Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factsonlyplease39/Archive

03 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Identical messages filed today made me suspicious - the userpages are similar, and while there's very little actual crossover in edits, it's very clear that all three accounts' interests are the same. I'm bringing this here because, frankly, I'm not sure what's going on. I'll be running a checkuser momentarily and will file the results below, but I'd like a second opinion on whether there's a breach of WP:SOCK going on before handing out any blocks. Yunshui 雲 水 09:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The large sockfarm below all share similar editing habits, writing styles and userpages; I'm fairly convinced this is the same user assuming multiple personas. However, a second opinion would still be appreciated before I take any action. Yunshui 雲 水 10:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding, I've just realised that editor's sole mainspace edit was to add a link to a page created by one of the other accounts listed below - which makes me pretty sure it's the same person again. Yunshui 雲 水 10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I look into this, the more it looks like some sort of concerted effort by a PR company... the technical data is also leading me in that direction. Yunshui 雲 水 11:02, 3 June 2015 (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

 * Oh boy. The following are all ✅:

is but the behaviours and technical data don't closely match. Yunshui 雲 水 10:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes they do. Yunshui 雲 水 11:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There's more: also ✅:
 * Yunshui 雲 水 11:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it; I'm sufficiently convinced now. Second opinions still welcome, but I'm going to block and tag this lot. Yunshui 雲 水 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it; I'm sufficiently convinced now. Second opinions still welcome, but I'm going to block and tag this lot. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it; I'm sufficiently convinced now. Second opinions still welcome, but I'm going to block and tag this lot. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it; I'm sufficiently convinced now. Second opinions still welcome, but I'm going to block and tag this lot. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it; I'm sufficiently convinced now. Second opinions still welcome, but I'm going to block and tag this lot. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recreated article Charles Szews that was created by a sock.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:00, 9 August 2016 (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 per behavior. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Paid editing, mostly undisclosed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 20 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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Alanapjohnson has popped up to edit and submit Draft:Lilia Buckingham, which is one of the articles that was being edited by the Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace sock farm. This looks like a case where the duck is flying to the original duck pond. CheckUser will probably not be useful because the data from the original socks has expired, and a sockmaster knows how long the CheckUser data lasts and can lie low for a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Comment to User:TheSandDoctor, User:Mz7 - The stale data is why I didn't request CU. The sockmaster knew to wait six months before trying again.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - agreed that a new editor finding a draft only edited by one of this sock farm's socks is darn suspicious. I'm reasonably convinced they're related and I've blocked Alanapjohnson as suspected, but given the number of socks that showed up in the original case I'm self-endorsing for a sleeper check. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is Alanapjohnson confirmed? If so, could you please override the block and template as such? The SandDoctor  Talk 15:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , previous socks are, so I don't think CU can say much at this time. I think the current block is sufficient. Mz7 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That was something I probably should've checked, my bad. Thanks, -- The SandDoctor  Talk 22:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

General behaviour consistent with the farm; similar edit summary usage to, specifically with regard to pages created through translation: Compare and ; whereas EveryoneLoves ET used ‎created this page with help from this one: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungria_Hip_Hop, Shootin Starz used ‎ created page with help from here: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krzysztof_Stanek. Requesting CU for sleeper check. Best, Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 15:02, 1 November 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

 * - concur with the filer that they look a lot like EveryoneLoves ET. Endorse for comparison to Alanapjohnson + sleeper check, recommend sleeper check even if they don't come back with a strong match to Alanapjohnson. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage the CU results as most of the original accounts found that are now stale are by proxy and these edits seem to be non-proxies. I'm going to block DUCK based on edit summaries. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Creating articles on UPE-prone subjects. Similar edit summaries to this farm (/) and shared habit of translating articles from other wikis (/). I know the previous accounts are stale but I'm requesting Checkuser for a sleeper check because it has been helpful in the past. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 19:55, 11 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

 * - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . - please block the sock indefinitely.  --Blablubbs (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recreated Philipp Kircher and Hudson Hoagland G5ed in August as creations of. Also created Rina Fukushi previously deleted due to this.

Asking for CU as it uncovered accounts in this case in the past.  Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * who patrolled both of the creations above, FYI.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my! Thanks for the head's up. Mcampany (talk) 06:19, 4 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
<span style="color:;"> 
 * The article recreations are definitely cause for suspicion... but besides that, I'm not seeing any of the typical behaviour of Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace. This account actually looks like a Slowking4 sock to me (see filter hits, plus various other BEANSy things). CU will be worthwhile in either case, though, so - please compare against Slowking4 as well as Changingguards. I will hold off moving the case until the CU results are in. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In absence of a non-stale confirmed sock, I compared to . They appear ❌. Rely on behavioural evidence only ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (Noting also ❌ to ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC))


 * Thanks, TNT. I find the latter result kind of surprising, but it is what it is. FWIW, I had an admin friend send me copies of the deleted articles by WalkingInHisShoes, and they are not really similar to the current versions. Both subjects clearly pass WP:NPROF, so it's not totally inconceivable that two different people might have the idea to create articles on them. In light of this and the CU results, I'm closing the case without action. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same characteristic timecard and editing style. See MiguelR26. Ping me for more notes. MarioGom (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Added some more accounts after finding an interesting tell. Same timecard and style too. MarioGom (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Added Raisin2Love: same editing style, similar timecard (mostly the same, this account has a few more edits in the afternoon than others, but it's otherwise pretty consistent), same focus on BLP creation. MarioGom (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Added Tracey Milkenson, same hints. MarioGom (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hello, from the perspective of an admin who patrols CSD categories, when I read reports like this, I can see that the sockpuppets are confirmed to each other, but it's not clear from the info here that they are certain sockpuppets of Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace (Possilikely to past socks seems less than definite). I don't want to delete pages that are based on a faulty understanding of CSD G5 by page taggers and if these accounts are all the same person but NOT Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace, then articles shouldn't be tagged for deletion. If I'm not reading this report correctly, my apologies in advance. This question seems to come up regularly so I thought I'd pose it here. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Liz: "Possilikely" is just the technical determination – behavioural evidence seems clear and GN has tagged as proven sockpuppets of Changingguardsatbuckinhampalace. As a general rule, if a clerk or administrator was confident enough to tag as a sock of a specific master, and said master was blocked at the time of page creation, G5ing should be fine. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Initial results: MiguelR26 is ✅ to BlazerSD and ChrisParker92 (found those before MarioGom expanded the report) and at least to WalkingInHisShoes. Will be making some note on cuwiki about this case. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Findings:
 * From a technical perspective Dougles.Green, ARainbowOfHues, ThermeDreaming, Hailey McAllister are to each other and past socks. Some evidence of technical obfuscation.
 * Dr. Daniel Charles, MysticMoment, Dashboarddestiny are
 * While checking, I also discovered the following accounts, which are ✅ to BlazerSD and to the farm as a whole:
 * (less confident due to a lack of edits)
 * (this one is much less likely to the rest of the changingguards... farm)
 * I'm convinced on the non-stale accounts MarioGom listed above and I will . on the new lot, please. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've switched the status on this case from "inprogress" to "checked". Please revert if you intentionally left it as "inprogress". Mz7 (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the new accounts. My thoughts:
 * Cyndi Pauper's behaviour is very different from the other accounts, and I wouldn't endorse a block based on behavioural evidence.
 * SuzyForSalis's knowledge of paid editing guidelines, disclosures, etc. seems extremely precocious for an account with 24 edits, and the timecard is similar (and distinctive), but besides that there is nothing that clearly ties them to this sockfarm. I'm not confident enough to endorse a block, though other clerks might think differently.
 * Not going to block any of the no-edit sleepers.
 * The other three are fairly obvious UPEs with similar timecards, editing patterns, and edit summary styles to each other and to previously reported accounts. I think these are socks of Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace.
 * - please indef BumakinBeauty, BellaCiao2021, and Allister Channing. (The stale accounts in the filing are very likely them also, but not worth blocking now, IMO. They can be re-reported if they start editing again). Thanks, Spicy (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cyndi Pauper's behaviour is very different from the other accounts, and I wouldn't endorse a block based on behavioural evidence.
 * SuzyForSalis's knowledge of paid editing guidelines, disclosures, etc. seems extremely precocious for an account with 24 edits, and the timecard is similar (and distinctive), but besides that there is nothing that clearly ties them to this sockfarm. I'm not confident enough to endorse a block, though other clerks might think differently.
 * Not going to block any of the no-edit sleepers.
 * The other three are fairly obvious UPEs with similar timecards, editing patterns, and edit summary styles to each other and to previously reported accounts. I think these are socks of Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace.
 * - please indef BumakinBeauty, BellaCiao2021, and Allister Channing. (The stale accounts in the filing are very likely them also, but not worth blocking now, IMO. They can be re-reported if they start editing again). Thanks, Spicy (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Heh, I had these three before you left that comment – good to see that you agree with my assessment.  --Blablubbs (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on your CU result (technically indistinguishable but also less likely) for SuzyforSalis? This farm has run DPE accounts before, and I don't want to risk missing something. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , maybe technically indistinguishable was the wrong way to tag them. Basically: everyone on that list was on a specific IP at some point and used the same (common) browser. However, upon CUing SuzyforSalis directly (rather than just looking at the common IP), aspects of their technical data differ from other members of the farm in such a way that I cannot confidently say they are part of this group. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Raisin2Love is to the rest of the farm. Additionally, they are ✅ to:
 * And there's more! The following are ✅ to Michael R. Robinson:
 * (also overlaps the BlazerSD batch from earlier)
 * I'm marking as technically indistinguishable rather than confirmed because I have not done a proper behavioral analysis on these latest accounts. I can say, however, that everyone here displays technical fingerprints that tie them to the Changingguards group. please. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked the technically indistinguishable group. Hoping to review the others soon. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would call Tracey Milkenson or better, blocked. No sleepers., please open a new case once I've done my check instead of adding new socks to the list. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone who needs to be blocked appears to be blocked. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm marking as technically indistinguishable rather than confirmed because I have not done a proper behavioral analysis on these latest accounts. I can say, however, that everyone here displays technical fingerprints that tie them to the Changingguards group. please. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked the technically indistinguishable group. Hoping to review the others soon. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would call Tracey Milkenson or better, blocked. No sleepers., please open a new case once I've done my check instead of adding new socks to the list. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone who needs to be blocked appears to be blocked. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The usual (quite unique) timecard, edit summaries , focus on biographies. Requesting checkuser for a sleeper check, since it was successful last time. MarioGom (talk) 22:00, 29 November 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

 * I can't give a great read on Hilary Bardin; technical data is inconclusive. They share certain technical similarities, but I don't have enough to make a call one way or the other. Behavior only on this one.
 * However, while checking old socks, I did find the following accounts:
 * (previously filed-but-stale)
 * (ditto)
 * I'd call them confirmed between technical evidence, timecards, and behavior. everyone - Hilary as proven based on behavior, the rest as confirmed on technical evidence. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd call them confirmed between technical evidence, timecards, and behavior. everyone - Hilary as proven based on behavior, the rest as confirmed on technical evidence. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same Israeli office hours timecard. Overlap with previous socks on Millennium Management, LLC, which Daisydeedle created in German (de:Millennium Management) and French (fr:Millennium Management, LLC). Chickpies123 also edited the French article and uploaded File:New Millennium Logo.png to Commons. Both share the same edit summary style with previous socks. Daisydeedle also added the logo to Legatum, which seems to be a customer of this sockfarm through older IP socking (see 173.241.48.0/20). MarioGom (talk) 23:45, 18 December 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

 * is ✅, as is.
 * Found on the same IP (and overlapping with a past Changingguards sock too), but they're mostly using a different browser than other Changingguards socks and there are some differences in their technical fingerprint that I'm not going to specify here. Their other IPs also geolocate very close to known Changingguards IPs., please.
 * is.
 * Daisydeedle and Nwsriuyt. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at DaringDonna and Chickpies123 from a behavioral point of view and I'm not seeing anything on enwiki that convinces me they're socks. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

Timecard has changed and it is not so clearly Israeli office hours, but it resembles it a bit. Same modus operandi as before: creating a lot of non-UPE biographies, presumably to later hide who the clients are. Very characteristic edit summaries. Since this sockfarm is the same as Factsonlyplease39, I'll also reference diffs from its socks:, , , , , ,. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 16 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
Could you please show where the connection between this case and the Factsonlyplease39 case was made?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems I never reported on this connection before (I thought I did!). Here's a behavior comparison of both groups:
 * Both used to have a very narrow timecard in Israeli office hours. See, for example, Factsonlyplease39:, and Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace:.
 * Both have been remarkably consistent at using the same edit summaries over the years like added many details and references or added information and references. These can often be seen opening any two accounts side by side, but let me know if you'd prefer to see a full list of diffs.
 * Both have frequently added WikiProject ratings manually with assessment as an edit summary.
 * Both overlap on Sara Blakely, Lev Binzumovich Leviev, Lindsay Lohan, Kerry King. Some of them are possibly just coincidence while gnoming though. I give more weight to everything else above.
 * MarioGom (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been reviewing the diffs and other evidence for a good while now, and, frankly, I'm dizzy. Bottom line is I'm not convinced that the user is a sock sufficiently to block on that basis. However, I am convinced that the user is an undisclosed paid editor and have blocked accordingly. I'll leave this open in case someone else wants to evaluate the evidence of socking. If not, at some point it should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * LuvReading08 is very to this farm from a technical perspective.  behavioural perspective. Given behaviour, I'm convinced they're related.  I'd say merge this case with Factsonlyplease39, and tag LuvReading08 as proven? --Blablubbs (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * agreed. Let's merge this case to Factsonlyplease39. I think a subset of confirmed accounts should preserve dual tags. MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Re-tagged, with dual tags where appropriate. That was a lot of socks... Closing. Spicy (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Signed up one month and half after the last block, it has the same Israeli office hours timecard that is very common in this sockfarm, similar edit summary style, similar interests (varied contributions, often biographies, then spam). Also compare user name: Reach4stars (new), ReachingtheStars (old). MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 3 August 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

 * I looked at the behavior connection, and I find it strong enough to block, which I have done. AFAICS every previous iteration of this SPI has found sleepers; was there a reason you didn't ask for a CU? Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - : Not really. I generally inhibit myself from most clerking actions when I intitiate a report. But given that you confirmed that you see what I see, I self-endorse a check for sleepers. MarioGom (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . Closing since the account is blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)