd look into a rangeblock but I'm on mobile and my fingers are too fat for that, so I'll leave this open for now. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * blocked for two weeks; there's some collateral, but also unrelated vandalism and disruption, so I think it's justifiable. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
,, ,. This one went undetected for a month while they were simultaneously editing logged out, so requesting CU for any sleepers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (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

 * , sleeper check per filer. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speser is ✅ to Lognomm. .  Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Should be obvious enough from the edit summaries. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2022 (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

 * Blocked and tagged. Leaving open in case someone wants to run a check. Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. ✅:
 * (sleeper)
 * (sleeper)
 * I could potentially be wrong about the sleepers, but the other two are pretty obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (sleeper)
 * I could potentially be wrong about the sleepers, but the other two are pretty obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same use of language ("rm"), same types of edits. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  03:55, 8 April 2022 (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

 * ✅, along with the sleeper . .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
See contribs. You may also want to see this recent reply on my TP from the IP coming from the same range. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 21:04, 26 April 2022 (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

 * - CheckUser evidence cannot be used to link registered accounts to IP addresses. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * for another month. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Sleeper account, unmistakable edit summaries, also. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2022 (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

 * Quack, block, close. Favonian (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Please take a look at Special:Diff/1091735132 where the IP removed the "best known for" line from Jack O'Connell (actor) as a "subjective line". Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The LTA page states that the user is a frequent traveller. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2022 (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

 * Not the master's location. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Per their contribs, including their reverting of experienced editors edits as "harmful", precocious knowledge of NPOV, and their somewhat abusive edit summaries. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2022 (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've blocked without tags. I'm not sure if it's BKFIP. Although the edit filter was tripped a lot, I haven't seen this kind of relentless reverting from other socks, but no doubt I've missed many as this is a prolific master. In any event, I would block this user independently of any socking allegation, and the disruption continues - hence the block. Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * CU makes it look more likely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This IP has been removing content, calling it nonsense for the past hour on Russian web brigades. And has a precocious knowledge of WP:OWNTALK, among others. They look like a sock to me, given that they have immediately decided to edit war, with abusive comments and edit summaries. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2022 (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

 * - This report needs to be moved. Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved case to correct title. IP is blocked now, closing. Spicy (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar behavior as sock User:Relsekk. Both edited Deborah Scaling Kiley (Special:Diff/1018643438/1022780146 & Special:Diff/1082417435/1097835183) removing the word "famously" which is a variation on "best known for". Lucia Dale seems dedicated to removing "famously" in other articles. For example another suspected sock User:2a00:23c5:9001:1f01:3d2d:a5c7:4aae:4c0c removed the word famously in Édouard Stern (Special:Diff/1007961305/1028192742) and in Deborah Scaling Kiley (Special:Diff/1027462795/1028191344), which was removed again today by Lucia Dale in Édouard Stern (Special:Diff/1086095292/1097835141). Both accounts show other similarities such as a blank home page, salty edit comments, low edit counts with a singular focus. Green C  23:52, 12 July 2022 (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

 * . .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
See his Contributions page. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 15:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at contributions you will see that reverted edits are mine and were made across different articles. It's not a coincidence that a freshly registered user intentionally attacks only my edits. His behavior is often identified by bulk reverts and nonsensical explanation that follows it. I think the WP:BKFIP is the only long-term abuser that constantly haunts me by using both IPs and registered accounts. The most recent IP that I came across was . I may be wrong though, but I would like to check him anyway. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 07:52, 24 July 2022 (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 moved this case to the correct location. Spicy (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * can you put into words what it is about these contributions that make you think it's BKFIP? Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  07:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the context. Agree this is probably them - blocking, tagging as suspected.  Girth Summit  (blether)  09:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Per their reverting of others edits as "grammatical nonsense" and just general abusive edit summaries in line with most BKFIP socks, including targeting edits made by User:Alexander Davronov. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2022 (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

 * Yeah, . IP blocked for a week. Closing. The SandDoctor  Talk 00:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Should be obvious enough from the edit summaries. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2022 (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

 * IP now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Didn't even bother to change IPs this time... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2022 (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

 * Reblocked. Closing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Typcal "Grammar issues" rhetorics that BKFIP uses to accuse me of ([Sep 4, 2022, 19:10]). A British IP 🇬🇧  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:35, 4 September 2022 (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

 * Report moved from Sockpuppet investigations/BKFIP. Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. IP has been blocked already. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Usual edit summaries, edit warring, accusing other editors of not speaking English. Sleeper account from May, activated in August. Requesting CU because this one went unnoticed for a month, so there might be other active accounts. Courtesy ping who blocked them for 24 hours. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now blocked them indef, pending the outcome here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2022 (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

 * is ✅, along with, and the sleeper .	--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * . Nothing else to do. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The SandDoctor Talk 17:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Has been harassing me for my English for a while: [Oct 10, 2022, 19:46] AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:44, 15 October 2022 (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

 * - CheckUser evidence cannot be used to connect IP's to accounts. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP hasn't edited in over a week. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Shping99 is engaging in the same personal attacks towards Dubarr18 that MagicAllium, a user who was check user blocked for being related to BKFIP, made on the same page back in May and June. Not only that, but the edits are removing the same piece of information, and then proceeding to make an attack in the edit summary against anyone who reverts their edit.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  11:54, 3 November 2022 (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

 * . --Blablubbs (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅,, , closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Behavioural evidence, including removal of 'best known for' on several pages (e.g. 1, 2), and generally abrasive edit summaries. It is suspicious that an account created today is so familiar with policy and syntax. — Manti  core  10:35, 23 November 2022 (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

 * ., closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Previous sock User:Relsekk edit-warred Deborah Scaling Kiley to remove "famously".. Previous sock User:Lucia Dale later did the same thing. Previous IP sock did the same thing. Now Roncdd is doing the same. The word "famously" in this article has been a reliable honey-trap for Best Known for IP. It started with a talk page disagreement 18 months ago. Green C  02:13, 5 December 2022 (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

 * . Blocked, closing case. Sro23 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very for the record. I also blocked sleeper . --Blablubbs (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

[Dec 25, 2022, 09:37][Dec 22, 2022, 07:24][Dec 22, 2022, 07:20][Dec 22, 2022, 07:12] AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for inconveniences. I'm using Twinkle to automatically make a report and I forget how the full sockmaster's name sounds. As you figure, he doesn't bother me often, only 6 times per year. Easy to forget. Best. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 15:39, 25 December 2022 (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

 * This is now the sixth time you have misfiled this case . Mistakes happen, and that's fine, but at this point it's becoming disrespectful towards clerks' time. I've merged the case once again, but I'm inclined to just start deleting these misplaced filings if this continues. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * IP blocked; closing. Favonian (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Continuation of 'Best known for' case reported on 05 December 2022 for Deborah Scaling Kiley to remove "famously" which 'Best Known for' can't leave alone after a talk page dispute 1 year ago Talk:Deborah_Scaling_Kiley. Daily edit warring, edit summaries of "poor grammar", edit summaries amount to 'I can't hear you'.Special:Diff/1135346088/1135447645,Special:Diff/1135460975/1135605440,Special:Diff/1135621598/1135718317 Green  C  15:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)  Green  C  15:01, 26 January 2023 (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

 * Deborah Scaling Kiley protected by for a week. As this is fairly hit-and-run I see no reason to block the IPs. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Brand new account hits the ground running; typical snarky edit summaries and edit style. JBL (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (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

 * Now blocked, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
131.251.0.0/16 is an IP range belonging to Cardiff University that BKFIP appears to have used on not just one, but multiple occassions in the past before to disrupt articles.

Here are some individual IPs of interest in that /16 IPv4 range:

The top two IPs were involved in removing certain sections from two articles about books, citing unencyclopedic as the cause, and then when other editors came to oppose the edit, they edit warred it back with all sorts of attacks and personal remarks in the edit summaries. This uncivil tone is also seen on the talk page Talk:General Relativity (book), too.

253.112 was blocked 48 hours by on 26 April, then about a week later, 253.41 came and continued the same edit war on the two articles previously disrupted by the 253.112 IP. Failing to achieve/acknowledge community consensus, I filed a report at AN/I, focussing on 131.251.253.0/24 range (as it includes those aforementioned two individual IPs; see archived thread here), which resulted in a 1 month long block. In that ANI thread, User: suspected that this was BKFIP.

While at it, I did notice the one edit from 10.203 (the third IP above) which also performed almost exactly the same "unencyclopedic content removal" from another book article, also with a similar reasoning as the previous two IPs. Though, I left that one alone and I did not see any subsequent edits come from that IP address, even after 253.0/24 was blocked.

Now onto 254.2. This is the latest involvement by BKFIP on this Cardiff University network. Blocked on 7 June for 6 months as a confirmed IP sock of them. They created this ANI thread about an involved user, which resulted in a boomerang action.

Moving on to 2A00:23EE:2000:0:0:0:0:0/37. This IPv6 range hasn't been blocked as of yet, but an editor behind it was the subject of an ANI thread on the 1st July (see this archived thread). Two editors, and, also suspected it to be BKFIP. Initially, it was thought of to be just one IPv6 /64 range (2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:0:0:0:0/64), but then another editor jumped in and noted 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:0:0:0:0/64, with very similar trollish behaviour to the previous /64. Someone actually did a calculation and found 2A00:23EE:2000:0:0:0:0:0/37, which is a not-so-large range that covers both of them.

As of typing this, there definitely doesn't seem to be disruption coming from the 131.251.0.0/16 range anymore, however there do seem to be unconstructive and disruptive edits still coming out of the 2A00:23EE:2000:0:0:0:0:0/37 range.

I'm mainly creating this SPI to get some confirmation of these two IP ranges and addresses/subranges involved within before adding them to the LTA/BKFIP infopage, but perhaps a long-term block could be used on one or both of these IP ranges, given how they came back quite regularly on /16, and how most of the /37 edits appear to be disruption (and is ongoing to this day). — AP 499D25  (talk)  05:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I walked through the first two IPs contribs and for sure can tell you it's him. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who "did the math" on the /37 as the smallest common range that included those two /64s. I want to note that I have no reason to suspect that range is exclusively hosting a single user. It's far more likely the hostile editor is a BT Group customer swapping /64 lease assignments, where the assignment pool is as wide as a /25 or /22, and includes legitimate editors. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 14:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added 2A00:23EE:1268:522D:0:0:0:0/64 to this report; definitely the same user as 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:0:0:0:0/64, appears to be using random accents to get around edit filters. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 19:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also added 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:0:0:0:0/64 per and  from above IP; they're going around linking discussions that no one was actually linking together until they brought it up.  Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 21:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Every range is either blocked or hasn't edited in weeks. Closing this. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
The contents of this IP user's edits closely resemble the banned Best Known for IP. For example, several of their edit summaries refer to fixing "poor writing", a rationale used by several recent sockpuppets. Their edit summaries also question other editors' English skills, as well as describe removals in a snarky manner, much like confirmed BKFIP socks have. I also noticed one particular detail: they removed info from the lead by describing it as not among "the most significant aspects of the topic", very similar to what previous BKFIP socks have done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Our buddy is currently in Poland for sure. See this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 16:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the IP.-- Ponyo bons mots 18:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
185.201.63.253 is almost certainly the same editor as 83.17.23.30, blocked above. Both have been repeatedly blanking a referenced section at Denville Hall over the last two weeks with weak rationales: Edit summaries of both IPs have BKFIP's usual sarcastic tone. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 185.201.63.253: ,
 * 83.17.23.30:,.

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

 * Blocked for a month. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Obvious enough from the edit summaries, but also harassing (one of their favorite targets) at ANI. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2023 (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

 * Blocked for two weeks. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Abrasive edit summaries, very focused on removing adjectives like "famous", "prominent", etc., geolocates to Poland. Here are a few example diffs:      JBL (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2023 (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

 * per behavioral evidence. Aoidh (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Matches the behaviour of previous socks, focus on copyediting, rude and abusive edit summaries , same focus on removing phrasing indicating something is famous or well known  , reporting editors they disagree with to ANI. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2023 (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

 * Blocked by per this ANI discussion.--  Ponyo bons mots 15:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
It definitely just based on the IPs edit summaries, and the account's first and only edits are to defend the IP in an AIV report against them. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2023 (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

 * Verily! Blocked; closing. Favonian (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Edits identical to other identified sockpuppets' edits from earlier this month. Panian513 17:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Should also note that these edits constitute rapid, mass reverts of edits on articles their previous sockpuppet, 109.144.18.139, was banned for one week ago. Panian513 17:18, 29 October 2023 (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

 * Blocked, closing. GABgab 17:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
All started when I commented that what wrote was "bullshit," that IP has since been identified with Best known for IP. All are already blocked so this is mostly about housekeeping but will likely add more as their hot streak continues. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

who will be tagging the account and the IPs? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2024 (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

 * Already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, it seems unlikely to me, both technically and behaviourally speaking, that these recent revert spree accounts (Garden of Mayhem/Hater of Dill/Accomplished Dough) are BKFIP. Which isn't to say, of course, that they shouldn't be blocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
More of the same, see above. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've added 195.171.127.82, seems fairly obviously the same individual. — Manticore  12:29, 3 January 2024 (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

 * Both blocked, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
More of the same, see above. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2024 (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

 * Blocked; closing. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I suspect that this is BKFIP because of the obvious trolling directed at Horse Eye's Back, who has been a critic of AARoads Wiki, and has been harrassed by BKFIP. The account has already been blocked and globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, but I'm requesting CU against any named accounts to confirm my suspicions (though they may IP hop so the point is probably moot).  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:12, 15 March 2024 (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

 * Unnecessary, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Usual snarky edit summaries, but and  are the most obvious. Requesting CU for sleepers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2024 (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

 * and both ✅ and blocked, no tags.--  Ponyo bons mots 21:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Vendetta against another user over a range of physics textbook articles, resenting the inclusion of tables of content. Edit summaries such as encyclopaedias summarise and contextualise. This is so far from encyclopaedic it's painful are classic BKFIP. The article Gravitation (book)‎, targeted by the IP is an old favorite of this LTA. The quacking is so loud that I'll just block 'em and close the case. Favonian (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2024 (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

 * Blocked; closing. Favonian (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)